Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
nobody should take the national socialist right wing seriously about economics or the law.Federal law = Overturning DC v Heller on federal law, supremacy grounds.don't complain; be legal to federal law?Why be gibberish?
Federal law = no handouts to unemployables. Why be illegal?
Federal law = get a job.
Federal law = Individual Liberty and employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.
Does your pussy hurt?Federal law = Overturning DC v Heller on federal law, supremacy grounds.don't complain; be legal to federal law?why be legal to the law?it is called, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
You have equal protection. What you don't have, and never will, is unlimited hand outs for not working.
labor has the legal right to quit on an at-will basis
Yes.
and still receive unemployment benefits.
Wrong. Hilariously wrong.
Why be gibberish?
Federal law = no handouts to unemployables. Why be illegal?
States have laws regarding employment relationships. Employment at will is State law in most US States.On what grounds, in an at-will employment State?employment at will is not, time limited. only for-cause unemployment compensation should be limited by the for-cause employment criteria.the right wing never gets it, if it is not a waste of money.
UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare. We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.
UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.
Because it's time limited, limited number of recipients and paid for by employers.
Turning it into endless welfare would boost unemployment, balloon government spending and shrink GDP.
I know, that sounds like the perfect liberal program.
employment at will is not, time limited.
UE is.
By the rules of the states.
States have laws regarding employment relationships. Employment at will is State law in most US States.On what grounds, in an at-will employment State?employment at will is not, time limited. only for-cause unemployment compensation should be limited by the for-cause employment criteria.UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.
Because it's time limited, limited number of recipients and paid for by employers.
Turning it into endless welfare would boost unemployment, balloon government spending and shrink GDP.
I know, that sounds like the perfect liberal program.
employment at will is not, time limited.
UE is.
By the rules of the states.
natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions (not our Second Amendment) and available via Due Process.yes 2 rightsso according to you the intent of the framers was to restrict the bearing of arms solely to service in the militia
therefore while you have the right to self preservation you do not have the right to carry a firearm to be used to defend yourself
you really think that was the intent?
The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are not collective rights
By using the term an unorganized militia you negate the entire collective argument that bear arms means solely militia service in the sense that I can call my self a member of an unorganized militia and therefore bear arms everywhere I go
therefore my individual right to keep and bear arms (concealed or open carry) is intact and cannot be infringed
No, that is not what I said.
What I said what that the "right to bear arms" is "militia duty".
Carrying arms around in the US is legal in some places and not legal in other places. This has NOTHING to do with the 2A.
Why are you going on about collective and individual rights again for?
I'm using the term "unorganized militia" because, er... because the US CONGRESS WROTE A LAW THAT USES THIS. It's not hard to understand, is it?
Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
Here's the law on Wikipedia.
"The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the Dick Act,"
"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."
Two groups, one was the "Unorganized Militia", all males aged 17-45 and the National Guard.
I did not make up the "unorganized militia", the US govt did.
I never, EVER used the collective argument, and I have no fucking idea why the hell you're even talking about it. In fact, when people start acting like they're talking to someone else, and not responding to what I have said, it annoys me.
Yes, your individual right to keep arms (own weapons) and bear arms (be in the militia) cannot be infringed before due process.
Well, unless of course you think criminals and the insane should be able to own weapons and be in the militia. Do you want the insane to not have their right to be in the militia infringed upon?
The problem here is, I know what you'll do. You're making a connection with the second amendment carrying guns around, which the Supreme Court has said in Presser, and backed up in Heller, is NOT protected by the 2A. But the Supreme Court says you're wrong, the Founding Father say you're wrong, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.
You have two rights that are protected by the 2A. There might be other rights out there. There are other freedoms, but the 2A does not deal with these. You can go take a crap right now. The 2A doesn't protect this. Nor does it protect carrying arms around with you, but you can still do it. You don't need the 2A to protect something for you in order to be able to do it, you do so many things every day that are not protected by the 2A. And one of those might be carrying arms around.
to right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. But since even in the 18th century bear meant to carry then I can carry a firearm regardless of service to a militia
"bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.
But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?
bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I Blackstone Commentaries 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
yes 2 rightsso according to you the intent of the framers was to restrict the bearing of arms solely to service in the militia
therefore while you have the right to self preservation you do not have the right to carry a firearm to be used to defend yourself
you really think that was the intent?
The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are not collective rights
By using the term an unorganized militia you negate the entire collective argument that bear arms means solely militia service in the sense that I can call my self a member of an unorganized militia and therefore bear arms everywhere I go
therefore my individual right to keep and bear arms (concealed or open carry) is intact and cannot be infringed
No, that is not what I said.
What I said what that the "right to bear arms" is "militia duty".
Carrying arms around in the US is legal in some places and not legal in other places. This has NOTHING to do with the 2A.
Why are you going on about collective and individual rights again for?
I'm using the term "unorganized militia" because, er... because the US CONGRESS WROTE A LAW THAT USES THIS. It's not hard to understand, is it?
Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
Here's the law on Wikipedia.
"The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the Dick Act,"
"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."
Two groups, one was the "Unorganized Militia", all males aged 17-45 and the National Guard.
I did not make up the "unorganized militia", the US govt did.
I never, EVER used the collective argument, and I have no fucking idea why the hell you're even talking about it. In fact, when people start acting like they're talking to someone else, and not responding to what I have said, it annoys me.
Yes, your individual right to keep arms (own weapons) and bear arms (be in the militia) cannot be infringed before due process.
Well, unless of course you think criminals and the insane should be able to own weapons and be in the militia. Do you want the insane to not have their right to be in the militia infringed upon?
The problem here is, I know what you'll do. You're making a connection with the second amendment carrying guns around, which the Supreme Court has said in Presser, and backed up in Heller, is NOT protected by the 2A. But the Supreme Court says you're wrong, the Founding Father say you're wrong, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.
You have two rights that are protected by the 2A. There might be other rights out there. There are other freedoms, but the 2A does not deal with these. You can go take a crap right now. The 2A doesn't protect this. Nor does it protect carrying arms around with you, but you can still do it. You don't need the 2A to protect something for you in order to be able to do it, you do so many things every day that are not protected by the 2A. And one of those might be carrying arms around.
to right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. But since even in the 18th century bear meant to carry then I can carry a firearm regardless of service to a militia
"bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.
But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?
bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I Blackstone Commentaries 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
No, it doesn't.
However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
Take two examples:
"The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
Which is is? Tell me.
Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
Employment At Will: What Does It Mean?States have laws regarding employment relationships. Employment at will is State law in most US States.On what grounds, in an at-will employment State?employment at will is not, time limited. only for-cause unemployment compensation should be limited by the for-cause employment criteria.UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.
Because it's time limited, limited number of recipients and paid for by employers.
Turning it into endless welfare would boost unemployment, balloon government spending and shrink GDP.
I know, that sounds like the perfect liberal program.
employment at will is not, time limited.
UE is.
By the rules of the states.
yes 2 rightsNo, that is not what I said.
What I said what that the "right to bear arms" is "militia duty".
Carrying arms around in the US is legal in some places and not legal in other places. This has NOTHING to do with the 2A.
Why are you going on about collective and individual rights again for?
I'm using the term "unorganized militia" because, er... because the US CONGRESS WROTE A LAW THAT USES THIS. It's not hard to understand, is it?
Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
Here's the law on Wikipedia.
"The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the Dick Act,"
"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."
Two groups, one was the "Unorganized Militia", all males aged 17-45 and the National Guard.
I did not make up the "unorganized militia", the US govt did.
I never, EVER used the collective argument, and I have no fucking idea why the hell you're even talking about it. In fact, when people start acting like they're talking to someone else, and not responding to what I have said, it annoys me.
Yes, your individual right to keep arms (own weapons) and bear arms (be in the militia) cannot be infringed before due process.
Well, unless of course you think criminals and the insane should be able to own weapons and be in the militia. Do you want the insane to not have their right to be in the militia infringed upon?
The problem here is, I know what you'll do. You're making a connection with the second amendment carrying guns around, which the Supreme Court has said in Presser, and backed up in Heller, is NOT protected by the 2A. But the Supreme Court says you're wrong, the Founding Father say you're wrong, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.
You have two rights that are protected by the 2A. There might be other rights out there. There are other freedoms, but the 2A does not deal with these. You can go take a crap right now. The 2A doesn't protect this. Nor does it protect carrying arms around with you, but you can still do it. You don't need the 2A to protect something for you in order to be able to do it, you do so many things every day that are not protected by the 2A. And one of those might be carrying arms around.
to right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. But since even in the 18th century bear meant to carry then I can carry a firearm regardless of service to a militia
"bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.
But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?
bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I Blackstone Commentaries 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
No, it doesn't.
However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
Take two examples:
"The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
Which is is? Tell me.
Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
yes 2 rights
to right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. But since even in the 18th century bear meant to carry then I can carry a firearm regardless of service to a militia
"bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.
But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?
bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I Blackstone Commentaries 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
No, it doesn't.
