The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

On what grounds, in an at-will employment State?

By the rules of the states.

States have laws regarding employment relationships. Employment at will is State law in most US States.

And unemployment compensation for quitters or never workers is law in none of them.

at-will is at-will, baby. only the right wing, never gets it.

And unemployed, not getting a check is unemployed, not getting a check.
Only lazy morons never get it.

employment at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By the rules of the states.

States have laws regarding employment relationships. Employment at will is State law in most US States.

And unemployment compensation for quitters or never workers is law in none of them.

at-will is at-will, baby. only the right wing, never gets it.

And unemployed, not getting a check is unemployed, not getting a check.
Only lazy morons never get it.

employment at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes.

employment at the will of either party, not just the employer,

Absolutely!!

for unemployment compensation purposes

Never!!

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Wait, which time when I said it's individual DID YOU NOT GET? You're clearly not reading what I write.

You're throwing quotes at me for no reason. We're not debating whether it's individual or not because you say it's individual, and I say it's individual, and yet you seem to feel comfortable arguing that it's individual, but who the fuck are you arguing with?

Get with the program dude, reply to WHAT I WRITE.

your saying a person does not have the right to carry a firearm unless it's in service to the militia

if you can only carry a firearm while serving in the militia it is not an individual right

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Wait, which time when I said it's individual DID YOU NOT GET? You're clearly not reading what I write.

You're throwing quotes at me for no reason. We're not debating whether it's individual or not because you say it's individual, and I say it's individual, and yet you seem to feel comfortable arguing that it's individual, but who the fuck are you arguing with?

Get with the program dude, reply to WHAT I WRITE.

your saying a person does not have the right to carry a firearm unless it's in service to the militia

if you can only carry a firearm while serving in the militia it is not an individual right

No, I did not. A person doesn't have a right to carry a firearm at all.

The right is the right to be in the militia, not the right to carry a firearm.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms

To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.

What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?

Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms

To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.

What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?

Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.

keep and bear

own and carry

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms

To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.

What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?

Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.

there was an acknowledged right to self preservation by the framers

 

[Skull Pilot]

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. A

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms

To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.

What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?

Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.

keep and bear

own and carry

Haven't we done this TWICE already?

Stool...

"A piece of feces."

Does this mean whenever someone writes stool that it always means a piece of feces? No, it doesn't.

Just because something CAN mean something, doesn't mean it DOES mean something.

And again, you've provided NO EVIDENCE for any of this. You've seen what the founding fathers said, and you've seen that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty", so what's the problem?

I know the problem is that the truth is inconvenient for you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms

To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.

What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?

Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.

there was an acknowledged right to self preservation by the framers

Okay. So what does this have to do with the Second Amendment?

What does a right to self defense have to do with the Second Amendment.

We're not discussing whether there's a right to self defense, I think both of us acknowledge this is the case.

You CAN carry guns in many parts of the US, depending on STATE LAW and sometimes federal law too. Just because you CAN DO SOMETHING doesn't mean it's protected by the Second Amendment.

Let's make it easy, i ask questions, you answer yes or no.

Does the Second Amendment say anything about a right to self defense?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms

To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.

What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?

Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.

keep and bear

own and carry

Haven't we done this TWICE already?

Stool...

"A piece of feces."

Does this mean whenever someone writes stool that it always means a piece of feces? No, it doesn't.

Just because something CAN mean something, doesn't mean it DOES mean something.

And again, you've provided NO EVIDENCE for any of this. You've seen what the founding fathers said, and you've seen that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty", so what's the problem?

I know the problem is that the truth is inconvenient for you.

and you are the authority on what it does mean huh?

tell me then why is the word Arms in the second capitalized if it is part of the phrase bear arms which you say means exclusively military service?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms

To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.

What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?

Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.

there was an acknowledged right to self preservation by the framers

Okay. So what does this have to do with the Second Amendment?

What does a right to self defense have to do with the Second Amendment.

We're not discussing whether there's a right to self defense, I think both of us acknowledge this is the case.

You CAN carry guns in many parts of the US, depending on STATE LAW and sometimes federal law too. Just because you CAN DO SOMETHING doesn't mean it's protected by the Second Amendment.

Let's make it easy, i ask questions, you answer yes or no.

Does the Second Amendment say anything about a right to self defense?

there was an acknowledged right to use firearms for self defense

 

[frigidweirdo]

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. A

First, you'd have been better of going to the actual source of Blackstone's commentaries, rather than quoting someone interpreting something.

Amendment II: William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:139

"5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law."

"arms for their defence"

What does this say? Does this say arms for their own personal defence, or arms for their defence as a collective unit?

"and such as are allowed by law."

What does this say? Well, it says it's not a right. If it were a right, then no law could prevent it, but he's saying that the law can impose on this "right"...

Basically what you have there, if you'd have gone to the source first

You source says "
Clearly evident in this statement is Blackstone's recognition that the exercise of an individual's absolute rights could be imperiled by a standing army as well as by private individuals,"

Which again implies that this is about a collective self defense of the militia, rather than individual personal self defense.

