The Right To Bear Arms

[konradv]

So, a person isn't a person unless he's part of the collective?

That all you got, a stupid one-liner? It's obviously not what I said, revealing that you can't deal with what I did say.

Nope, just making an observation. Could you be a little more specific, if the second amendment was meant for a collective how would it have been applied?

Basically the way we do now with registrations and background checks. I didn't offer any new restrictions, just making the observation that, IMO, the restrictions we have now are not unconstitutional. Much is made of the phrase "shall make no law", which I believe refers to the total banning of firearms, because it's a right given to "the people" in the amendment, not to a "person". Therefore, registration and background checks are permitted to make it easier to keep criminals and the insane from getting guns legally. It's not perfect, but even stolen and black market guns can be traced and crimes solved by the registration process and the records required of gun manufacturers.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That all you got, a stupid one-liner? It's obviously not what I said, revealing that you can't deal with what I did say.

Nope, just making an observation. Could you be a little more specific, if the second amendment was meant for a collective how would it have been applied?

Basically the way we do now with registrations and background checks. I didn't offer any new restrictions, just making the observation that, IMO, the restrictions we have now are not unconstitutional. Much is made of the phrase "shall make no law", which I believe refers to the total banning of firearms, because it's a right given to "the people" in the amendment, not to a "person". Therefore, registration and background checks are permitted to make it easier to keep criminals and the insane from getting guns legally. It's not perfect, but even stolen and black market guns can be traced and crimes solved by the registration process and the records required of gun manufacturers.

If that were true the founders would have emphasized that all firearms would have to be registered with at least the militia.

It wasn't until blacks started arming themselves that registration of firearms became an issue.

 

[SniperFire]

'Being that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. '

- 2nd Amendment, with modernized language for Libtards pretending to be confused by the original intent

 

[konradv]

Nope, just making an observation. Could you be a little more specific, if the second amendment was meant for a collective how would it have been applied?

Basically the way we do now with registrations and background checks. I didn't offer any new restrictions, just making the observation that, IMO, the restrictions we have now are not unconstitutional. Much is made of the phrase "shall make no law", which I believe refers to the total banning of firearms, because it's a right given to "the people" in the amendment, not to a "person". Therefore, registration and background checks are permitted to make it easier to keep criminals and the insane from getting guns legally. It's not perfect, but even stolen and black market guns can be traced and crimes solved by the registration process and the records required of gun manufacturers.

If that were true the founders would have emphasized that all firearms would have to be registered with at least the militia.

Why would they have done that? The Constitution doesn't get very specific on many points. The specifics were usually left to future legislation. They made it obvious that it was the right of "the people" to be armed, but left the duties and responsibilities of the individual with regard to that right open to future interpretation.

 

[konradv]

'Being that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. '

- 2nd Amendment, with modernized language for Libtards pretending to be confused by the original intent

You seem to be confused by your imagining there is such a thing as "original intent". That notion presumes that all the Founders had the same intent, a case that would be unique in human history and so statistically remote as to be false on the face of it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Basically the way we do now with registrations and background checks. I didn't offer any new restrictions, just making the observation that, IMO, the restrictions we have now are not unconstitutional. Much is made of the phrase "shall make no law", which I believe refers to the total banning of firearms, because it's a right given to "the people" in the amendment, not to a "person". Therefore, registration and background checks are permitted to make it easier to keep criminals and the insane from getting guns legally. It's not perfect, but even stolen and black market guns can be traced and crimes solved by the registration process and the records required of gun manufacturers.

If that were true the founders would have emphasized that all firearms would have to be registered with at least the militia.
It wasn't until blacks started arming themselves that registration of firearms became an issue.

Why would they have done that? The Constitution doesn't get very specific on many points. The specifics were usually left to future legislation. They made it obvious that it was the right of "the people" to be armed, but left the duties and responsibilities of the individual with regard to that right open to future interpretation.

The second amendment does give specifics Shall not be infringed is being very specific.
I also noticed you didn't address the last part and even went as far as leaving it out of the quote.

 

[konradv]

If that were true the founders would have emphasized that all firearms would have to be registered with at least the militia.
It wasn't until blacks started arming themselves that registration of firearms became an issue.

Why would they have done that? The Constitution doesn't get very specific on many points. The specifics were usually left to future legislation. They made it obvious that it was the right of "the people" to be armed, but left the duties and responsibilities of the individual with regard to that right open to future interpretation.

The second amendment does give specifics Shall not be infringed is being very specific.
I also noticed you didn't address the last part and even went as far as leaving it out of the quote.

I agree that "shall not be infringed" is specific, but it refers to "the people" not individuals.

As far as the second part goes, I felt it was irrelevant to the topic and a needless distraction.

 

[SniperFire]

'Being that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. '

- 2nd Amendment, with modernized language for Libtards pretending to be confused by the original intent

You seem to be confused by your imagining there is such a thing as "original intent". That notion presumes that all the Founders had the same intent, a case that would be unique in human history and so statistically remote as to be false on the face of it.

I did not use original intent as a noun. I used it as an adverbial phrase.

You failed, as usual. But then again, you are a libtard and little is expected of you - be it linguistical competency or other.


