The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.

How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.

what does it mean?

other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is

What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.

the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms

Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.

Then "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.""

So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.

In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 25th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.

But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...

the debate over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment. The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself. There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
compelling military service is conscription.

It seems you have the draft and the militia confused

The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms

I'm not sure what your point is here.

The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.

The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?

Well it's clear.

The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.

Okay, so, you say "The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms"

How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.

Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.

 

[frigidweirdo]

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.

so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?

it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you

it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter

No, the dissection of the language and grammar is done in a manner which doesn't tell you much at all. Why did he miss out the one document that shows that "bear arms" means something else? It's partisan, the conclusion is something they want to hear, and they've ignored facts in order to get there.

 

[12icer]

Actually someone Needs to go to remedial English comp. There is a NO militia restriction. It say The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP, and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. It does neither describe the type, nor the power of the arms. The separation of the two clauses means they are separate in thought and they are tied loosely in the overall idea. If the meaning was to keep a militia it would not have the comma. The MILITIA clause is something that should scare liberals anyway, it means to keep the people free sometimes they need a militia to keep oppressive government under control, Logical since they just defeated a MONARCHY. twist and turn as you like liberals the meaning had been clear to everyone till 1968. Most people understand the reason liberal lying dimshits want to disarm the people. That is why gun sales to little old ladies go WAY UP when you try to ban them. As for ASSAULT RIFLES. they are just MILITARY weapons. They are fully automatic, designed to hold down a large group of enemies so that they may be attacked easier. The semi auto versions are just like the Browning hunting rifles, and the Williams design they take their actions from. There are much deadlier guns out there than what YOU call the "assault" rifle.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually someone Needs to go to remedial English comp. There is a NO militia restriction. It say The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP, and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. It does neither describe the type, nor the power of the arms. The separation of the two clauses means they are separate in thought and they are tied loosely in the overall idea. If the meaning was to keep a militia it would not have the comma. The MILITIA clause is something that should scare liberals anyway, it means to keep the people free sometimes they need a militia to keep oppressive government under control, Logical since they just defeated a MONARCHY. twist and turn as you like liberals the meaning had been clear to everyone till 1968. Most people understand the reason liberal lying dimshits want to disarm the people. That is why gun sales to little old ladies go WAY UP when you try to ban them. As for ASSAULT RIFLES. they are just MILITARY weapons. They are fully automatic, designed to hold down a large group of enemies so that they may be attacked easier. The semi auto versions are just like the Browning hunting rifles, and the Williams design they take their actions from. There are much deadlier guns out there than what YOU call the "assault" rifle.

Hilarious.

I didn't say there was a militia restriction at all. Did you not read what I wrote? You're telling me I have a problem with English, and yet you've managed to read something that isn't there.

 

[Skull Pilot]

you have to get a job first

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

What? How does getting paid by the federal government to quit your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.

If it takes money - go earn it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?

I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".

no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic

 

[frigidweirdo]

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

What? How does getting paid by the federal government to quit your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.

If it takes money - go earn it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?

I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".

no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic

I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Actually someone Needs to go to remedial English comp. There is a NO militia restriction. It say The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP, and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. It does neither describe the type, nor the power of the arms. The separation of the two clauses means they are separate in thought and they are tied loosely in the overall idea. If the meaning was to keep a militia it would not have the comma. The MILITIA clause is something that should scare liberals anyway, it means to keep the people free sometimes they need a militia to keep oppressive government under control, Logical since they just defeated a MONARCHY. twist and turn as you like liberals the meaning had been clear to everyone till 1968. Most people understand the reason liberal lying dimshits want to disarm the people. That is why gun sales to little old ladies go WAY UP when you try to ban them. As for ASSAULT RIFLES. they are just MILITARY weapons. They are fully automatic, designed to hold down a large group of enemies so that they may be attacked easier. The semi auto versions are just like the Browning hunting rifles, and the Williams design they take their actions from. There are much deadlier guns out there than what YOU call the "assault" rifle.

Hilarious.

I didn't say there was a militia restriction at all. Did you not read what I wrote? You're telling me I have a problem with English, and yet you've managed to read something that isn't there.

no you just said bearing arms doesn't mean people can carry weapons unless they are doing it in service to a militia

that sounds like a restriction to me

 

[Skull Pilot]

What? How does getting paid by the federal government to quit your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.

If it takes money - go earn it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?

I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".

no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic

I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.

having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing

 

[Skull Pilot]

the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms

Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.

Then "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.""

So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.

In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 25th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.

But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...

the debate over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment. The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself. There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
compelling military service is conscription.

It seems you have the draft and the militia confused

The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms

well regulated, is a "limiting qualifier". all of the militia of the United States is not well regulated, and therefor, unnecessary to the security of a free State, and may be Infringed as a result, by well regulated militia, for the security and domestic tranquility needs of our free States.

what do you think well regulated meant in the 18th century?

Who cares. Only the right wing prefers to appeal to ignorance of the law in favor of their propaganda and rhetoric, from dictionaries instead of encyclopedias.

Wellness of Regulation must be Prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States. It is a power delegated, in Article 1, Section 8.

well you don't care because you think the shit you make up trumps historical record

 

[Skull Pilot]

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.

so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?

it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you

it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter

Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert.