Though the issue here the Second Amendment and NOT the right to self defense, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Skull Pilot]

the ninth amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms

To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.

What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?

Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.

keep and bear

own and carry

Haven't we done this TWICE already?

Stool...

"A piece of feces."

Does this mean whenever someone writes stool that it always means a piece of feces? No, it doesn't.

Just because something CAN mean something, doesn't mean it DOES mean something.

And again, you've provided NO EVIDENCE for any of this. You've seen what the founding fathers said, and you've seen that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty", so what's the problem?

I know the problem is that the truth is inconvenient for you.

and you are the authority on what it does mean huh?

tell me then why is the word Arms in the second capitalized if it is part of the phrase bear arms which you say means exclusively military service?

Wow wow wow. Stop with this shit. I'm not going to talk to you on this if you start using crappy deflecting nonsense like "and you are the authority on what it does mean huh?"

I'm here, I'm making my case, I'm backing it up with evidence and I have been VERY PATIENT with you, so don't go there.

Why is the word Arms capitalized?

Well maybe someone got bored.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

You can look at it closer on that link.

It's larger, and it would appear to be capitalized if you look at the first "a" in the text, but different from the modern "A".

However look at the text, "Militia" is capitalized. "State" is capitalized. Why? I have no idea. It certainly doesn't follow the rules of modern English, but this wasn't modern English.

The first amendment has "Government" capitalized, the Third has "Soldier" capitalized as well as "Owner".

Why? It would seem to be style. Certainly it doesn't seem to have any meaning whatsoever, unless of course you can enlighten me on it.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Certainly through the process of discussing the future Amendment, they didn't capitalize it at all:

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

Though I don't have the original image at hand.

But you just seem to be digging at something, and I feel that you don't actually have anything.

But again, a question:

In the discussions in the House for the future Second Amendment, did the founders use "bear arms" synonymously with anything other than "render military service" and "Militia duty"?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms

To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.

What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?

Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.

there was an acknowledged right to self preservation by the framers

Okay. So what does this have to do with the Second Amendment?

What does a right to self defense have to do with the Second Amendment.

We're not discussing whether there's a right to self defense, I think both of us acknowledge this is the case.

You CAN carry guns in many parts of the US, depending on STATE LAW and sometimes federal law too. Just because you CAN DO SOMETHING doesn't mean it's protected by the Second Amendment.

Let's make it easy, i ask questions, you answer yes or no.

Does the Second Amendment say anything about a right to self defense?

there was an acknowledged right to use firearms for self defense

So what? What's your point here? What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?

 

[frigidweirdo]

the ninth amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second

Oh my God, your arguments are getting worse and worse.

First, the Constitution concerns the Federal Govt, sorry to tell you but I am not the Federal Govt. I cannot infringe on your Second Amendment rights, only the govt can. This is something so fundamental, that I can't believe you even said it.

I can interpret things however I like and it will not violate any constitutional right EVER.

Second, this Amendment basically says that A) these Amendments are LIMITS on Federal power, and B) that just because something isn't in this Bill of Rights, it doesn't mean it's not a right, and it doesn't mean the Federal govt has the power to infringe upon that right.

Again, there's no fucking way in hell I can infringe or violate your right through this. It's about the govt.

 

[Skull Pilot]

the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms

To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.

What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?

Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.

there was an acknowledged right to self preservation by the framers

Okay. So what does this have to do with the Second Amendment?

What does a right to self defense have to do with the Second Amendment.

We're not discussing whether there's a right to self defense, I think both of us acknowledge this is the case.

You CAN carry guns in many parts of the US, depending on STATE LAW and sometimes federal law too. Just because you CAN DO SOMETHING doesn't mean it's protected by the Second Amendment.

Let's make it easy, i ask questions, you answer yes or no.

Does the Second Amendment say anything about a right to self defense?

there was an acknowledged right to use firearms for self defense

So what? What's your point here? What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?

you say the second does not give anyone the right to carry a gun for self defense

I disagree but the ninth also states the people retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution
and there was an acknowledged right to self defense and self preservation not specifically mentioned in the Constitution

so carrying a gun that you have the right to own for self defense is a right of the people as well

 

[Skull Pilot]

the ninth amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second

Oh my God, your arguments are getting worse and worse.

First, the Constitution concerns the Federal Govt, sorry to tell you but I am not the Federal Govt. I cannot infringe on your Second Amendment rights, only the govt can. This is something so fundamental, that I can't believe you even said it.

I can interpret things however I like and it will not violate any constitutional right EVER.

Second, this Amendment basically says that A) these Amendments are LIMITS on Federal power, and B) that just because something isn't in this Bill of Rights, it doesn't mean it's not a right, and it doesn't mean the Federal govt has the power to infringe upon that right.

Again, there's no fucking way in hell I can infringe or violate your right through this. It's about the govt.

where did I say anything about YOU violating my rights?
Your interpretation of the second violates the ninth by saying a right doesn't exist simply because it's not specifically mentioned

and the point of the second is that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms