The Right To Bear Arms

[turtledude]

I am looking for some meaning in frigidweirdo's post # 2081. Militia service has no real relevance to our right to keep and bear arms

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are only three purposes for the second amendment
Defense against the government
Defense against an invasion
And self defense.

Prove that the 2A was designed for self defence.
Just saying it 100 times doesn't make it so, i want to see evidence.

I can prove the other two quite easily.

 

[turtledude]

There are only three purposes for the second amendment
Defense against the government
Defense against an invasion
And self defense.

Prove that the 2A was designed for self defence.
Just saying it 100 times doesn't make it so, i want to see evidence.

I can prove the other two quite easily.

all that matters is that the federal government was not supposed to interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I am looking for some meaning in frigidweirdo's post # 2081. Militia service has no real relevance to our right to keep and bear arms

No it doesn't. I'm trying to clear up a point which seems to be getting in the way.

Actually the Dick Act solved a problem of making the militia more professional while still maintaining the right to bear arms for people, ie, the right to be in the militia or "militia duty" or "render military service" as the founding fathers used synonymously with "bear arms"!

 

[frigidweirdo]

all that matters is that the federal government was not supposed to interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But then we're discussing what this right is, right? A lot of people believe they know what things are, but quite clearly people have a view that is not based on evidence, facts or reality, but what they want it to be. But an amendment surely isn't what you want it to be, but what it is.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you think I give a fuck about the Chinese government?

And you don't seem to "give a fuck" about human rights either, because the point wasn't about the Chinese government, the point was about rights, but seeing as you completely side stepped the point and went for an idiotic post which has no relevance to anything here, then we end up at a dead end.

Nice job.

 

[turtledude]

I am looking for some meaning in frigidweirdo's post # 2081. Militia service has no real relevance to our right to keep and bear arms

No it doesn't. I'm trying to clear up a point which seems to be getting in the way.

Actually the Dick Act solved a problem of making the militia more professional while still maintaining the right to bear arms for people, ie, the right to be in the militia or "militia duty" or "render military service" as the founding fathers used synonymously with "bear arms"!

here is the problem liberal gun banners have with playing "what does the constitution says"

even if you were to prove that the 2A was intended only to protect the ability of those in the militia to be armed you still LOSE on two other grounds

Like it or not, the use of the commerce clause as a federal gun control empowerment clause is bogus True, FDR and his minions managed to pull that crap off but its dishonest and more and more states are passing statutes attacking that.

secondly, there is the 9th and10th amendments which 1) recognize the other rights and 2) prohibit the federal government from acting in areas it does not have jurisdiction

the Heller decision has rejected the silly claim one must be in the militia to have standing to object to federal gun encroachments. That is not a new thing because the MILLER court did not dismiss Miller's argument on STANDING

 

[turtledude]

all that matters is that the federal government was not supposed to interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But then we're discussing what this right is, right? A lot of people believe they know what things are, but quite clearly people have a view that is not based on evidence, facts or reality, but what they want it to be. But an amendment surely isn't what you want it to be, but what it is.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Opinion noted and rejected as not correct. Sorry that is completely bogus.

 

[frigidweirdo]

here is the problem liberal gun banners have with playing "what does the constitution says"

even if you were to prove that the 2A was intended only to protect the ability of those in the militia to be armed you still LOSE on two other grounds

Like it or not, the use of the commerce clause as a federal gun control empowerment clause is bogus True, FDR and his minions managed to pull that crap off but its dishonest and more and more states are passing statutes attacking that.

secondly, there is the 9th and10th amendments which 1) recognize the other rights and 2) prohibit the federal government from acting in areas it does not have jurisdiction

the Heller decision has rejected the silly claim one must be in the militia to have standing to object to federal gun encroachments. That is not a new thing because the MILLER court did not dismiss Miller's argument on STANDING

Wait. I didn't say only those in the militia could be armed, did I?
Why the hell are you not reading what I write? It's ridiculous. I can write loads, use lots of evidence and most people seem to skim over everything because they actually believe they know what I'm saying before I do it.

