The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

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.

Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.

horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"

Not the same. California uses acquire and possess to secure natural rights, not keep and bear.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.

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

It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.

The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.

I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.

So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.

This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!

Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo

Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.

I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief. I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
I would be MISERABLE AS FU.

I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.

So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.

Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.

So glad I take this approach.

Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.

It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.

So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.

He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.

You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.

The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.

horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"

Keep does mean possess anyhow. Lol. I don't know why you continue to argue with this retard. He is clearly retarded.

not exactly the same. Keep and bear is for martial purpose not defense of self and property.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.

horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"

Sweetie, his arguments are SO bad, they are not even worth a response from you, seriously.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.

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

It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.

The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.

I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.

So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.

This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!

Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo

Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.

I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief. I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
I would be MISERABLE AS FU.

I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.

So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.

Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.

So glad I take this approach.

Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.

It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.

So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.

He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.

You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.

The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.

horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"

Sweetie, his arguments are SO bad, they are not even worth a response from you, seriously.

go ahead; don't respond and cede the point and the argument y'all were not, "worth enough" to make.

 

[westwall]

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.

Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.

It is in every language I know of on this planet. You must be from a different planet.

 

[westwall]

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.

Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.

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

It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.

The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.

I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.

So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.

This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!

Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo

Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.

I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief. I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
I would be MISERABLE AS FU.

I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.

So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.

Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.

So glad I take this approach.

Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.

It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.

So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.

He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.

You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.

The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

You have already been schooled on this repeatedly. You are wrong. You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes. Time for you to get some new material.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.

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

It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.

The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.

I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.

So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.

This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!

Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo

Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.

I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief. I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
I would be MISERABLE AS FU.

I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.

So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.

Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.

So glad I take this approach.

Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.

It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.

So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.

He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.

You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.

The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

You have already been schooled on this repeatedly. You are wrong. You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes. Time for you to get some new material.

The bot needs reprogramming ASAP!

 

[westwall]

Dear frigidweirdo
A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
and is not the original intent?

B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
because it hasn't been struck down

what about new laws like conceal and carry.

new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.

Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.

So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
'

I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "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."

This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.

The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.

No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.

Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.

Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.

what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?

Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?

Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.

If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.

I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision. I wonder why you ignore that?

Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.

Oh? I see. When presented by facts that completely destroy your meme you flee. i get it. Then by all means go someplace else. This Board is for adults to discuss things. I am sure there are play pens out there for those of your ilk.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.

horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"

Not the same. California uses acquire and possess to secure natural rights, not keep and bear.

Sure danielpalos
And that's why Californians who vote on CA law
remain separate from Texans who vote on TX law.

Why can't we do the same here?
If one set of people want to live under policies
where right to bear arms is only through well regulated
militia, you have every right to set that up in districts
or states where you have representation. Many people
and groups have done so, either by their own national
guards, rangers, or security patrols or watches per neighborhood.

You are free to hire or fire your own police if you want to set this up for your neighborhood, civic association or district
similar to college campuses or companies with their own
security staff under their own local regulations.

But that shouldn't affect other people's equal freedom
to regulate or elect their own standards on bearing arms
and defending laws and security where THEY have representation.

I could even see church-run districts calling for spiritual healing, screening, diagnosis and treatment to weed out dangerous abuse or mental illness and criminal disorders, so that NOBODY clearly sick would get a hold of guns who isn't legally competent and law abiding to begin with, they wouldn't be able to live in the district without medical supervision if there was any such blatant risk of criminal abuse to violate laws, that the people could catch locally by setting up means for screening and reviewing complaints or threats. Who knows, after the TX church shooting, even the military might look into the methods of spiritual healing used to SCREEN people for mental problems where people like the shooter in that case would have been required to get help early on, and kept in detention under supervision until his conditions normalized if ever.

With better screening, then not even the "organized militia or military" would allow the criminal element to go unchecked and result in abuse of firearms outside or against the law.

That needs to be addressed even if we did restrict firearms to only regulated organizations!

Each group of people has equal rights to representation in whatever policies they believe establish freedom and security in a just way.

Thanks danielpalos you reinforce even more
why it's so important to let the PEOPLE decide
and let the govt laws FOLLOW from what the people
consent to, so that the contracts we make are legally binding
and enforceable by authority and consent of the people affected.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.

It is in e very language I know of on this planet. You must be from a different planet.

Acquire and possess is not the same as keep and bear; keep and bear is Only used in our Second Amendment with context being the security of a free State.

The right wing on this board merely has inferior reading comprehension.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.

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

It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.

The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.

I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.

So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.

This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!

Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo

Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.

I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief. I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
I would be MISERABLE AS FU.

I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.

So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.

Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.

So glad I take this approach.

Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.

It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.

So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.

He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.

You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.

The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

You have already been schooled on this repeatedly. You are wrong. You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes. Time for you to get some new material.

dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "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."

This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.

The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.

No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.

Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.

Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.

what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?

Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?

Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.

If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.

I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision. I wonder why you ignore that?

Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.

Oh? I see. When presented by facts that completely destroy your meme you flee. i get it. Then by all means go someplace else. This Board is for adults to discuss things. I am sure there are play pens out there for those of your ilk.

westwall I think you and frigidweirdo do much
better sticking to content. When you start engaging in the
same juvenile jabs at people not principles and points,
I can't much tell the difference between you and whom you criticize.

