The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

[




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?

Haha, nice deflection, but I'm not buying it. Like I said, most people try and slip and slide out of this.

I expected you to spend a little more time on it.

This is a document FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS>

Come on, let's have a go. This is MY ARGUMENT, I'm not pointing to someone else's argument. This is mine. You think your "legal expertise" is better than mine, then bring it on. Or do you feel that I've just shown you something you don't know and you want to hide?

What do you think the Founding Fathers thought "bear arms" meant?

 

[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?

Haha, nice deflection, but I'm not buying it. Like I said, most people try and slip and slide out of this.

I expected you to spend a little more time on it.

This is a document FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS>

Come on, let's have a go. This is MY ARGUMENT, I'm not pointing to someone else's argument. This is mine. You think your "legal expertise" is better than mine, then bring it on. Or do you feel that I've just shown you something you don't know and you want to hide?

What do you think the Founding Fathers thought "bear arms" meant?

why are you ignoring "Keep"

I have a great idea-I have stated what the second amendment means every leading scholar of the time-St George Tucker being the most prominent, agrees that it was an individual right Every major constitutional scholar today does too-Van Alstpyne, Calabresi, Amar, Levinson, Volokh Koppel and even Laurence Tribe.

so what do you claim it was

why would the citizens need a bill of rights provision saying they can serve in the federal army?

 

[turtledude]

BTW frigidweirdo-do you have a law degree?

 

[ChrisL]

BTW frigidweirdo-do you have a law degree?

They don't need no stinkin degrees!

 

[Lakhota]

[



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

Damn, you're right up there with Dale Smith - another world class windbag.

 

[ChrisL]

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

 

[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

Damn, you're right up there with Dale Smith - another world class windbag.

Why? He is just showing that he is more informed on the matter than many of you will ever be. He has probably forgotten more than you will ever know. Lol. So, now you have someone who actually knows what he is talking about and you don't like that. Surprising.

 

[Lakhota]

[



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

Damn, you're right up there with Dale Smith - another world class windbag.

Why? He is just showing that he is more informed on the matter than many of you will ever be. He has probably forgotten more than you will ever know. Lol. So, now you have someone who actually knows what he is talking about and you don't like that. Surprising.

Duh, this ain't my first rodeo with turtledud.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[



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

Damn, you're right up there with Dale Smith - another world class windbag.

Why? He is just showing that he is more informed on the matter than many of you will ever be. He has probably forgotten more than you will ever know. Lol. So, now you have someone who actually knows what he is talking about and you don't like that. Surprising.

Yes – everyone on the internet is truthful and honest, they are exactly who they day they are…

 

[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

Damn, you're right up there with Dale Smith - another world class windbag.

Why? He is just showing that he is more informed on the matter than many of you will ever be. He has probably forgotten more than you will ever know. Lol. So, now you have someone who actually knows what he is talking about and you don't like that. Surprising.

Yes – everyone on the internet is truthful and honest, they are exactly who they day they are…

I've known and been friends with TurtleDude for about 5 years.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

From your link:

‘Notwithstanding the lengthy opinions in Heller and McDonald, they technically ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes. Heller tentatively suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”’

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

The Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

It also reaffirms the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that government has the authority to enact regulatory measures with regard to firearms, provided those measures comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The problem is that there are far too many on the right who harbor the ridiculous, wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment is ‘absolute,’ opposing reasonable, appropriate, and Constitutional regulatory measures, and attempting to justify that opposition with inane lies and baseless slippery slope fallacies.

 

[ChrisL]

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

From your link:

‘Notwithstanding the lengthy opinions in Heller and McDonald, they technically ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes. Heller tentatively suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”’

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

The Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

It also reaffirms the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that government has the authority to enact regulatory measures with regard to firearms, provided those measures comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The problem is that there are far too many on the right who harbor the ridiculous, wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment is ‘absolute,’ opposing reasonable, appropriate, and Constitutional regulatory measures, and attempting to justify that opposition with inane lies and baseless slippery slope fallacies.

the founders are CLEAR about why they enacted the second amendment and the bill of rights. To LIMIT the federal government. These are considered natural human rights. It is my right to use a firearm to defend myself and my property, no matter how frightened you are. Your fear is irrelevant when it comes to our rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Americans overwhelmingly support universal background checks, including a majority of gun owners:

RELEASE: Gun Owners Overwhelmingly Support Background Checks, See NRA as Out of Touch, New Poll Finds - Center for American Progress

Universal background checks have been upheld as Constitutional by the courts, yet the NRA continues to oppose UBCs for no valid, logical reason.

