The Right To Bear Arms

[turtledude]

A natural right is one that exists before the formation of governments. The founders knew that the first step towards tyranny is the disarming of the citizens. They believed that the people had the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, for self defense of themselves, their families, their land, their property, to fight against tyranny and to fight against invasions. It is all quite clearly stated in the written records of their meetings and discussions and debates. You have no argument. All you have is your dishonest twisting of words and definitions. As soon as a person does a little research into what the founding fathers actually SAID about the 2nd amendment, it is quite clear just what kind of dishonest little jerks you people are. I don't trust you, and nobody should. No way in hell would anyone in their right minds give up one of their rights because of you sniveling little cowards.

dear, right wingers; God did not give us our Constitution.

nor did artificial intelligence programs masquerading as posters

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wars on Crime, Drugs, and Terror; that is what happened.

Who the fuck are you and what have you done with danielpalos? I agree.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Founders' intent matters, because if we show that they intended no federal infringement of individual rights to keep and carry arms (or no federal authority), all current federal gun laws are facially unconstitutional, as is the F portion of the BATF.

Don't like it? Amend the constitution. Otherwise, the original text and intent apply, and all federal gun laws should be immediately struck down.

Likewise, via the 14th Amendment, all State gun laws will be struck down.

A change REQUIRES a constitutional amendment. Just because you commies are too pussy to try it, or can't get it done, is not an excuse to fuck up the Constitution and shit on it.

No, but their intent for the 2A wasn't carry arms. Clearly, their intent for "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty".

bullshit, and why do you ignore keep and bear?

I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?

If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?

Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

More than yours. The Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose clause

Can you point to some legal analysis or Court opinion with such a holding? Because, that is contrary to the plain language of the Amendment, placing too much emphasis on one part, in a fashion that renders the other meaningless. You are trying to establish an ambiguity out of plain language. We entertain your bullshit attempts at ambiguity and beat your ass with the founders' own words demonstrating their intent. You provide NOTHING to the contrary but your catch phrases.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Founders' intent matters, because if we show that they intended no federal infringement of individual rights to keep and carry arms (or no federal authority), all current federal gun laws are facially unconstitutional, as is the F portion of the BATF.

Don't like it? Amend the constitution. Otherwise, the original text and intent apply, and all federal gun laws should be immediately struck down.

Likewise, via the 14th Amendment, all State gun laws will be struck down.

A change REQUIRES a constitutional amendment. Just because you commies are too pussy to try it, or can't get it done, is not an excuse to fuck up the Constitution and shit on it.

No, but their intent for the 2A wasn't carry arms. Clearly, their intent for "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty".

bullshit, and why do you ignore keep and bear?

I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?

If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?

Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.

Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."

Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.


You communists are so predictable. You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now. We will fucking smoke your commie asses. In fact, please try. Please.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nope; Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States

The wellness of regulation?


But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right. I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Founders' intent matters, because if we show that they intended no federal infringement of individual rights to keep and carry arms (or no federal authority), all current federal gun laws are facially unconstitutional, as is the F portion of the BATF.

Don't like it? Amend the constitution. Otherwise, the original text and intent apply, and all federal gun laws should be immediately struck down.

Likewise, via the 14th Amendment, all State gun laws will be struck down.

A change REQUIRES a constitutional amendment. Just because you commies are too pussy to try it, or can't get it done, is not an excuse to fuck up the Constitution and shit on it.

No, but their intent for the 2A wasn't carry arms. Clearly, their intent for "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty".

bullshit, and why do you ignore keep and bear?

I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?

If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?

Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.

Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."

Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.


You communists are so predictable. You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now. We will fucking smoke your commie asses. In fact, please try. Please.

So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?

The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"

Is this one right or is this two rights?

For example, the First Amendment

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.

The 4A

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.

Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.

Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.

The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".

No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.

Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.

"The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.

"bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yep, they upheld Presser.

do you even know what the Court is taling about? Heller was a confirmation that we have an individual right. All the Court was saying is that Presser did not prevent such a ruling that WE HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

To what?

KEEP

Keep

Say it with me....Keeeeeep.