LOL

 

[SniperFire]

Why would they have done that? The Constitution doesn't get very specific on many points. The specifics were usually left to future legislation. They made it obvious that it was the right of "the people" to be armed, but left the duties and responsibilities of the individual with regard to that right open to future interpretation.

The second amendment does give specifics Shall not be infringed is being very specific.
I also noticed you didn't address the last part and even went as far as leaving it out of the quote.

I agree that "shall not be infringed" is specific, but it refers to "the people" not individuals.

As far as the second part goes, I felt it was irrelevant to the topic and a needless distraction.

Idiot, let me help you. 'shall not be infringed' is an adverbial clause describing the state of 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms.'

It modifies the 'right', which is singular.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why would they have done that? The Constitution doesn't get very specific on many points. The specifics were usually left to future legislation. They made it obvious that it was the right of "the people" to be armed, but left the duties and responsibilities of the individual with regard to that right open to future interpretation.

The second amendment does give specifics Shall not be infringed is being very specific.
I also noticed you didn't address the last part and even went as far as leaving it out of the quote.

I agree that "shall not be infringed" is specific, but it refers to "the people" not individuals.

As far as the second part goes, I felt it was irrelevant to the topic and a needless distraction.

So we are back too individuals aren't people?

 

[SniperFire]

Perhaps advanced semantical studies were not made available to you in Moscow, komrade konradv?

 

[Abatis]

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.

The only people "confused" by the wording are those who desire to illegitimately restrict the right.

SCOTUS has been unwavering in its determinations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two separate, distinct things) . . . . The right is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment thus it is not in any manner dependent upon the words of the Amendment to exist.

Once one conforms his/her thinking to the principles of conferred powers and retained rights, any confusion one had about the 2nd Amendment is relieved.

__________________________

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

​

__________________________
​

If I was to address the wording of the Amendment I would offer that the the theory that the 2nd Amendment speaks to militia control or organization is not something there is evidence of. The 2nd Amendment has never been inspected to inform or held to instruct on any aspect of militia powers, federal or state. The 2nd Amendment has, as SCOTUS has said, only one function, to restrict the actions of the federal government, not modify, expand or establish powers.

With the declaratory clause nothing was intended other than to re-affirm what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).

So without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause is only a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it does not create, qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right, it only tells us A POLITICAL REASON why the fully retained right is being forever shielded from government interference..

The framers were very used to constitutional provisions containing inactive declarations of principle.

When one examines state arms provisions one sees statements securing the citizen's right to arms and the antipathy the framers held for standing armies sharing the same constitutional provision. Those concerns were grouped together because they have similar objects, to limit the power of government in one specific arena, military affairs.

Those state provision's inactive declarations, (typically, "and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; . . .") were certainly inactive statements. Nobody believed these provisions really forbade the forming and maintaining of a federal standing army; these were state constitutional provisions with zero effect beyond the state line.

They were merely stating an ideal . . . The declaration, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, "as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up." To the founders / framers each conveyed the same principle and had the same power . . . NONE.

State provisions in force or enacted from the time:

1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State—and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

1790 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

 

[konradv]

'Being that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. '

- 2nd Amendment, with modernized language for Libtards pretending to be confused by the original intent

You seem to be confused by your imagining there is such a thing as "original intent". That notion presumes that all the Founders had the same intent, a case that would be unique in human history and so statistically remote as to be false on the face of it.

I did not use original intent as a noun. I used it as an adverbial phrase.

No you didn't. 'Intent' is a noun that's the object of the preposition 'by' modified by the adjective 'original'. Nothing adverbial there at all. Try again.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.

The only people "confused" by the wording are those who desire to illegitimately restrict the right.

SCOTUS has been unwavering in its determinations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two separate, distinct things) . . . . The right is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment thus it is not in any manner dependent upon the words of the Amendment to exist.

Once one conforms his/her thinking to the principles of conferred powers and retained rights, any confusion one had about the 2nd Amendment is relieved.

__________________________

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

​

__________________________
​

If I was to address the wording of the Amendment I would offer that the the theory that the 2nd Amendment speaks to militia control or organization is not something there is evidence of. The 2nd Amendment has never been inspected to inform or held to instruct on any aspect of militia powers, federal or state. The 2nd Amendment has, as SCOTUS has said, only one function, to restrict the actions of the federal government, not modify, expand or establish powers.

With the declaratory clause nothing was intended other than to re-affirm what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).

So without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause is only a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it does not create, qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right, it only tells us A POLITICAL REASON why the fully retained right is being forever shielded from government interference..

The framers were very used to constitutional provisions containing inactive declarations of principle.

When one examines state arms provisions one sees statements securing the citizen's right to arms and the antipathy the framers held for standing armies sharing the same constitutional provision. Those concerns were grouped together because they have similar objects, to limit the power of government in one specific arena, military affairs.

Those state provision's inactive declarations, (typically, "and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; . . .") were certainly inactive statements. Nobody believed these provisions really forbade the forming and maintaining of a federal standing army; these were state constitutional provisions with zero effect beyond the state line.

They were merely stating an ideal . . . The declaration, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, "as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up." To the founders / framers each conveyed the same principle and had the same power . . . NONE.

State provisions in force or enacted from the time:

1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State—and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

1790 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

LOLberals do not believe in natural rights. They believe the government gives and takes rights at will. They believe we have some sort of direct democracy.

 

[SniperFire]

You seem to be confused by your imagining there is such a thing as "original intent". That notion presumes that all the Founders had the same intent, a case that would be unique in human history and so statistically remote as to be false on the face of it.

I did not use original intent as a noun. I used it as an adverbial phrase.

No you didn't. 'Intent' is a noun that's the object of the preposition 'by' modified by the adjective 'original'. Nothing adverbial there at all. Try again.

LOL

Educate yourself on dependent adverbial phrases, komrade, and then we can discuss it.

 

[SniperFire]

So without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause is only a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it does not create, qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right, it only tells us A POLITICAL REASON why the fully retained right is being forever shielded from government interference..

The Heller Supreme court case proves that 'militia' has nothing at all to do with the people's ancient right to bear arms, because Heller lived in D.C. which had no standing to raise such a miliita.

 

[Abatis]

You seem to be confused by your imagining there is such a thing as "original intent". That notion presumes that all the Founders had the same intent, a case that would be unique in human history and so statistically remote as to be false on the face of it.

There was no disagreement on the origin of rights only how best to secure them.

The Federalists were against adding a bill of rights because our rights were as numerous as grains of sand upon the seashore . . . and any "list" would be incomplete and lacking and would allow later arguments that said list was the full and complete expression of the rights of the citizen. They were also against a bill of rights because they considered adding one dangerous and absurd. The Constitution was a charter of conferred powers and the government could only exercise those powers granted, so they argued in Federalist 84:

__________________________

"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

​

__________________________
​

We have certainly realized the Federalist's fears, especially about the 2nd Amendment.

And yeah, the Federalist's "lost" the argument over the Bill of rights but the 9th and 10th Amendments stand as affirmation of the Federalist argument and testament to the universal acceptance of the Federalists arguments.

So there was total and complete agreement, regardless of your thoughts about the statistical chance of said agreement . . .

 

[Abatis]

So without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause is only a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it does not create, qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right, it only tells us A POLITICAL REASON why the fully retained right is being forever shielded from government interference..

The Heller Supreme court case proves that 'militia' has nothing at all to do with the people's ancient right to bear arms, because Heller lived in D.C. which had no standing to raise such a miliita.

I'm not saying a dependency exists but the "object" of the 2nd Amendment is not in dispute.

That object was to ensure that the armed citizenry would always remain a viable entity to protect the state and federal governments and the liberty of the people. In times of need, the civil power can summon a large group of citizens at a moments notice and have them muster with appropriate arms supplied by themselves and a couple days provisions.

And just to help the "confused" brains into an overdose of liberty meltdown . . .

Also part of the object, the fundamental principle that the people retain the original and final right to rescind their consent to be governed.

Perpetuating the classical republican concept of general militia is the only intent of the 2nd Amendment; it does not create or grant or give the citizen's the right, it only holds it beyond the conferred powers granted to government.

If government moves against the right (hello Diane) it is no longer 'the government established by the Constitution' it is then something else . . . It is a foreign, illegitimate government ruling by force untethered to the constraints and limits of the Constitution.

It is then subject to the citizens original, fundamental right to rescind our consent to be governed and reclaim the powers we lent to government and abolish the illegitimate structure established by the usurpers.

That's the 2nd Amendment - without any confusion.

 

[SniperFire]

So without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause is only a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it does not create, qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right, it only tells us A POLITICAL REASON why the fully retained right is being forever shielded from government interference..

The Heller Supreme court case proves that 'militia' has nothing at all to do with the people's ancient right to bear arms, because Heller lived in D.C. which had no standing to raise such a miliita.

I'm not saying a dependency exists but the "object" of the 2nd Amendment is not in dispute.

That object was to ensure that the armed citizenry would always remain a viable entity to protect the state and federal governments and the liberty of the people. In times of need, the civil power can summon a large group of citizens at a moments notice and have them muster with appropriate arms supplied by themselves and a couple days provisions.

And just to help the "confused" brains into an overdose of liberty meltdown . . .

Also part of the object, the fundamental principle that the people retain the original and final right to rescind their consent to be governed.

Perpetuating the classical republican concept of general militia is the only intent of the 2nd Amendment; it does not create or grant or give the citizen's the right, it only holds it beyond the conferred powers granted to government.

If government moves against the right (hello Diane) it is no longer 'the government established by the Constitution' it is then something else . . . It is a foreign, illegitimate government ruling by force untethered to the constraints and limits of the Constitution.

It is then subject to the citizens original, fundamental right to rescind our consent to be governed and reclaim the powers we lent to government and abolish the illegitimate structure established by the usurpers.

That's the 2nd Amendment - without any confusion.

I agree. It is the only reason the Founders would go to the trouble of mentioning it.

No rights were 'granted' in the second amendment. It was just a warning that the ancient right of the people to bear arms shall not be fucked with.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

That's fucking priceless.