The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.

It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.

You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.

The SC overrules you. You're simply wrong.

The SC has upheld Presser, which says

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

 

[tycho1572]

 

[frigidweirdo]

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.

The 2nd does not call for a well-regulated militia. It calls for the government to keep its greasy, slimy hands of the people's guns.

We are getting machine guns without being in any well-regulated militia, and there is not a goddamn thing you can do about it but bitch, moan, and bellyache.

We have wiped the floor with your goose-stepping commie arguments and you still keep repeating the same bullshit. We can do this all day, but at some point:

No one's wiped the floor with my arguments, usually when people debate with me on the 2A, they start either insulting or simply stop talking because they can't find a single piece of evidence to back them up.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No one's wiped the floor with my arguments, usually when people debate with me on the 2A, they start either insulting or simply stop talking because they can't find a single piece of evidence to back them up.

Are you arguing that the right requires membership in a militia? I was talking to Dannyboy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No one's wiped the floor with my arguments, usually when people debate with me on the 2A, they start either insulting or simply stop talking because they can't find a single piece of evidence to back them up.

Are you arguing that the right requires membership in a militia? I was talking to Dannyboy.

No, I'm not. However your post implied that the right always defeat the left, in fact the right is very willing to ignore facts to fit its agenda on this issue.

The reality is the Dick Act made the unorganized militia in order for individuals to be in the militia without being in the National Guard. Therefore all males aged 18-45 are automatically in the militia anyway. They made this law because they knew the 2A protected the right to be in the militia (right to bear arms).

 

[Yarddog]

Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed

You are incorrect. Again.

when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;

My right does not require state or union.

defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment

You are incorrect. Again.

Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary

The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.

well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.

The right is the people's, not the militia's.

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed

You are incorrect. Again.

when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;

My right does not require state or union.

defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment

You are incorrect. Again.

Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary

The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.

well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.

The right is the people's, not the militia's.

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.

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 people have the right.
In a militia, not in a militia, well regulated, unregulated, poorly regulated or overregulated, the people have the right.

 

[Papageorgio]

And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed

You are incorrect. Again.

when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;

My right does not require state or union.

defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment

You are incorrect. Again.

Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary

The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.

well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.

Read the 2nd Amendment. See where the comma is placed. You can’t be as uneducated in the English language as you are trying to pretend.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed

You are incorrect. Again.

when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;

My right does not require state or union.

defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment

You are incorrect. Again.

Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary

The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.

well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.

Read the 2nd Amendment. See where the comma is placed. You can’t be as uneducated in the English language as you are trying to pretend.

When you consider all the weed he smokes, he's lost any previous education in English he may have once had.

 

[Crixus]

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed

You are incorrect. Again.

when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;

My right does not require state or union.

defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment

You are incorrect. Again.

Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary

The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.

well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.

Read the 2nd Amendment. See where the comma is placed. You can’t be as uneducated in the English language as you are trying to pretend.

When you consider all the weed he smokes, he's lost any previous education in English he may have once had.

Hey, stick to guns and leave the devils lettuce out of this.

 

[turtledude]

“It’s not about the Second Amendment.”

Faith Hill And Tim McGraw Take Aim At The NRA And Demand Gun Control

I agree! Thank you! It's good to hear from some country music stars who aren't batshit crazy.

why should anyone give flying fuck what they say. I don't read Guns and Ammo magazine to learn about country music so why would I listen to those two concerning gun issues?

 

[turtledude]

[
so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.

Look, I realize the computer science PHD candidate who created you doesn't speak English as his first, second or third language, but tell him to use a better chip so you actually sound like you are an attempt to ape an American human

 

[frigidweirdo]

“It’s not about the Second Amendment.”

Faith Hill And Tim McGraw Take Aim At The NRA And Demand Gun Control

I agree! Thank you! It's good to hear from some country music stars who aren't batshit crazy.

why should anyone give flying fuck what they say. I don't read Guns and Ammo magazine to learn about country music so why would I listen to those two concerning gun issues?

