The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

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

You disagree because..... what evidence do you have to disagree? Because you've presented NO evidence of this.

Yes, the NINTH (The ninth amendment is not the Second Amendment) says there are other rights, like the right to self defense, which are still rights no matter that they haven't been included in the Bill of Rights.

The question is this: Is it possible to defend yourself without a gun?

Second question is this: If you can defend yourself with something, does it automatically get protected under the Ninth Amendment?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

You disagree because..... what evidence do you have to disagree? Because you've presented NO evidence of this.

Yes, the NINTH (The ninth amendment is not the Second Amendment) says there are other rights, like the right to self defense, which are still rights no matter that they haven't been included in the Bill of Rights.

The question is this: Is it possible to defend yourself without a gun?

Second question is this: If you can defend yourself with something, does it automatically get protected under the Ninth Amendment?

It is up to the individual to decide what means are best to defend himself

 

[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.

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

Where did you say anything about me violating your rights?

HERE: "you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second"

Okay, so I have a right to kill you. If you say it isn't so, you're violating the ninth. Are we in agreement?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

You disagree because..... what evidence do you have to disagree? Because you've presented NO evidence of this.

Yes, the NINTH (The ninth amendment is not the Second Amendment) says there are other rights, like the right to self defense, which are still rights no matter that they haven't been included in the Bill of Rights.

The question is this: Is it possible to defend yourself without a gun?

Second question is this: If you can defend yourself with something, does it automatically get protected under the Ninth Amendment?

It is up to the individual to decide what means are best to defend himself

You didn't answer my question.

If you can defend yourself with something, does that object suddenly become protected?

 

[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

Where did you say anything about me violating your rights?

HERE: "you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second"

Okay, so I have a right to kill you. If you say it isn't so, you're violating the ninth. Are we in agreement?

I never said you violated my rights I said your interpretation of one amendment violates another amendment

you have no power to violate my rights

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

You disagree because..... what evidence do you have to disagree? Because you've presented NO evidence of this.

Yes, the NINTH (The ninth amendment is not the Second Amendment) says there are other rights, like the right to self defense, which are still rights no matter that they haven't been included in the Bill of Rights.

The question is this: Is it possible to defend yourself without a gun?

Second question is this: If you can defend yourself with something, does it automatically get protected under the Ninth Amendment?

It is up to the individual to decide what means are best to defend himself

You didn't answer my question.

If you can defend yourself with something, does that object suddenly become protected?

It should

 

[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.

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

Where did you say anything about me violating your rights?

HERE: "you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second"

Okay, so I have a right to kill you. If you say it isn't so, you're violating the ninth. Are we in agreement?

I never said you violated my rights I said your interpretation of one amendment violates another amendment

you have no power to violate my rights

How can I violate an Amendment of the Bill of Rights? I'm not part of the Federal govt.

Second, if I'm violating the Amendment, and the Amendment is about rights, then what am I violating? It must be rights. And I'd assume that if there is a right and EVERYONE has that right, then I'm violating YOUR right.

I have lots of power to violate your rights, thank you.

I can kill you. That power alone takes away ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

You disagree because..... what evidence do you have to disagree? Because you've presented NO evidence of this.

Yes, the NINTH (The ninth amendment is not the Second Amendment) says there are other rights, like the right to self defense, which are still rights no matter that they haven't been included in the Bill of Rights.

The question is this: Is it possible to defend yourself without a gun?

Second question is this: If you can defend yourself with something, does it automatically get protected under the Ninth Amendment?

It is up to the individual to decide what means are best to defend himself

You didn't answer my question.

If you can defend yourself with something, does that object suddenly become protected?

It should

"It should" means it doesn't/ Right, thank you.

So, if an object doesn't automatically get protected simply because you can defend yourself with it, does this mean that the right to self defense protects your right to own a weapon? The answer is no. The right to keep arms protects your right to own a weapon, not the right to self defense. Why? Because the right to self defense is the right to defend yourself, not the right to own things. It's an ACTION, not ownership.

 

[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

Where did you say anything about me violating your rights?

HERE: "you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second"

Okay, so I have a right to kill you. If you say it isn't so, you're violating the ninth. Are we in agreement?

I never said you violated my rights I said your interpretation of one amendment violates another amendment

you have no power to violate my rights

How can I violate an Amendment of the Bill of Rights? I'm not part of the Federal govt.

Second, if I'm violating the Amendment, and the Amendment is about rights, then what am I violating? It must be rights. And I'd assume that if there is a right and EVERYONE has that right, then I'm violating YOUR right.

I have lots of power to violate your rights, thank you.

I can kill you. That power alone takes away ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS.

fine

your interpretation of the second contradicts the ninth

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

You disagree because..... what evidence do you have to disagree? Because you've presented NO evidence of this.

Yes, the NINTH (The ninth amendment is not the Second Amendment) says there are other rights, like the right to self defense, which are still rights no matter that they haven't been included in the Bill of Rights.

The question is this: Is it possible to defend yourself without a gun?

Second question is this: If you can defend yourself with something, does it automatically get protected under the Ninth Amendment?

It is up to the individual to decide what means are best to defend himself

You didn't answer my question.

If you can defend yourself with something, does that object suddenly become protected?

It should

"It should" means it doesn't/ Right, thank you.

So, if an object doesn't automatically get protected simply because you can defend yourself with it, does this mean that the right to self defense protects your right to own a weapon? The answer is no. The right to keep arms protects your right to own a weapon, not the right to self defense. Why? Because the right to self defense is the right to defend yourself, not the right to own things. It's an ACTION, not ownership.

I already have the right to own a firearm and you acknowledged that right

using a firearm is an action of self defense

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Where did you say anything about me violating your rights?

HERE: "you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second"

Okay, so I have a right to kill you. If you say it isn't so, you're violating the ninth. Are we in agreement?

I never said you violated my rights I said your interpretation of one amendment violates another amendment

you have no power to violate my rights

How can I violate an Amendment of the Bill of Rights? I'm not part of the Federal govt.

Second, if I'm violating the Amendment, and the Amendment is about rights, then what am I violating? It must be rights. And I'd assume that if there is a right and EVERYONE has that right, then I'm violating YOUR right.

I have lots of power to violate your rights, thank you.

I can kill you. That power alone takes away ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS.

fine

your interpretation of the second contradicts the ninth

But it doesn't. How can it contradict the ninth?

Again, the CONSTITUTION is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The Bill of Rights LIMITS FEDERAL POWER.

The Constitution itself tells the govt what powers it has and doesn't have.

I AM NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Where did you say anything about me violating your rights?

HERE: "you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second"

Okay, so I have a right to kill you. If you say it isn't so, you're violating the ninth. Are we in agreement?

I never said you violated my rights I said your interpretation of one amendment violates another amendment

you have no power to violate my rights

How can I violate an Amendment of the Bill of Rights? I'm not part of the Federal govt.

Second, if I'm violating the Amendment, and the Amendment is about rights, then what am I violating? It must be rights. And I'd assume that if there is a right and EVERYONE has that right, then I'm violating YOUR right.

I have lots of power to violate your rights, thank you.

I can kill you. That power alone takes away ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS.

fine

your interpretation of the second contradicts the ninth

But it doesn't. How can it contradict the ninth?

Again, the CONSTITUTION is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The Bill of Rights LIMITS FEDERAL POWER.

The Constitution itself tells the govt what powers it has and doesn't have.

I AM NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

you say there is no right to carry a gun

The ninth specifically states not all rights of the people are listed in the constitutions so there is a right to carry a weapon

 

[frigidweirdo]

You disagree because..... what evidence do you have to disagree? Because you've presented NO evidence of this.

Yes, the NINTH (The ninth amendment is not the Second Amendment) says there are other rights, like the right to self defense, which are still rights no matter that they haven't been included in the Bill of Rights.

The question is this: Is it possible to defend yourself without a gun?

Second question is this: If you can defend yourself with something, does it automatically get protected under the Ninth Amendment?

It is up to the individual to decide what means are best to defend himself

You didn't answer my question.

If you can defend yourself with something, does that object suddenly become protected?

It should

"It should" means it doesn't/ Right, thank you.

So, if an object doesn't automatically get protected simply because you can defend yourself with it, does this mean that the right to self defense protects your right to own a weapon? The answer is no. The right to keep arms protects your right to own a weapon, not the right to self defense. Why? Because the right to self defense is the right to defend yourself, not the right to own things. It's an ACTION, not ownership.

I already have the right to own a firearm and you acknowledged that right

using a firearm is an action of self defense

Okay... and you're putting 2 and 2 together and making 64.... so..... what?

You have the right to own a gun.

The state you are in might say you are allowed to carry your gun unconcealed. They might say you're allowed to carry it concealed. So what? What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?

Again, just because something isn't protected, doesn't mean you can't do it.

You can legally use guns to defend yourself in many places. That does not mean you have a right to carry guns. It means you're legally ALLOWED to carry guns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Where did you say anything about me violating your rights?

HERE: "you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second"

Okay, so I have a right to kill you. If you say it isn't so, you're violating the ninth. Are we in agreement?

I never said you violated my rights I said your interpretation of one amendment violates another amendment

you have no power to violate my rights

How can I violate an Amendment of the Bill of Rights? I'm not part of the Federal govt.

Second, if I'm violating the Amendment, and the Amendment is about rights, then what am I violating? It must be rights. And I'd assume that if there is a right and EVERYONE has that right, then I'm violating YOUR right.

I have lots of power to violate your rights, thank you.

I can kill you. That power alone takes away ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS.

fine

your interpretation of the second contradicts the ninth

But it doesn't. How can it contradict the ninth?

Again, the CONSTITUTION is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The Bill of Rights LIMITS FEDERAL POWER.

The Constitution itself tells the govt what powers it has and doesn't have.