Current Federal firearm law allows for intrastate firearm transactions between two state residents to be conducted absent a background check.

Although legal, private intrastate firearm sales increase the likelihood of prohibited persons obtaining a firearm, which would otherwise be prevented if private intrastate transactions required a form 4473 and NICS database review.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[




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?

Haha, nice deflection, but I'm not buying it. Like I said, most people try and slip and slide out of this.

I expected you to spend a little more time on it.

This is a document FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS>

Come on, let's have a go. This is MY ARGUMENT, I'm not pointing to someone else's argument. This is mine. You think your "legal expertise" is better than mine, then bring it on. Or do you feel that I've just shown you something you don't know and you want to hide?

What do you think the Founding Fathers thought "bear arms" meant?

why are you ignoring "Keep"

I have a great idea-I have stated what the second amendment means every leading scholar of the time-St George Tucker being the most prominent, agrees that it was an individual right Every major constitutional scholar today does too-Van Alstpyne, Calabresi, Amar, Levinson, Volokh Koppel and even Laurence Tribe.

so what do you claim it was

why would the citizens need a bill of rights provision saying they can serve in the federal army?

I'm not ignoring "keep", I'm just not talking about keep.

I've asked you questions, I've asked TWICE NOW, and you CLAIM to be a legal scholar who goes into law schools and your first response "do you have anything from a legal scholar?" and the second one is "why do you ignore keep?"

Why don't you answer the questions? In theory, being so knowledgeable, this should be easy. So why are you deflecting?

 

[frigidweirdo]

BTW frigidweirdo-do you have a law degree?

Does it matter whether I have a law degree or not?

For one, I'm not going to tell you, for the simple reason that people on forums like this jump on anything you say and use it to attack. I won't give you that pleasure.

I have an argument. My argument is pretty solid, you seemingly can't get past it and you claim all these high credentials....

So you either can deal with my argument, or you can't.

I ask again, what do you think the Founding Fathers think "bear arms" means?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I ask again, what do you think the Founding Fathers think "bear arms" means

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To bear means many things.

It could mean produce, as in "bear fruit"

It could mean give information or speak, as in "bear testimony" or "bear witness"

But, the only reasonable contextual meaning of "bear arms" is "carry guns."

I would love to hear a retarded argument that it means something else. Can't wait for this one.

I can see it now:

Dannyboy: "Bear only means, when two well-regulated militia love each other, they sometime express that love in a physical way. 9 months later..."

 

[2aguy]

Americans overwhelmingly support universal background checks, including a majority of gun owners:

RELEASE: Gun Owners Overwhelmingly Support Background Checks, See NRA as Out of Touch, New Poll Finds - Center for American Progress

Universal background checks have been upheld as Constitutional by the courts, yet the NRA continues to oppose UBCs for no valid, logical reason.

Current Federal firearm law allows for intrastate firearm transactions between two state residents to be conducted absent a background check.

Although legal, private intrastate firearm sales increase the likelihood of prohibited persons obtaining a firearm, which would otherwise be prevented if private intrastate transactions required a form 4473 and NICS database review.

Yeah...Americans who have no idea what Background checks mean. If you poll those same people, most of them probably think we don't have any background checks.......

There is a valid reason to oppose universal background checks, the only way they can pretend to make them work is with universal gun registration......and that is the last step the anti gunners need to ban and confiscate guns when they get enough political power.

And no, criminals do not get their guns from private sales...they get them from stealing, or buy using people who can pass a background check and they buy them from gun stores, where they have to pass the current federal background check.....

That you continue to push these lies shows that you are a vile person....

 

[2aguy]

[



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?

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".



You mean except for the Supreme Court? Except for them...right?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf



Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

--------------



We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---



3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

-----------




-------------

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8

It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit.

Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”




As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”



-----------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

-------------------------------
participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

Page 19

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
---------

 

[2aguy]

[



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?

You don't know what you are talking about.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Page 19.....

A pre exisitng right

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16