And why should anyone listen to you either?

 

[ChrisL]

“It’s not about the Second Amendment.”

Faith Hill And Tim McGraw Take Aim At The NRA And Demand Gun Control

I agree! Thank you! It's good to hear from some country music stars who aren't batshit crazy.

why should anyone give flying fuck what they say. I don't read Guns and Ammo magazine to learn about country music so why would I listen to those two concerning gun issues?

And why should anyone listen to you either?

Because he is an instructor and a coach for shooting sports and is a person with vast experience in firearms and safety.

 

[turtledude]

[



And why should anyone listen to you either?

uh because I was or still am

1) a licensed attorney for 33 years

2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ

3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment

4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams

5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component

6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert

that's why

 

[frigidweirdo]

[



And why should anyone listen to you either?

uh because I was or still am

1) a licensed attorney for 33 years

2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ

3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment

4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams

5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component

6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert

that's why

I still don't see why I should listen to you.

I think you're biased.

Do you think the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia or not?

 

[turtledude]

[



And why should anyone listen to you either?

uh because I was or still am

1) a licensed attorney for 33 years

2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ

3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment

4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams

5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component

6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert

that's why

I still don't see why I should listen to you.

I think you're biased.

Do you think the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia or not?

there is no right to be in the militia the right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment was a right they believe man was endowed with by the creator-the right of self defense and thus the right to be armed. You don't need to listen to me since I doubt you are able to comprehend the sort of stuff I post about

 

[frigidweirdo]

[



And why should anyone listen to you either?

uh because I was or still am

1) a licensed attorney for 33 years

2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ

3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment

4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams

5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component

6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert

that's why

I still don't see why I should listen to you.

I think you're biased.

Do you think the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia or not?

there is no right to be in the militia the right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment was a right they believe man was endowed with by the creator-the right of self defense and thus the right to be armed. You don't need to listen to me since I doubt you are able to comprehend the sort of stuff I post about

So here's me asking a question, how can a guy end up going to teach the Second Amendment at law schools when he doesn't know what the Amendment means?

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Have a look at this document. I'm seriously hoping you've seen this, I mean, you can't be teaching about the Second Amendment without having seen this.

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

This was what they were talking about. I assume you've seen this, it wasn't put into the Amendment at the end, and they give the reasoning why.

Now Mr Gerry said:

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

I've seen plenty of people ignore this, but no one has ever actually taken this information in and been able to come out the other side saying that "bear arms" in the 2A saying that it doesn't mean "militia duty".

It's pretty clear here that Mr Gerry is using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms", right?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Then you have Mr Jackson using the term "render military service" as synonymous to "bear arms".

Also Mr Jackson said:

"Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Now, are they talking about "bear arms" to mean people walking around with guns, or people serving in the militia? And if it is the former, then why would individuals who are opposed to walking around with guns have to pay an equivalent? Especially when it says "would have to defend the other in case of invasion"?

It all seems pretty clear.

Now, from a language point of view, "bear" CAN mean carry, right?

However "stool" can mean feces or it can mean wooden seat without a back.

So, if I say, "the doctor asked him to sit on the stool", we're going to think the second option, and if we say "the doctor asked to see his stool sample" we're going to think the former.

English language can have words mean the same thing, but CONTEXT tells us which is right and which is wrong.

The Second Amendment's context is "A well regulated militia", not "Joe wants a gun to go down to the shops", so why would it mean "carry" How does carrying a gun around with you protect the militia? It's simple, it doesn't.

Now, as a supposed Second Amendment Scholar, someone who talks to people in Law Schools about this, what do you think?

 

[turtledude]

[




So here's me asking a question, how can a guy end up going to teach the Second Amendment at law schools when he doesn't know what the Amendment means?

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Have a look at this document. I'm seriously hoping you've seen this, I mean, you can't be teaching about the Second Amendment without having seen this.

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

This was what they were talking about. I assume you've seen this, it wasn't put into the Amendment at the end, and they give the reasoning why.