READ WHAT I WRITE!!!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Opinion noted and rejected as not correct. Sorry that is completely bogus.

Prove it. You're on a debate message board. Don't come up with sentences that just say "you're wrong". It's not completely bogus.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

Have you bothered to read this?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""


Why would he use "render military service" when talking about "bearing arms"?? Surely he'd have used "carry arms" if he meant "carry arms". When did you ever hear about "carry arms" being called "render military service"?

"Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms," struck out"

Why would you compel someone to "carry arms"???? Doesn't make sense if it means carry arms. Makes sense if you mean "militia duty" or "render military service".

In fact the whole document shows that the 2A is about protecting the militia by protecting individuals rights to own weapons and to be in the militia.

No where does it talk about self defence. No where does it talk about carrying arms. NOWHERE>

 

[turtledude]

here is the problem liberal gun banners have with playing "what does the constitution says"

even if you were to prove that the 2A was intended only to protect the ability of those in the militia to be armed you still LOSE on two other grounds

Like it or not, the use of the commerce clause as a federal gun control empowerment clause is bogus True, FDR and his minions managed to pull that crap off but its dishonest and more and more states are passing statutes attacking that.

secondly, there is the 9th and10th amendments which 1) recognize the other rights and 2) prohibit the federal government from acting in areas it does not have jurisdiction

the Heller decision has rejected the silly claim one must be in the militia to have standing to object to federal gun encroachments. That is not a new thing because the MILLER court did not dismiss Miller's argument on STANDING

Wait. I didn't say only those in the militia could be armed, did I?
Why the hell are you not reading what I write? It's ridiculous. I can write loads, use lots of evidence and most people seem to skim over everything because they actually believe they know what I'm saying before I do it.

READ WHAT I WRITE!!!

to quote by good friend Bart Simpson

DON'T HAVE A FUCKING COW DUDE

nothing you write is really anything useful to me. I have been involved in this debate since the late 70s. I have been cited in Congress, referred to in lectures by top scholars and have presented lectures on this topic to ABA accredited law schools. I have seen every possible argument on this topic. You can write all you want and its not going to matter to me

 

[frigidweirdo]

to quote by good friend Bart Simpson

DON'T HAVE A FUCKING COW DUDE

nothing you write is really anything useful to me. I have been involved in this debate since the late 70s. I have been cited in Congress, referred to in lectures by top scholars and have presented lectures on this topic to ABA accredited law schools. I have seen every possible argument on this topic. You can write all you want and its not going to matter to me

OF course it's not useful because you don't efing reading it. You've been involved in this debate so long you can't read any more? You've been to this and that and the other and YOU DON'T ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WRITE.

So if you're not going to read DON'T RESPOND. Either you respond to what I write or you don't respond. Is that a good enough plan for you? Because I'm sick of people who just reply to something I didn't write.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually this is what 2 A says
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

You do understand what who are not members of means?

What does it say? Read it.

"which consists of the members of the militia". Who are the members of the militia? Oh yeah, it tells you in part 1, which is men able bodied, 17-45 and women in the National Guard.

So let's re-write this.

2) the unorganized militia, which consists of able bodied men aged 17-45 who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

It's not so hard to read, surely?

It doesn't say "citizens who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia" does it?

Dude you are not comprehending the unorganized militias are people who are not connected with the government
Regular or national guard.
Reading and comprehension are fundamental
Here's what it says one more time not what you think it says
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Nothing about age or sex just those who are not in the militia "national guard"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do you think I give a fuck about the Chinese government?

And you don't seem to "give a fuck" about human rights either, because the point wasn't about the Chinese government, the point was about rights, but seeing as you completely side stepped the point and went for an idiotic post which has no relevance to anything here, then we end up at a dead end.

Nice job.