Are you going to give me a lesson on the meaning of KEEP????

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Founders' intent matters, because if we show that they intended no federal infringement of individual rights to keep and carry arms (or no federal authority), all current federal gun laws are facially unconstitutional, as is the F portion of the BATF.

Don't like it? Amend the constitution. Otherwise, the original text and intent apply, and all federal gun laws should be immediately struck down.

Likewise, via the 14th Amendment, all State gun laws will be struck down.

A change REQUIRES a constitutional amendment. Just because you commies are too pussy to try it, or can't get it done, is not an excuse to fuck up the Constitution and shit on it.

No, but their intent for the 2A wasn't carry arms. Clearly, their intent for "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty".

bullshit, and why do you ignore keep and bear?

I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?

If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?

Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.

Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."

Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.


You communists are so predictable. You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now. We will fucking smoke your commie asses. In fact, please try. Please.

So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?

The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"

Is this one right or is this two rights?

For example, the First Amendment

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.

The 4A

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.

Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.

Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.

The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".

No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.

Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.

"The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.

"bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".

KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP

Heller confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.

You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that, the Heller holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.

The mental gynastics is glorious.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If the argument is that we do not have the right to carry arms, keeping them is rather pointless, no? Of course, we have them for the purpose of defending our nation. We have never surrendered that right and duty. A standing army does not render obsolete the need of armed citizens, as my Washington quote explicitly states. Washington was actually arguing for a standing army to supplement the people.

Citizens bearing arms in defense of our nation is STILL a necessity.

No matter what, a holding that a local law prohibiting armed mobs from randomly marching in the street is not an infringement on the right, but when you have communists trying to grab all guns and prevent KEEPING them, we have to push back.

 

[ChrisL]

No, but their intent for the 2A wasn't carry arms. Clearly, their intent for "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty".

bullshit, and why do you ignore keep and bear?

I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?

If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?

Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.

Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."

Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.


You communists are so predictable. You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now. We will fucking smoke your commie asses. In fact, please try. Please.

So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?

The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"

Is this one right or is this two rights?

For example, the First Amendment

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.

The 4A

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.

Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.

Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.

The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".

No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.

Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.

"The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.

"bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".

KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP

Heller confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.

You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that, the Heller holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.

The mental gynastics is glorious.

Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.

 

[turtledude]

the anti gun morons' leader is at it again

WATCH: Joe Biden Says Man Who Stopped Texas Church Shooter Never Should Have Had That Gun

 

[emilynghiem]

I mean really, shall I quote the founding fathers EXACT words yet again so that this moron can just ignore it and go on being a dumbfuck? What a douchebag. I really hate this poster. Lol.

You’re in no position to refer to someone else as a ‘moron’ while exhibiting your own ignorance – in this case you’re ignorant of the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And the ‘exact words’ of the Framers can be found only in that case law.

Whoa C_Clayton_Jones
while I agree with you on admonishing ChrisL for the namecalling, that is not only unfair and hurtful to the person attacked but distracting to the argument and discussion,
You've mixed in a similar attack on ChrisL for supposedly being
"ignorant"
that the Constitution depends on case law determined by the Supreme Court.

Both your view and the one that Conservative Constitutionalists defend
(ie limited govt where the Natural Laws and Rights are inherent
by human nature, and are made "statutory" through the Constitution,
but remain INALIENABLE and do NOT depend on govt to exist)
are BOTH political beliefs.

If you don't see that your take on law is equally a belief
as is the Constitutional belief in limited govt and laws
as social contracts being based on CONSENT of the people,
then you are also NOT in a position to call ChrisL ignorant either.

It seems people on both sides tend to ignore and discount each
other's right to their own beliefs on this!

But THANKS C_Clayton_Jones
for at least using a proper description "ignorant"
and avoiding namecalling which is a step up;
though I DON'T think that is a fair call either,
just because people are of different beliefs politically.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
But at least you didn't namecall so thanks for showing more respect!