Now Mr Gerry said:

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

I've seen plenty of people ignore this, but no one has ever actually taken this information in and been able to come out the other side saying that "bear arms" in the 2A saying that it doesn't mean "militia duty".

It's pretty clear here that Mr Gerry is using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms", right?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Then you have Mr Jackson using the term "render military service" as synonymous to "bear arms".

Also Mr Jackson said:

"Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Now, are they talking about "bear arms" to mean people walking around with guns, or people serving in the militia? And if it is the former, then why would individuals who are opposed to walking around with guns have to pay an equivalent? Especially when it says "would have to defend the other in case of invasion"?

It all seems pretty clear.

Now, from a language point of view, "bear" CAN mean carry, right?

However "stool" can mean feces or it can mean wooden seat without a back.

So, if I say, "the doctor asked him to sit on the stool", we're going to think the second option, and if we say "the doctor asked to see his stool sample" we're going to think the former.

English language can have words mean the same thing, but CONTEXT tells us which is right and which is wrong.

The Second Amendment's context is "A well regulated militia", not "Joe wants a gun to go down to the shops", so why would it mean "carry" How does carrying a gun around with you protect the militia? It's simple, it doesn't.

Now, as a supposed Second Amendment Scholar, someone who talks to people in Law Schools about this, what do you think?

who exactly did you quote is an actual legal scholar? you apparently have no clue what you are talking about. the second amendment was merely recognizing a pre-existing right that man had from the dawn of time and to say it has something to do with the "right" to be in government service is beyond stupid

could you point me to your article from the Yale Law Journal or a similar publication where you set this theory out?

 

[ChrisL]

[



And why should anyone listen to you either?

uh because I was or still am

1) a licensed attorney for 33 years

2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ

3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment

4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams

5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component

6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert

that's why

I still don't see why I should listen to you.

I think you're biased.

Do you think the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia or not?

there is no right to be in the militia the right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment was a right they believe man was endowed with by the creator-the right of self defense and thus the right to be armed. You don't need to listen to me since I doubt you are able to comprehend the sort of stuff I post about

So here's me asking a question, how can a guy end up going to teach the Second Amendment at law schools when he doesn't know what the Amendment means?

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Have a look at this document. I'm seriously hoping you've seen this, I mean, you can't be teaching about the Second Amendment without having seen this.

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

This was what they were talking about. I assume you've seen this, it wasn't put into the Amendment at the end, and they give the reasoning why.

Now Mr Gerry said:

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

I've seen plenty of people ignore this, but no one has ever actually taken this information in and been able to come out the other side saying that "bear arms" in the 2A saying that it doesn't mean "militia duty".

It's pretty clear here that Mr Gerry is using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms", right?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Then you have Mr Jackson using the term "render military service" as synonymous to "bear arms".

Also Mr Jackson said:

"Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Now, are they talking about "bear arms" to mean people walking around with guns, or people serving in the militia? And if it is the former, then why would individuals who are opposed to walking around with guns have to pay an equivalent? Especially when it says "would have to defend the other in case of invasion"?

It all seems pretty clear.

Now, from a language point of view, "bear" CAN mean carry, right?

However "stool" can mean feces or it can mean wooden seat without a back.

So, if I say, "the doctor asked him to sit on the stool", we're going to think the second option, and if we say "the doctor asked to see his stool sample" we're going to think the former.

English language can have words mean the same thing, but CONTEXT tells us which is right and which is wrong.

The Second Amendment's context is "A well regulated militia", not "Joe wants a gun to go down to the shops", so why would it mean "carry" How does carrying a gun around with you protect the militia? It's simple, it doesn't.

Now, as a supposed Second Amendment Scholar, someone who talks to people in Law Schools about this, what do you think?

If you had ever bothered to read up on the founders' intent on the 2nd amendment, they made it quite CLEAR what they meant in the federalist papers. That every individual has a RIGHT to bear arms for hunting, for self defense, for defense of the nation. Every able bodied citizen was considered a part of the "militia" back then. They didn't want to have a central army controlled by the feds!