However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
Take two examples:
"The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
Which is is? Tell me.
Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
I'm not sure where the problem here is.
Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
Think about it from this perspective.
The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
at-will is at-will, baby. only the right wing, never gets it.States have laws regarding employment relationships. Employment at will is State law in most US States.On what grounds, in an at-will employment State?employment at will is not, time limited. only for-cause unemployment compensation should be limited by the for-cause employment criteria.
employment at will is not, time limited.
UE is.
By the rules of the states.
And unemployment compensation for quitters or never workers is law in none of them.
lol. the first clause has the Intent and Purpose for the second clause. there are no natural rights recognized or secured in our Second Article of Amendment."bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.
But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?
bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I Blackstone Commentaries 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
No, it doesn't.
However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
Take two examples:
"The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
Which is is? Tell me.
Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
I'm not sure where the problem here is.
Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
Think about it from this perspective.
The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people. A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
It also means to simply be armed as well.
Heller upheld this interpretation
lol. the first clause has the Intent and Purpose for the second clause. there are no natural rights recognized or secured in our Second Article of Amendment.bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I Blackstone Commentaries 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
No, it doesn't.
However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
Take two examples:
"The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
Which is is? Tell me.
Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
I'm not sure where the problem here is.
Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
Think about it from this perspective.
The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people. A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
It also means to simply be armed as well.
Heller upheld this interpretation
"bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.
But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?
bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I Blackstone Commentaries 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
No, it doesn't.
However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
Take two examples:
"The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
Which is is? Tell me.
Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
I'm not sure where the problem here is.
Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
Think about it from this perspective.
The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people. A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
It also means to simply be armed as well.
Heller upheld this interpretation
bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I Blackstone Commentaries 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
No, it doesn't.
However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
Take two examples:
"The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
Which is is? Tell me.
Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
I'm not sure where the problem here is.
Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
Think about it from this perspective.
The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people. A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
It also means to simply be armed as well.
Heller upheld this interpretation
Er... right... whatever.
So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"?
The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment.
But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.
It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.
The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place.
I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today.
Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?
No, it doesn't.
However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
Take two examples:
"The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
Which is is? Tell me.
Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
I'm not sure where the problem here is.
Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
Think about it from this perspective.
The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people. A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
It also means to simply be armed as well.
Heller upheld this interpretation
Er... right... whatever.
So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"?
The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment.
But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.
It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.
The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place.
I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today.
Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?
to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means
Nobody should take the right wing seriously about the law, or economics.lol. the first clause has the Intent and Purpose for the second clause. there are no natural rights recognized or secured in our Second Article of Amendment.No, it doesn't.
However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
Take two examples:
"The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
Which is is? Tell me.
Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
I'm not sure where the problem here is.
Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
Think about it from this perspective.
The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people. A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
It also means to simply be armed as well.
Heller upheld this interpretation
the rights to keep and bear arms are specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment
And there is no second article of amendment
you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
I'm not sure where the problem here is.
Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
Think about it from this perspective.
The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people. A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
It also means to simply be armed as well.
Heller upheld this interpretation
Er... right... whatever.
So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"?
The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment.
But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.
It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.
The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place.
I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today.
Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?
to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means
I got that, I dealt with that.
Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.
What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?
A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all?
We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.
Let's look:
Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. 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."
Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia.
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia.
A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".
When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.
So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.
at-will is at-will, baby. only the right wing, never gets it.States have laws regarding employment relationships. Employment at will is State law in most US States.On what grounds, in an at-will employment State?employment at will is not, time limited.
UE is.
By the rules of the states.
And unemployment compensation for quitters or never workers is law in none of them.
I'm not sure where the problem here is.
Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
Think about it from this perspective.
The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people. A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
It also means to simply be armed as well.
Heller upheld this interpretation
Er... right... whatever.
So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"?
The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment.
But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.
It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.
The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place.
I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today.
Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?
to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means
I got that, I dealt with that.
Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.
What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?
A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all?
We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.
Let's look:
Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. 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."
Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia.
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia.
A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".
When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.
So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.
it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service
Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)
The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.
The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment, is in the first clause. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.I'm not sure where the problem here is.
Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
Think about it from this perspective.
The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people. A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
It also means to simply be armed as well.
Heller upheld this interpretation
Er... right... whatever.
So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"?
The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment.
But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.
It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.
The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place.
I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today.
Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?
to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means
I got that, I dealt with that.
Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.
What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?
A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all?
We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.
Let's look:
Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. 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."
Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia.
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia.
A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".
When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.
So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.
it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service
Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)
The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.