 

[emilynghiem]

A natural right is one that exists before the formation of governments. The founders knew that the first step towards tyranny is the disarming of the citizens. They believed that the people had the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, for self defense of themselves, their families, their land, their property, to fight against tyranny and to fight against invasions. It is all quite clearly stated in the written records of their meetings and discussions and debates. You have no argument. All you have is your dishonest twisting of words and definitions. As soon as a person does a little research into what the founding fathers actually SAID about the 2nd amendment, it is quite clear just what kind of dishonest little jerks you people are. I don't trust you, and nobody should. No way in hell would anyone in their right minds give up one of their rights because of you sniveling little cowards.

Yes and no ChrisL
Yes we have natural rights to free will and consent, due process,
and "right of defense" but with the right to bear arms,
this becomes more politically tied to the process of law enforcement and has added responsibilities that aren't naturally occurring.

Speech, free will, life these are naturally occurring.

When it comes to arms, these are man made means of defense.
The right to bear arms cannot be taken out of context with the
rest of the Constitution that defines other rights freedoms and protections
that cannot be violated while invoking the right to bear arms.

So while I agree with you that the right of defense, the right
of security, etc. are naturally occurring, I would argue
that the right to bear arms is tied into the rest of the Constitution
and the process of law enforcement and due process.

It cannot be invoked outside the context of defending and upholding the law
which depends on the consent of the people and parties to that contract.

So it does stem from natural rights, but guns/firearms are part of manmade society
and thus go into further implications than basic principles of human nature
that exist and operate independent of physical circumstances and factors like guns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yep, they upheld Presser.

do you even know what the Court is taling about? Heller was a confirmation that we have an individual right. All the Court was saying is that Presser did not prevent such a ruling that WE HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

To what?

KEEP

Keep

Say it with me....Keeeeeep.

Are you going to give me a lesson on the meaning of KEEP????

Yes, I know what the Court is talking about. I also know what it means to reaffirm a past court case.

Think about this. The court was talking about an individual argument for the Second Amendment.

" 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

This is what the Supreme Court says, it says that you have a right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service. Here's their little slight of hand. They then say "and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes", which basically means that you can use your gun if the law says so. Self defense exists as a right, just not in the 2A, you can use a gun (2nd Amendment) to defend yourself (not Second Amendment but elsewhere).

What they've done is make the gun nuts think one thing, when actually all they've said is "you can use your gun lawfully", which is blatantly obvious.

Now, back to the point, they say you can use your arms for "traditionally lawful purposes" and that the Presser case doesn't refute "the individual-rights interpretation." which is what they're talking about. Which means when Presser 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." Therefore the Court is saying that drilling or parading with arms in cities and towns is not protected by the Second Amendment.

And it said keep and it said "use arms for lawful purposes". Now, carrying guns around, they just said it's not a right protected by the Second Amendment. Boom.

 

[westwall]

A natural right is one that exists before the formation of governments. The founders knew that the first step towards tyranny is the disarming of the citizens. They believed that the people had the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, for self defense of themselves, their families, their land, their property, to fight against tyranny and to fight against invasions. It is all quite clearly stated in the written records of their meetings and discussions and debates. You have no argument. All you have is your dishonest twisting of words and definitions. As soon as a person does a little research into what the founding fathers actually SAID about the 2nd amendment, it is quite clear just what kind of dishonest little jerks you people are. I don't trust you, and nobody should. No way in hell would anyone in their right minds give up one of their rights because of you sniveling little cowards.

Yes and no ChrisL
Yes we have natural rights to free will and consent, due process,
and "right of defense" but with the right to bear arms,
this becomes more politically tied to the process of law enforcement and has added responsibilities that aren't naturally occurring.

Speech, free will, life these are naturally occurring.

When it comes to arms, these are man made means of defense.
The right to bear arms cannot be taken out of context with the
rest of the Constitution that defines other rights freedoms and protections
that cannot be violated while invoking the right to bear arms.

So while I agree with you that the right of defense, the right
of security, etc. are naturally occurring, I would argue
that the right to bear arms is tied into the rest of the Constitution
and the process of law enforcement and due process.

It cannot be invoked outside the context of defending and upholding the law
which depends on the consent of the people and parties to that contract.