I'll bet you an entire year of your salary that he knows more about the English language than you

even if I lose it won't cost me 10 bucks

Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition. Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. It really is, that simple.

show me the dictionary or literary journals that cite you as a language expert

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually someone Needs to go to remedial English comp. There is a NO militia restriction. It say The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP, and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. It does neither describe the type, nor the power of the arms. The separation of the two clauses means they are separate in thought and they are tied loosely in the overall idea. If the meaning was to keep a militia it would not have the comma. The MILITIA clause is something that should scare liberals anyway, it means to keep the people free sometimes they need a militia to keep oppressive government under control, Logical since they just defeated a MONARCHY. twist and turn as you like liberals the meaning had been clear to everyone till 1968. Most people understand the reason liberal lying dimshits want to disarm the people. That is why gun sales to little old ladies go WAY UP when you try to ban them. As for ASSAULT RIFLES. they are just MILITARY weapons. They are fully automatic, designed to hold down a large group of enemies so that they may be attacked easier. The semi auto versions are just like the Browning hunting rifles, and the Williams design they take their actions from. There are much deadlier guns out there than what YOU call the "assault" rifle.

Hilarious.

I didn't say there was a militia restriction at all. Did you not read what I wrote? You're telling me I have a problem with English, and yet you've managed to read something that isn't there.

no you just said bearing arms doesn't mean people can carry weapons unless they are doing it in service to a militia

that sounds like a restriction to me

Er.. no, I did not.

You can go looking for where I said that, and you'll keep looking until you give up because I did not say that.

What I did say, if you'd been paying attention, was that the right to keep arms is the right of people to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weaponry in times of need.

I also said the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel in times of need.

If you don't understand this concept, ask me, don't go off assuming I said things you didn't read.

 

[frigidweirdo]

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.

If it takes money - go earn it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?

I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".

no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic

I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.

having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing

Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?

 

[Skull Pilot]

what does it mean?

other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is

What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.

the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms

Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.

Then "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.""

So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.

In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 25th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.

But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...

the debate over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment. The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself. There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
compelling military service is conscription.

It seems you have the draft and the militia confused

The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms

I'm not sure what your point is here.

The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.

The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?

Well it's clear.

The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.

Okay, so, you say "The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms"

How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.

Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.

You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.

one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms. tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.

so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?

it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you

it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter

Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert.

I'll bet you an entire year of your salary that he knows more about the English language than you

even if I lose it won't cost me 10 bucks

Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition. Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. It really is, that simple.

show me the dictionary or literary journals that cite you as a language expert

You're banging your head against the wall talking to that one. I put him on ignore ages ago because he'll just go around and around in circles ignore anything and everything you say.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If it takes money - go earn it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?

I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".

no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic

I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.

having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing

Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?

holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.

some people get more paid holidays that others

but you have to have a job to get those don't you?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.

the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms

Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.

Then "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.""

So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.

In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 25th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.

But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...

the debate over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment. The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself. There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
compelling military service is conscription.

It seems you have the draft and the militia confused

The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms

I'm not sure what your point is here.

The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.

The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?

Well it's clear.

The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.

Okay, so, you say "The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms"

How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.

Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.

You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.

one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms. tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?

Proven? How much proof do you need?

First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.

But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783

George Washington


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Then you have the Supreme Court.


ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”


PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

Even Heller upheld the Presser case.

Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".


Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".

no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic

I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.

having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing

Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?

holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.

some people get more paid holidays that others

but you have to have a job to get those don't you?

Sure, but maybe you should have been a bit more specific about what you were talking about. You weren't talking about people getting money for not working, but people who don't have jobs being given money by the government for not working.

Though even then you have those who can't work, who can't currently get a job and have paid into the system for unemployment benefits, and then you have lazy bastards who don't do anything. The latter is far different to the former.

 

[Skull Pilot]

the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms

Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.

Then "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.""

So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.

In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 25th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.

But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...

the debate over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment. The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself. There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
compelling military service is conscription.

It seems you have the draft and the militia confused

The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms

I'm not sure what your point is here.

The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.

The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?

Well it's clear.

The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.

Okay, so, you say "The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms"

How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.

Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.

You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.

one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms. tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?

Proven? How much proof do you need?

First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.

But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783

George Washington


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Then you have the Supreme Court.


ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”


PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

Even Heller upheld the Presser case.

Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".


Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.

they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.

if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that

 

[Skull Pilot]

no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic

I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.

having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing

Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?

holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.

some people get more paid holidays that others

but you have to have a job to get those don't you?

Sure, but maybe you should have been a bit more specific about what you were talking about. You weren't talking about people getting money for not working, but people who don't have jobs being given money by the government for not working.

Though even then you have those who can't work, who can't currently get a job and have paid into the system for unemployment benefits, and then you have lazy bastards who don't do anything. The latter is far different to the former.

employees do not pay into unemployment

employers do via federal and state unemployment taxes

The benefits paid to jobless workers are financed through federal and stateunemployment taxes paid by employers. Every state's unemployment system bases the employer's tax rate on the amount of benefits paid to former workers. Your actions affect your tax rate.May 2, 2016

The Unemployment Benefits System: How it Works and When to Contest a Claim | BizFilings Toolkit

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.

Then "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.""

So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.

In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 25th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.

But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...

the debate over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment. The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself. There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
compelling military service is conscription.

It seems you have the draft and the militia confused

The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms

I'm not sure what your point is here.

The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.

The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?

Well it's clear.

The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.

Okay, so, you say "The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms"

How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.

Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.

You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.

one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms. tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?

Proven? How much proof do you need?

First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.

But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783

George Washington


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Then you have the Supreme Court.


ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”


PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

Even Heller upheld the Presser case.

Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".


Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.

they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.

if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that

"it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?

But, the amendment DID say that.

It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.

When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.

Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?