The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

The people are the militia under the common law for the common defense.

The people are the people under the U.S. Constitution. And that is all that matters.

there is no appeal to ignorance of the common law.

Which is why you're in trouble. You're ignorant of the law, but that won't help you!

even wikipedia has better answers than you.

 

[hadit]

EXACTLY. The phrase you are referring to being "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

We no longer HAVE a "Well regulated Militia" and the unorganized militia is restricted to males between 17 and 45

So by even that tortured definition the 2A ONLY protects gun rights for those people

Only those People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

As I've said before and you ignored, it says nothing about "for their State or the Union".

As I've said before and you ignored it, our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution, unto itself.

Irrelevant and doesn't address your fallacy.

You have to understand the concepts.

Show me where "for their State or the Union" appears in the second amendment and I'll leave you alone.

 

[Lesh]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to gun ownership?

Only insofar as it pertains to the Well Regulated Militia mentioned in the 2A

 

[P@triot]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to gun ownership?

Only insofar as it pertains to the Well Regulated Militia mentioned in the 2A

And yet it clearly and indisputably states..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It does not say "the right of the militia". You can try all you want to ignore words and rewrite the U.S. Constitution, but it won't work. There is no denying what it says.

 

[Lesh]

And yet it clearly and indisputably states..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It does not say "the right of the militia". You can try all you want to ignore words and rewrite the U.S. Constitution, but it won't work. There is no denying what it says.

There's no denying that it BEGINS

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...

That describes WHY what follows is there.

There's no denying what it says

 

[danielpalos]

Only those People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

As I've said before and you ignored, it says nothing about "for their State or the Union".

As I've said before and you ignored it, our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution, unto itself.

Irrelevant and doesn't address your fallacy.

You have to understand the concepts.

Show me where "for their State or the Union" appears in the second amendment and I'll leave you alone.

that is more implied, than Any form of natural rights is implied, in our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

The second clause of our Second Amendment, is the common Means to achieve, State security Ends.

No one questions that the People have a right to keep and bear Arms, for defense of self and property.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed; when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[P@triot]

There's no denying that it BEGINS "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary... That describes WHY what follows is there. There's no denying what it says

It doesn’t state “necessary to carry a firearm”, sparky.

The founders reasoning is irrelevant (in this context). The fact is, they gave the right to every citizen. It’s indisputable and not up for debate. The founders were very clear on it.

It’s comical watching you fascists flail in desperation for a “loophole” that will allow you to disarm the American people. It doesn’t exist and it’s not going to happen. Ever.

 

[P@triot]

No one questions that the People have a right to keep and bear Arms, for defense of self and property.

Hey...look who is coming around! You’re almost becoming a rational and logical person with respect for the U.S. Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

No one questions that the People have a right to keep and bear Arms, for defense of self and property.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed; when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Clearly someone doesn’t comprehend the concept of rights.

(Psst...a right is something the government cannot take away from you)

 

[P@triot]

Yeah for “gun control”. It is keeping everyone sooooooo safe!

Mass Stabbing at N.Y.C. Day Care Seriously Injures Babies and Adults, Including Days-Old Infant

 

[Lesh]

There's no denying that it BEGINS "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary... That describes WHY what follows is there. There's no denying what it says

It doesn’t state “necessary to carry a firearm”, sparky.

The founders reasoning is irrelevant (in this context). The fact is, they gave the right to every citizen. It’s indisputable and not up for debate. The founders were very clear on it.

It’s comical watching you fascists flail in desperation for a “loophole” that will allow you to disarm the American people. It doesn’t exist and it’s not going to happen. Ever.

It doesn't state a lot of things...but it DOES state why there is a right to bear arms...BECAUSE we (at that time) needed a well regulated militia

 

[danielpalos]

No one questions that the People have a right to keep and bear Arms, for defense of self and property.

Hey...look who is coming around! You’re almost becoming a rational and logical person with respect for the U.S. Constitution.

That is in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

It doesn't state a lot of things...but it DOES state why there is a right to bear arms...BECAUSE we (at that time) needed a well regulated militia

Yep. The why. Not the what. The why is largely irrelevant (at least for the purposes of this particular discussion). The fact is, the what is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Not the militia. The people.

That’s what it says...and it is indisputable.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That is in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.

Prove it.

 

[P@triot]

No one questions that the People have a right to keep and bear Arms, for defense of self and property.

Hey...look who is coming around! You’re almost becoming a rational and logical person with respect for the U.S. Constitution.

That is in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.

Uh...no, snowflake. That is not in “state constitutions”. It is in the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Lesh]

The why is largely irrelevant

No...it's not. The Framers put it there for a reason

 

[Lesh]

The fact is, the what is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Not the militia. The people.

"The people" make up the militia...or at least they did when it existed

 

[Dale Smith]

The fact is, the what is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Not the militia. The people.

"The people" make up the militia...or at least they did when it existed

We are the "militia"...not the military that works at the leisure of whichever CEO of USA.INC is in office at the time.

 

[Lesh]

The fact is, the what is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Not the militia. The people.

"The people" make up the militia...or at least they did when it existed

We are the "militia"...not the military that works at the leisure of whichever CEO of USA.INC is in office at the time.

According to the Dick Act...the UNORGANIZED militia (not the Well Regulated Militia mentioned in the 2A) consists of ONLY males between 17 and 45.

Scalia knew that was not gonna work...so he abandoned that entire argument and pretended the first part of the 2A wasn't even there