So it does stem from natural rights, but guns/firearms are part of manmade society
and thus go into further implications than basic principles of human nature
that exist and operate independent of physical circumstances and factors like guns.

Incorrect. The COTUS doesn't grant any Right. It merely enumerates those Rights that we are born with. The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do and one final option.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, but their intent for the 2A wasn't carry arms. Clearly, their intent for "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty".

bullshit, and why do you ignore keep and bear?

I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?

If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?

Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.

Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."

Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.


You communists are so predictable. You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now. We will fucking smoke your commie asses. In fact, please try. Please.

So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?

The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"

Is this one right or is this two rights?

For example, the First Amendment

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.

The 4A

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.

Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.

Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.

The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".

No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.

Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.

"The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.

"bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".

KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP

Heller confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.

You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that, the Heller holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.

The mental gynastics is glorious.

Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

Which is a little more than just keep, right?

No, actually I'm not trying to meld the term "keep" with the world "bear" at all. In fact I've been accused (I forget by whom) that I was doing the exact opposite recently. There are two rights, the right to bear and the right to keep. I've been clearly talking about the right to BEAR arms here, rather than keep, so how the hell you get into "mental gynastics" about saying I'm doing something I've clearly not been doing for the whole time, is down right ridiculous.

Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.

No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.

 

[westwall]

Yep, they upheld Presser.

do you even know what the Court is taling about? Heller was a confirmation that we have an individual right. All the Court was saying is that Presser did not prevent such a ruling that WE HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

To what?

KEEP

Keep

Say it with me....Keeeeeep.

Are you going to give me a lesson on the meaning of KEEP????

Yes, I know what the Court is talking about. I also know what it means to reaffirm a past court case.

Think about this. The court was talking about an individual argument for the Second Amendment.

" 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

This is what the Supreme Court says, it says that you have a right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service. Here's their little slight of hand. They then say "and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes", which basically means that you can use your gun if the law says so. Self defense exists as a right, just not in the 2A, you can use a gun (2nd Amendment) to defend yourself (not Second Amendment but elsewhere).

What they've done is make the gun nuts think one thing, when actually all they've said is "you can use your gun lawfully", which is blatantly obvious.

Now, back to the point, they say you can use your arms for "traditionally lawful purposes" and that the Presser case doesn't refute "the individual-rights interpretation." which is what they're talking about. Which means when Presser 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." Therefore the Court is saying that drilling or parading with arms in cities and towns is not protected by the Second Amendment.

And it said keep and it said "use arms for lawful purposes". Now, carrying guns around, they just said it's not a right protected by the Second Amendment. Boom.

Here is the entire decision for US V MILLER. It shows quite plainly that the 2nd Amendment is to provide for CIVILIANS to show up when called with MILITARY WEAPONS.


"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.


"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they

Page 307 U. S. 179

were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."


United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

 

[emilynghiem]

Basically your argument appears to be this.

If you have one person saying the sun is the sun, and another person saying the sun is his head, then I should be willing to accommodate that sun is both the sun and his head.

Er... what? clearly the person who thinks the sun is his head is wrong.

I also know that people who say the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms are wrong. It's that simple. I'm not going to accommodate someone's made up belief simply so they can push their own agenda, when they're clearly wrong. Sorry.

The "truth" on the other side is made up because it's convenient. It has NO BASIS IN REALITY.

Every time I present FACTS, they get IGNORED and instead they post stuff that has no relevance at all.

Take the person who posted lots of Founding Father quotes about the right to keep arms to prove that I was wrong about the right to bear arms. Er.... what? It's like saying this pear is nice, therefore that apple has to be nice too. Logical?

Hi frigidweirdo
in this case I'd guess at least 70% of the historian and legal arguments I've seen
are in favor of the "individual right to bear arms" interpretation
being the equivalent of saying the sun is the sun
and believe that the "militia" interpretation
is the equivalent of saying sun means your head.

And less than 30% of the historical and legal arguments I've read
are used to defend what you are saying that
the "militia" argument is the right one and the other is fabricated
for convenience, belief, preference, or some other political or personal agenda
and not based on historical records/facts.

