The Right To Bear Arms

[ChrisL]

[




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?

So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?

He is smart to ignore your stupid argument. The second amendment states KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

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.

And just to cover what I already know is coming and which has already probably been explained to you and your goofball friends a bajillion times . . .

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."


1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

 

[turtledude]

So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

 

[turtledude]

So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

you're a moron. you are too stupid to understand that a natural right that pre-exists government does not involve a "right" to serve the government

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

you're a moron. you are too stupid to understand that a natural right that pre-exists government does not involve a "right" to serve the government

I predicted it, didn't I?

I said the insults would come.

How is it that I'm the moron?

I ask you about a historical document and you can't respond.

There's no way on this planet that you're a lawyer, no way on this planet that you go to law schools and talk about the Second Amendment.

Now go take your insults and FUCK OFF>

 

[ChrisL]

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

you're a moron. you are too stupid to understand that a natural right that pre-exists government does not involve a "right" to serve the government

I predicted it, didn't I?

I said the insults would come.

How is it that I'm the moron?

I ask you about a historical document and you can't respond.

There's no way on this planet that you're a lawyer, no way on this planet that you go to law schools and talk about the Second Amendment.

Now go take your insults and FUCK OFF>

^^^

Triggered.

 

[danielpalos]

so what; I don't mind joining a militia, becoming well regulated, and asking for weapons qualification on bazookas or grenade launchers; a bazookanier or a grenadier.

Most of us don't mind either. It will not happen because the left will demonize and ridicule anyone who does, by making them out to be crazy, anti-government separatists.

If you really are willing to allow us access to all weapons, as long as we are getting military training and adhere to proper regulatory precautions on the use and storage of our military-grade weapons, then you and I are on the same team.

I will ALWAYS support and advocate good training and proper safety practices. You will find that 99.99% of gun owners and advocates are the same.

Not the left wing; we don't need reductions to social services for alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; we have a Second Amendment.

 

[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?

You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?

You don't know what you are talking about. The supreme court said no such thing.

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

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, the unorganized militia and gun lovers, not so much.

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.

Limited and express powers, dears. Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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

He is arguing with several voices in his head.

I used to be bipolar; the right wing is so full of fallacy, I had to argue with myself. Now I have a "dual core" processor. Thanks, right wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

So, based on my analysis, all federal and state gun laws are unconstitutional. Federal laws are unconstitutional because they DIRECTLY violate the plain language of the 2nd Amendment. States had the authority to infringe on the right, until the 14th Amendment made the 2nd Amendment also apply to the States.

The plain language states, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, the unorganized militia and gun lovers, not so much.

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.

Where in the Second Amendment does it use the word "only"?

It says, "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.

Notice the comma after the word State? It means an independent clause or statement.

The Supreme Court has on many occasions has upheld the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because that is the correct reading of the 2nd Amendment.

Express and Limited powers. Only well regulated militia of the People are Necessary, and shall not be Infringed as a result.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.

It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.

 

[danielpalos]

So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.

If I understand danielpalos correctly, he is saying that a person's right to keep and bear arms absolutely shall not be infringed, as long as:
1. the person is actively participating in an organized local militia (other than the national guard),
2. gets regular training, and
3. follows safety rules on the use and storage of military-grade weapons.

then, I will concede, as long as membership in a local militia is not unreasonably restricted to anyone who applies. (It can't work as a defacto infringement.) Also, those not in a local militia should still have the right to keep and bear arms, but that right can be infringed for safety purposes (like banning full-autos ect).

I have yet to confirm if that is what dannyboy actually believes.

nope; well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners, and guidons; by our Government.

 

[danielpalos]

If I understand danielpalos correctly, he is saying that a person's right to keep and bear arms absolutely shall not be infringed, as long as:
1. the person is actively participating in an organized local militia (other than the national guard),
2. gets regular training, and
3. follows safety rules on the use and storage of military-grade weapons.

then, I will concede, as long as membership in a local militia is not unreasonably restricted to anyone who applies. (It can't work as a defacto infringement.) Also, those not in a local militia should still have the right to keep and bear arms, but that right can be infringed for safety purposes (like banning full-autos ect).

I have yet to confirm if that is what dannyboy actually believes.

militia duty is not requirement. Full autos that police are issued are covered as well and so is the general issue rifle that the infantry has. DanielTrollus has no clue what he says-he doesn't understand his own claims

lol. TurtleTroll has nothing but repeal, like usual.

The People who are well regulated Militia, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

since Article ONE, SECTION 8 has no delegation of any power to the federal government to impose "reasonable, appropriate measures, they cannot be constitutional

Necessary and Proper, are the terms and conditions, used in our supreme law of the land.

 

[danielpalos]

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....

Bannerhoid pollsters ask questions like this

DO YOU SUPPORT UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS THAT KEEP FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS?

and people say yes because they are too stupid to understand that UBGCs don't do squat to keep felons from getting guns.

Exactly.....notice how they don't tell the person....in order to get UBCs you will have to register with the government ....

If I were a gun lover, I would prefer a posse register so I could love my gun in public, and be available for law enforcement. Regulators assemble!

 

[danielpalos]

So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

Only means something within State jurisdiction; our federal Constitution is not about natural rights; it is the Supreme Code Law of the land.

 

[danielpalos]

So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

It is current federal doctrine and practice, to not Infringe well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.