The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

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?

The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia. If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia

you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?

The security needs of a free State and the Union; not, natural rights.

the bill of rights is about the people not the states not the federal government.

It is a very clear list of rights that belong to the people not the government

Totally wrong. The Bill of Rights is about the govt.

It basically states what the government cannot do.

 

[Marion Morrison]

i don't take the right wing seriously about the law, from Inception.

That's ok snowflake - nobody takes you seriously about anything. The fact that you don't even know that "i" is a proper pronoun which should be capitalized or that the first letter of any sentence is capitalized illustrates your limited IQ.

having nothing but fallacy for your Cause, means you are literally, incredible.

It appears by your English skills that you are literacy incapable.

Your best bet is to not try to read something and give us your interpretation as you are barely literate.

 

[danielpalos]

silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

It's hard for one to wrap their mind around such a bizarre and absurd statement. Compensated for what? Quitting? Do you understand the concept of compensation? Perhaps you don't understand what that word means?

compensation [kom-puh n-sey-shuh n]
1. the act or state of compensating, as by rewarding someone for service
2. something given or received as an equivalent for services

When you quit your job - you are no longer providing a service to the company that was paying you. Yet you irrationally and absurdly believe that they should continue to pay you. So ask yourself - if your landscaper stopped cutting your grass, would you continue to pay them? If your dry cleaner stopped cleaning your clothes, would you continue to pay them? If your water company shut off the water to your house, would you continue to pay them?

No? Then you are a dirt-bag hypocrite. You want to take from everyone else but you don't want to give.

compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.

compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment

Why would you, or any other unemployable person, be compensated for that? Spell it out.

Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.

It's clear you don't understand eminent domain either.

I have already Told You and the right wing, over two hundred and fifty times. It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis. In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income" that acts like an, "oil pump" to ensure capital circulates under our form of Capitalism.

It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.

Yes. And wasting capital by handing it to you does not use it more efficiently.

In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income"

That doesn't add a single dollar to GDP.

I love your sarcasm.

Do you not really believe in capitalism and a positive economic multiplier effect?

 

[danielpalos]

I think we broke him.

He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.

solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.

Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.

It solved for Hooverville. Our right wing complains our poor are not really poor enough by true, capital, third world Standards, and should be made to, "suffer" more as a result.

 

[danielpalos]

I think we broke him.

He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.

solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.

Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.

Socialism doesn't solve anything.

Government is Socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

i don't take the right wing seriously about the law, from Inception.

That's ok snowflake - nobody takes you seriously about anything. The fact that you don't even know that "i" is a proper pronoun which should be capitalized or that the first letter of any sentence is capitalized illustrates your limited IQ.

having nothing but fallacy for your Cause, means you are literally, incredible.

It appears by your English skills that you are literacy incapable.

Your best bet is to not try to read something and give us your interpretation as you are barely literate.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bear Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of All of the other ones. Is that simple enough for the right wing?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think we broke him.

He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.

solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.

Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.

Socialism doesn't solve anything.

Government is Socialism.

Civilization is socialism...It working together and living with each other....Paving that road for all, police, military, educating our children, etc.

 

[task0778]

He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.

solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.

Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.

Socialism doesn't solve anything.

Government is Socialism.

Civilization is socialism...It working together and living with each other....Paving that road for all, police, military, educating our children, etc.

It appears that you don't really know what socialism is.

 

[danielpalos]

He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.

solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.

Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.

Socialism doesn't solve anything.

Government is Socialism.

Civilization is socialism...It working together and living with each other....Paving that road for all, police, military, educating our children, etc.

try convincing the right wing; they "habitually, round-file the memo".

 

[Marion Morrison]

i don't take the right wing seriously about the law, from Inception.

That's ok snowflake - nobody takes you seriously about anything. The fact that you don't even know that "i" is a proper pronoun which should be capitalized or that the first letter of any sentence is capitalized illustrates your limited IQ.

having nothing but fallacy for your Cause, means you are literally, incredible.

It appears by your English skills that you are literacy incapable.

Your best bet is to not try to read something and give us your interpretation as you are barely literate.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bear Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of All of the other ones. Is that simple enough for the right wing?

Where did you copy that silly-ass text from?

"Well-regulated" Means "In proper working order" and every citizen is the militia. The End.

From your own words: "The entire people may not have their right to bear arms infringed upon"

Is that simple enough for you? Oh! you want to limit other people's rights. Let's call a spade a spade here now.

Whose right to bear arms is it you wish to limit?

 

[danielpalos]

solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.

Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.

Socialism doesn't solve anything.

Government is Socialism.

Civilization is socialism...It working together and living with each other....Paving that road for all, police, military, educating our children, etc.

It appears that you don't really know what socialism is.

why do you believe you do?

