The Right To Bear Arms

[sakinago]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.

An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.

There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).

All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...

... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...

... and the threat of overkill firepower...

... for the average citizen.

/—-/ and who, pray tell, will make that decision?

 

[2aguy]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.

An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.

There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).

All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?

And had Europe not disarmed their people, the Germans could never have launched World War 2.....they could never have held the territory they captured if they faced half a million armed, pissed off locals in every country.

 

[sakinago]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.

An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.

There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).

All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?

And had Europe not disarmed their people, the Germans could never have launched World War 2.....they could never have held the territory they captured if they faced half a million armed, pissed off locals in every country.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

Rudyard Kipling, Gods of the Copybook Headings.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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..."

The funniest one is to give birth, apparently the right think you have a right to give birth to guns.

 

[Cellblock2429]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.

An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.

There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).

All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?

And had Europe not disarmed their people, the Germans could never have launched World War 2.....they could never have held the territory they captured if they faced half a million armed, pissed off locals in every country.

/—-/ So true. After WWI, Britan banned guns. When the Germans attacked 20 years later, they had to beg the US for any guns we could send them. And no one knew how to shoot well except the military and police. They scrambled to teach folks. Of course after WWII the Brits banned guns again.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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..."

The funniest one is to give birth, apparently the right think you have a right to give birth to guns.

/----/ That is idiotic even by your low standards.

 

[hadit]

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

This is ratified, federal doctrine:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Take it up with the SC. Obviously, they know less than you do about the Constitution and need educating.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force.

BOOOOOM!!!

Print that on a fucking t-shirt!!!

...a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force.
~sakinago

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The funniest one is to give birth, apparently the right think you have a right to give birth to guns.

Actually, if by "give birth" you mean create, yes, we have the right to create our own guns. That tradition goes all the way back to the beginning.

From Washington's first State of the Union Address 1790:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined;— to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."

But, we also have the right to fuck our guns, which I do frequently. Why, just last night, I was fucking my AK, when my grandfather's Remington 788 walked in and got hotly jealous.

Poor Remmy. I have neglected her.

 

[danielpalos]

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 off 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:

Only in your own fantasy of special pleading.

The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

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."

So what; Only well regulated militia are authorized their colors, standard, banners, and guidons.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The absolute, literal right belongs to the militia of the People who are well regulated, not the membership of the Militia of the People who are the unorganized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.

 

[danielpalos]

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

This is ratified, federal doctrine:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Take it up with the SC. Obviously, they know less than you do about the Constitution and need educating.

It never came up.

I already know I have the Supreme answer.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The absolute, literal right belongs to the militia of the People who are well regulated, not the membership of the Militia of the People who are the unorganized militia.

Bullshit. Cite your source for such nonsense.

Now, back to my gun love-making.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So what; Only well regulated militia are authorized their colors, standard, banners, and guidons.

Source?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state. The people have the right. Not the militia. NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.

If you believe otherwise, cite your source.

 

[danielpalos]

So what; Only well regulated militia are authorized their colors, standard, banners, and guidons.

Source?

Congress must prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States, it is enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

Gun lovers are simply unorganized militia for Second Amendment purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state. The people have the right. Not the militia. NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.

If you believe otherwise, cite your source.

Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.

The People are the Militia. What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?