I AM NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

you say there is no right to carry a gun

The ninth specifically states not all rights of the people are listed in the constitutions so there is a right to carry a weapon

Yes it does.

However you've jumped from that, to somehow I'm contradicting the amendment.

I say there's a right to kill you. Does that make it so? Who decides whether there's a right or not? You? No.....

The reality is that rights are fictional in the first place. They exist because we exist, we make them exist. In the UK there is not considered to be a right to keep and bear arms, but the US says there is, and says all people in the world have it.

Does that mean the right exists in the UK? Not really, it doesn't exist at all, expect on paper.

So it's about law. A right is something higher than the law, the govt can't just change it tomorrow, it takes time.

So, does the govt give you a right to carry arms? No, it does not.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I never said you violated my rights I said your interpretation of one amendment violates another amendment

you have no power to violate my rights

How can I violate an Amendment of the Bill of Rights? I'm not part of the Federal govt.

Second, if I'm violating the Amendment, and the Amendment is about rights, then what am I violating? It must be rights. And I'd assume that if there is a right and EVERYONE has that right, then I'm violating YOUR right.

I have lots of power to violate your rights, thank you.

I can kill you. That power alone takes away ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS.

fine

your interpretation of the second contradicts the ninth

But it doesn't. How can it contradict the ninth?

Again, the CONSTITUTION is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The Bill of Rights LIMITS FEDERAL POWER.

The Constitution itself tells the govt what powers it has and doesn't have.

I AM NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

you say there is no right to carry a gun

The ninth specifically states not all rights of the people are listed in the constitutions so there is a right to carry a weapon

Yes it does.

However you've jumped from that, to somehow I'm contradicting the amendment.

I say there's a right to kill you. Does that make it so? Who decides whether there's a right or not? You? No.....

The reality is that rights are fictional in the first place. They exist because we exist, we make them exist. In the UK there is not considered to be a right to keep and bear arms, but the US says there is, and says all people in the world have it.

Does that mean the right exists in the UK? Not really, it doesn't exist at all, expect on paper.

So it's about law. A right is something higher than the law, the govt can't just change it tomorrow, it takes time.

So, does the govt give you a right to carry arms? No, it does not.

look it's your opinion that people don't have the right to carry a gun

I disagree.

I have the right to keep a gun there is no restriction on where I may keep that gun so I can keep it on my person or IOW bear arms

 

[frigidweirdo]

How can I violate an Amendment of the Bill of Rights? I'm not part of the Federal govt.

Second, if I'm violating the Amendment, and the Amendment is about rights, then what am I violating? It must be rights. And I'd assume that if there is a right and EVERYONE has that right, then I'm violating YOUR right.

I have lots of power to violate your rights, thank you.

I can kill you. That power alone takes away ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS.

fine

your interpretation of the second contradicts the ninth

But it doesn't. How can it contradict the ninth?

Again, the CONSTITUTION is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The Bill of Rights LIMITS FEDERAL POWER.

The Constitution itself tells the govt what powers it has and doesn't have.

I AM NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

you say there is no right to carry a gun

The ninth specifically states not all rights of the people are listed in the constitutions so there is a right to carry a weapon

Yes it does.

However you've jumped from that, to somehow I'm contradicting the amendment.

I say there's a right to kill you. Does that make it so? Who decides whether there's a right or not? You? No.....

The reality is that rights are fictional in the first place. They exist because we exist, we make them exist. In the UK there is not considered to be a right to keep and bear arms, but the US says there is, and says all people in the world have it.

Does that mean the right exists in the UK? Not really, it doesn't exist at all, expect on paper.

So it's about law. A right is something higher than the law, the govt can't just change it tomorrow, it takes time.

So, does the govt give you a right to carry arms? No, it does not.

look it's your opinion that people don't have the right to carry a gun

I disagree.

I have the right to keep a gun there is no restriction on where I may keep that gun so I can keep it on my person or IOW bear arms

Okay, it's my opinion based on LOTS OF FACTS, and it's your opinion it's not based on NOTHING.

There's the difference.

You have what you want to believe is true, nothing shows you that what you want to believe is true, so you just ignore the facts and go with what you want.

Yes, you have the right to OWN a weapon, and your govt doesn't restrict where you take it. But somehow you equate being able to do something as a protected right. Maybe you should become a wizard or something, they're good at making stuff out of nothing, I've heard.

 

[danielpalos]

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!!

should we ask for truth in legislative advertising in "at-will employment States" and "right to work States"?

 

[usmbguest5318]

OT:
The right time to bare arms will be upon us soon enough in the Northern Hemisphere.

I'm sure Trumpkins will be more than happy to avail themselves of that opportunity.

 

[danielpalos]

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

The right to not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, only belongs to well regulated militia of the whole and entire People. There are no, Individual rights in our Second Amendment.

Natural rights such as defense of Self and private Property, is secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[danielpalos]

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

No, it isn't. The Intent and Purpose for the Second Clause, is in the First Clause.

Our Second Article of Amendment, "leads from the front, not from the rear".