 

[danielpalos]

i don't take the right wing seriously about the law, from Inception.

That's ok snowflake - nobody takes you seriously about anything. The fact that you don't even know that "i" is a proper pronoun which should be capitalized or that the first letter of any sentence is capitalized illustrates your limited IQ.

having nothing but fallacy for your Cause, means you are literally, incredible.

It appears by your English skills that you are literacy incapable.

Your best bet is to not try to read something and give us your interpretation as you are barely literate.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bear Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of All of the other ones. Is that simple enough for the right wing?

Where did you copy that silly-ass text from?

"Well-regulated" Means "In proper working order" and every citizen is the militia. The End.

From your own words: "The entire people may not have their right to bear arms infringed upon"

Is that simple enough for you? Oh! you want to limit other people's rights. Let's call a spade a spade here now.

Whose right to bear arms is it you wish to limit?

the alleged right of, infidels, protestants, and renegades, to our supreme law of the land, to practice their custom and habit if it impairs the security and domestic tranquility of our free States.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's hard for one to wrap their mind around such a bizarre and absurd statement. Compensated for what? Quitting? Do you understand the concept of compensation? Perhaps you don't understand what that word means?

compensation [kom-puh n-sey-shuh n]
1. the act or state of compensating, as by rewarding someone for service
2. something given or received as an equivalent for services

When you quit your job - you are no longer providing a service to the company that was paying you. Yet you irrationally and absurdly believe that they should continue to pay you. So ask yourself - if your landscaper stopped cutting your grass, would you continue to pay them? If your dry cleaner stopped cleaning your clothes, would you continue to pay them? If your water company shut off the water to your house, would you continue to pay them?

No? Then you are a dirt-bag hypocrite. You want to take from everyone else but you don't want to give.

compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.

compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment

Why would you, or any other unemployable person, be compensated for that? Spell it out.

Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.

It's clear you don't understand eminent domain either.

I have already Told You and the right wing, over two hundred and fifty times. It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis. In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income" that acts like an, "oil pump" to ensure capital circulates under our form of Capitalism.

It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.

Yes. And wasting capital by handing it to you does not use it more efficiently.

In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income"

That doesn't add a single dollar to GDP.

I love your sarcasm.

Do you not really believe in capitalism and a positive economic multiplier effect?

Handing you money for not working is not capitalism.
Handing you money for not working has a negative multiplier effect.

 

[danielpalos]

compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.

compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment

Why would you, or any other unemployable person, be compensated for that? Spell it out.

Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.

It's clear you don't understand eminent domain either.

I have already Told You and the right wing, over two hundred and fifty times. It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis. In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income" that acts like an, "oil pump" to ensure capital circulates under our form of Capitalism.

It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.

Yes. And wasting capital by handing it to you does not use it more efficiently.

In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income"

That doesn't add a single dollar to GDP.

I love your sarcasm.

Do you not really believe in capitalism and a positive economic multiplier effect?

Handing you money for not working is not capitalism.
Handing you money for not working has a negative multiplier effect.

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.

it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.

Here is the analogy:

For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.--Aristotle

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment

Why would you, or any other unemployable person, be compensated for that? Spell it out.

Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.

It's clear you don't understand eminent domain either.

I have already Told You and the right wing, over two hundred and fifty times. It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis. In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income" that acts like an, "oil pump" to ensure capital circulates under our form of Capitalism.

It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.

Yes. And wasting capital by handing it to you does not use it more efficiently.

In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income"

That doesn't add a single dollar to GDP.

I love your sarcasm.

Do you not really believe in capitalism and a positive economic multiplier effect?

Handing you money for not working is not capitalism.
Handing you money for not working has a negative multiplier effect.

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.

it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.

Here is the analogy:

For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.--Aristotle

it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.

Why do you feel that handing you money for not working would have a positive multiplier?
Why would handing you money increase GDP?

Aristotle wasn't talking about handouts to the lazy.

 

[task0778]

Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.

Socialism doesn't solve anything.

Government is Socialism.

Civilization is socialism...It working together and living with each other....Paving that road for all, police, military, educating our children, etc.

It appears that you don't really know what socialism is.

why do you believe you do?

Most people define socialism as governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. The idea under socialism is that the government determines and provides its citizens with the things it believes that they need. These days there are quite a few young people who think there's nothing wrong with that, that it sounds cool. Except it isn't and this is why:

It gives too much power to too few people. Ever hear the saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely? Well it does, in every single case where it exists or existed at one time, life totally sucks for the average citizen and he/she has no say in changing anything. It's not like the distribution is equitable or fair, those at the top of the power chain get the most and best of everything while everyone else gets very little. At least in a democratic society you have the opportunity to advance and get rich like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did. Ain't happening in a socialist state, you stay where you are unless you know somebody or rat out somebody. Freedoms of speech and the press and the right to assemble are all gone; you do exactly what the gov't tells you or you find yourself in a prison. Or maybe dead, and I'm not joking. Take a look at how Cuba or North Korea or Venezuela are doing these days. Life ain't cool if you live there.

Simply put, socialism takes away the liberty to decide how you wish to spend your money; it presupposes you are not smart enough to decide what you need. Your income was yours to spend as you wish. Now it is the government’s, and it will provide for you what it thinks you need. You tell me: is it fair to bust your ass working hard only to see the gov't take all you have earned and give you back what it decides you need and give the rest to somebody else who screwed around? And you have no rights, you aren't living in a society that enjoys the rules of law where everyone is supposed to be equal. In a socialistic state the law benefits those who serve it best rather than what's right or honest. Socialism in reality is about coercion and force, you don't get to do what you want with your life. You do what you're told.

 

[P@triot]

the alleged right of, infidels, protestants, and renegades, to our supreme law of the land, to practice their custom and habit if it impairs the security and domestic tranquility of our free States.

The only thing impairing "the domestic tranquility of our free states" are you fascist left-wing hatriots who want to shred the U.S. Constitution, trample on liberty, and control everyone else because your small and insignificant lives make you hunger for power.

 

[Skull Pilot]

so you can only bear arms in the service of a militia

You are saying that an individual does nor have a right to carry a weapon because bearing arms doesn't mean carry a weapon it means serving in the militia.

"bear arms" means "militia duty".

So, you just said "so you can only do militia duty in the service of the militia", yes, you can only be in the militia in the militia.

Yes, I'm saying an individual does NOT have a right to carry a weapon around. Presser seemed to make that clear, and Heller confirmed this.

You can't have a license for a right. So carry and conceal permits would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And yet the NRA supports carry and conceal permits. Go figure. Why would they do this if there were a right to carry arms?

Think about it.

there are states that do not require a permit for concealed carry

So what? What the hell does this have to do with the argument? You just decided that because I wrote "carry and conceal permit" you'd come up with a fun fact of the day which includes "carry and conceal permit"? Wow.

Did you really not get my point at all?

I understand your point I happen to disagree

if the only rights you had as far as firearms are concerned is keeping one in your home or using it in service to the militia then one could keep but never use a gun outside the home unless called upon by the militia

is that what you think the second amendment says?

You disagree, but you have no evidence to back your claim up. You're simply believing what you want to believe and ignoring ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. All of it.

You don't have a right to take a dump. But you can.

You don't need rights to be able to do something. Rights are something considered fundamental.

What the 2A does is prevent the US federal govt from stopping you being able to own weapons and being in the militia. But you can use your guns because the law says so, in many states.

Your argument isn't logical. Because then so many things you do on a daily basis are not protected by rights would also not make sense to you. But somehow they do.

But again. You have provided NO EVIDENCE for your view. Not one single source of evidence to suggest that there is some "right to carry arms".

Even when I've shown the founding fathers saw "bear arms" as "render military service" and "militia duty", even with the Supreme Court saying that carrying arms is not protected by the Second Amendment and the latest case backing Presser up within the last decade. Even with the NRA supporting carry and conceal permits, which, if they were protected by a right, then you wouldn't need a permit in the first place, but they do.

And you're just like "This isn't convenient for my view, so I'm going to ignore it all and believe something that is convenient".

So what's the point of all this discussion then if you're not even going to accept facts?

but in your interpretation you have no right to use a firearm for any purpose other than serving in the militia

which means you have no right to use a firearm for self defense

and FYI I gave you an analysis of the Second by an acknowledged expert in the usage of the English language.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I do not subscribe to forms of, "wage slavery" merely so the rich, can get richer, faster.

you don't get compensated for sitting on your ass in Mommy's basement

that is a fact of life you must accept if you ever want to be considered an adult

it is about equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment, at the will of either party.

You don't really care about the law, so, why should I take You seriously when You complain about illegals to our own laws.

I don't complain about illegals I merely state that all illegal aliens re criminals by definition

how can you say you care about the law if you don't agree with that fact?

And it's your choice not to work so it is your choice not to earn any money that's not my fault so I shouldn't have to pay your lazy ass a dime

so, you don't care about State laws regarding employment at will; how about a federal Doctrine in American law? don't complain; be Patriotic and legal to our own laws.

What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia. If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia

you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?

The security needs of a free State and the Union; not, natural rights.

the bill of rights is about the people not the states not the federal government.

It is a very clear list of rights that belong to the people not the government

Totally wrong. The Bill of Rights is about the govt.

It basically states what the government cannot do.

and it cannot violate the rights of the people

so it is about protecting the rights of the people from government overstep

It's called the Bill of Rights and rights belong to the people.