No I don't give a fuck about other countries.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dude you are not comprehending the unorganized militias are people who are not connected with the government
Regular or national guard.
Reading and comprehension are fundamental
Here's what it says one more time not what you think it says
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Nothing about age or sex just those who are not in the militia "national guard"

I know what the militia is, I know what the unorganised militia is. This isn't the point. The point is that what you quoted DOES NOT say that all individuals are in the unorganised militia, and it says it clearly and you seem to be unable to grasp this.

I really don't know how to simplify this enough for you to be able ti understand, I've explained it twice already. It's just about the English language, which I'm making the assumption is your first language.

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

The militia consists able bodied males between 17 and 45, plus women in the National Guard. Is this okay so far? There is nothing here about women being in the militia unless they join the National Guard, RIGHT?

"(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

The unorganised militia, is composed of MEMBERS OF THE MILITIA (ie, see members of the militia in 1, which is able bodied males aged 17-45 and Women in the National Guard). So the unorganised militia is all males aged 17-45 not in the National Guard.

Does this make sense? It's easy.

It does say about sex, you just have to be able to read part 1 where it defines who is in the militia, then part 2 says which of these are in the unorganised militia.

It's clear.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No I don't give a fuck about other countries.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend much, so I don't doubt that you don't understand that this doesn't have anything to do with other countries, it has to do with the theory of HUMAN RIGHTS.

Jeez, you're difficult. Stop efing around with stuff that doesn't matter and stick to the damn topic will you?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No I don't give a fuck about other countries.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend much, so I don't doubt that you don't understand that this doesn't have anything to do with other countries, it has to do with the theory of HUMAN RIGHTS.

Jeez, you're difficult. Stop efing around with stuff that doesn't matter and stick to the damn topic will you?

Fuck you , you god damn mother fucking son of a bitch.
Have you ever been outside the U.S.? I have.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dude you are not comprehending the unorganized militias are people who are not connected with the government
Regular or national guard.
Reading and comprehension are fundamental
Here's what it says one more time not what you think it says
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Nothing about age or sex just those who are not in the militia "national guard"

I know what the militia is, I know what the unorganised militia is. This isn't the point. The point is that what you quoted DOES NOT say that all individuals are in the unorganised militia, and it says it clearly and you seem to be unable to grasp this.

I really don't know how to simplify this enough for you to be able ti understand, I've explained it twice already. It's just about the English language, which I'm making the assumption is your first language.

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

The militia consists able bodied males between 17 and 45, plus women in the National Guard. Is this okay so far? There is nothing here about women being in the militia unless they join the National Guard, RIGHT?

"(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

The unorganised militia, is composed of MEMBERS OF THE MILITIA (ie, see members of the militia in 1, which is able bodied males aged 17-45 and Women in the National Guard). So the unorganised militia is all males aged 17-45 not in the National Guard.

Does this make sense? It's easy.

It does say about sex, you just have to be able to read part 1 where it defines who is in the militia, then part 2 says which of these are in the unorganised militia.

It's clear.

Stop fucking adding it.
There is no age or sex requirement for the unorganized militia. Nor is the unorganized militia part of the god damn national guard.
Dumb ass what is the militia?

 

[frigidweirdo]

No I don't give a fuck about other countries.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend much, so I don't doubt that you don't understand that this doesn't have anything to do with other countries, it has to do with the theory of HUMAN RIGHTS.

Jeez, you're difficult. Stop efing around with stuff that doesn't matter and stick to the damn topic will you?

Fuck you , you god damn mother fucking son of a bitch.
Have you ever been outside the U.S.? I have.

Well done, you've managed to get to your lowest point so far.

By the way, seeing as we're completely off topic, I've lived in China, the UK, Spain, Germany and Austria, I've been to 51 different foreign countries, not including airports I've flown through but not entered the country this year. I've been to 7 African countries and 3 Asian countries this year alone. I've spent quite a bit of my life abroad, thank you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There are only three purposes for the second amendment
Defense against the government
Defense against an invasion
And self defense.

Prove that the 2A was designed for self defence.
Just saying it 100 times doesn't make it so, i want to see evidence.

I can prove the other two quite easily.

Wouldn't defense against the government also be in self defense?