Can I ask you why you reject the following two arguments
1. the whole context and reason for the Constitution and Bill of Rights
was to ensure there wasn't govt oppression of people, given that
the War for Independence included the very dangerous tactic of
the govt in power confiscating the arms from citizens. The big fight
that still remains over the Constitution is centralized govt vs.
rights of people and states not to be overruled and abused by
a greater collective authority and force which is the nature of govt
to become corrupted.
So this whole historical background, culture and reasoning behind
having Constitutional limits and checks on govt SPEAKS to NOT
giving up power of the people to organized govt. So the idea is not
to let the federal govt control the arms, and this includes organized
militia not getting so close to the govt it becomes part of that. So the
check on that is the people who retain right to bear arms to prevent that.

2. Are you including James Madison's arguments about the importance
of the right to bear arms and individual rights?
Are you saying this was cut out of the 2nd Amendment where it only
applies to organized militia and completely leaves out the arguments
for individual rights?

That's where you lose me. Given the fact that
1. America just fought a war and only succeeded because the people both individually and fighting as organized soldiers were able to access and use weapons against greater armed forces.
2. Advocates who didn't trust govt, and always wanted the people to have check against govt abuses would NEVER agree to concessions that took power from the people and gave it to govt without consent and democratic process.

I am very open minded to including what you believe to be the truth
equally with the majority who wouldn't, and who would say YOU are the
one saying the sun is your head; but as open minded as I am, you cannot
convince me that these Founders and Revolutionaries would ever agree
to give up their right to bear arms to organized govt to regulate through militia
as a requirement.

And if you cannot convince me, I imagine the rest will never change their
beliefs that are even more exclusive and closed, with no room at all for
your arguments although my approach can include yours without issue.

So you are dealing with the majority arguments saying
you are the anomaly or discrepancy arguing your head is the sun
while they are equally confident as you are that they are saying the sun is the sun.

Given the tenacity and battles fought over federalism and how to
prevent the same oppression from overregulating the people,
you will have a hard time convincing me much more convincing others
that these people would ever agree to your interpretation.

As hard as people reject that now, the wounds of war
and fear of being disarmed by an overbearing govt
were even more magnified back then. If you can't
convince people now, how could you me or anyone have convinced
the people then to give up their right to bear arms to
govt and militia regulations. Sorry but those beliefs are too strongly
embedded, and if people won't give them up now,
they certainly wouldn't do it back then when the risk of
being overpowered was still fresh in fueling great rifts over
this same historical issue.

 

[emilynghiem]

A natural right is one that exists before the formation of governments. The founders knew that the first step towards tyranny is the disarming of the citizens. They believed that the people had the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, for self defense of themselves, their families, their land, their property, to fight against tyranny and to fight against invasions. It is all quite clearly stated in the written records of their meetings and discussions and debates. You have no argument. All you have is your dishonest twisting of words and definitions. As soon as a person does a little research into what the founding fathers actually SAID about the 2nd amendment, it is quite clear just what kind of dishonest little jerks you people are. I don't trust you, and nobody should. No way in hell would anyone in their right minds give up one of their rights because of you sniveling little cowards.

dear, right wingers; God did not give us our Constitution.

Dear danielpalos
What this means is
a. natural laws that exist by human nature, and by how our conscience works as social creature, are inherent and self-existent. in secular terms this comes from NATURE in religious terms it comes from GOD. if you take GOD to mean forces of life or nature, that's the same source these "human rights and laws" come from regardless which term you use
b. The Constitution attempted to put into written words and social contracts or laws
the PRINCIPLES and concepts that naturally exist when trying to define just and peaceful relations between people for law and order

This is like the "laws of physics" that exist by nature of the universe and energy/matter in the world; but man's language in writing these "laws" down in SYMBOLS or words
becomes man made language for the laws we didn't make up either.

What ChrisL and I are both saying is that even
without manmade language for the laws,
the PRINCIPLES behind the laws exist on their own.
That just comes with the way human conscience
and relations work. We all want freedom, peace justice security.
So the laws we write are to express and defend those
naturally occurring principles and concepts that are
inherent in human nature, regardless how we write or express those in words or laws.