I personally thought frigidweirdo was doing quite well citing historical reasoning, even though I disagree and believe this is taken out of context with the obvious greater philosophy and foundation behind America's independence and Constitutional traditions.

May I ask you both NOT to personally attack and district,
and to PLEASE stick with the historical citations that you
both have been providing which I find edifying and enlightening.

Please continue with that, and not the other which I understand may be just to take a break from the heavy intellectual discourse. Maybe it's just human to exchange a few punches
before getting back to work...

 

[westwall]

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.

Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.

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

It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.

The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.

I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.

So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.

This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!

Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo

Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.

I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief. I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
I would be MISERABLE AS FU.

I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.

So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.

Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.

So glad I take this approach.

Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.

It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.

So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.

He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.

You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.

The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

You have already been schooled on this repeatedly. You are wrong. You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes. Time for you to get some new material.

dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.

Indeed. And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". What part of that sentence do you not understand?

 

[westwall]

He has alr

what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?

Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?

Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.

If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.

I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision. I wonder why you ignore that?

Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.

Oh? I see. When presented by facts that completely destroy your meme you flee. i get it. Then by all means go someplace else. This Board is for adults to discuss things. I am sure there are play pens out there for those of your ilk.

westwall I think you and frigidweirdo do much
better sticking to content. When you start engaging in the
same juvenile jabs at people not principles and points,
I can't much tell the difference between you and whom you criticize.

I personally thought frigidweirdo was doing quite well citing historical reasoning, even though I disagree and believe this is taken out of context with the obvious greater philosophy and foundation behind America's independence and Constitutional traditions.

May I ask you both NOT to personally attack and district,
and to PLEASE stick with the historical citations that you
both have been providing which I find edifying and enlightening.

Please continue with that, and not the other which I understand may be just to take a break from the heavy intellectual discourse. Maybe it's just human to exchange a few punches
before getting back to work...

He has already been shown the pertinent historical documents that refute his arguments. He ignores them, thus he is not engaging in legit discourse so he is not worthy of any sort of consideration.

 

[ChrisL]

what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?

Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?

Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.

If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.

I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision. I wonder why you ignore that?

Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.

Oh? I see. When presented by facts that completely destroy your meme you flee. i get it. Then by all means go someplace else. This Board is for adults to discuss things. I am sure there are play pens out there for those of your ilk.

westwall I think you and frigidweirdo do much
better sticking to content. When you start engaging in the
same juvenile jabs at people not principles and points,
I can't much tell the difference between you and whom you criticize.

I personally thought frigidweirdo was doing quite well citing historical reasoning, even though I disagree and believe this is taken out of context with the obvious greater philosophy and foundation behind America's independence and Constitutional traditions.

May I ask you both NOT to personally attack and district,
and to PLEASE stick with the historical citations that you
both have been providing which I find edifying and enlightening.

Please continue with that, and not the other which I understand may be just to take a break from the heavy intellectual discourse. Maybe it's just human to exchange a few punches
before getting back to work...

What don't you understand about the fact that he is lying and twisting words only? There is nothing reasonable about his arguments. He is a traitor to the United States citizenry and nothing more than that, as is anyone who is going to stand in the way of us practicing our NATURAL rights.

 

[hunarcy]

You missed punctuation in school, didn't you? Quite a few other classes in English too.

I'm sorry, what the fuck?

You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?

Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all.

Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.

The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".

No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.

No matter how much you deny it, punctuation matters and the emphasis is not on the dependent clause, it is on the independent clause and while have been academians in the past that have tried to torture the Amendment to say what you wish it would say, the right belongs to THE PEOPLE and it shall not be infringed.

I didn't say punctuation doesn't matter.

I'm saying in the Second Amendment it doesn't matter. Or more specifically the two commas that may or may not exist.

You can have "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." as ratified by the states or "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." as was going through Congress.

The two extra commas don't change anything in the meaning.

But trying to pretend that this does anything is wrong.

The first half of the Amendment doesn't do anything. It merely says WHY the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms are important.

Now, think about this. The Amendment is about the militia. The Amendment says a militia is important. It doesn't say TV is important, it doesn't say breathing is important, it doesn't say a lot of things. But it does say THE MILITIA.

This is CONTEXT.

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons that the US federal govt cannot take away.
The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.

A militia without guns is not "a well regulated militia", nor is a militia without personnel.

However a militia without individuals walking around in the streets with their guns is the same as it would be if they were walking about with their guns.

*sigh* Here is the context. The wording of the Second Amendment does emphasize the importance of the militia, but the Right is reserved to the PEOPLE. If they had wanted the right reserved only to the militia, they could have said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms...they'd already proven they can spell it. The Second is not ABOUT the militia, it's about the right of the People.

Sigh. What I find is that people on this forum often end up arguing what they're comfortable arguing with. They often decide what the other person is saying BEFORE they're bothered to read what the other person has said, and therefore don't need to read what the other person has said as they BELIEVE they know what has been said.

Yes, the Second Amendment emphasizes the importance of the militia. Why? Because the Amendment is ABOUT THE MILITIA.

You say the right is reserved to the people. Yet I wrote "The right to keep arms is the right of individuals" and "The right to bear arms is the right of individuals" and you're attacking me for saying it's not the right of individuals. Are you fucking serious?


Here's the other deal, let's see if you bother to read this.

Each right in the US Bill of Rights is there for a reason. The reason is politics.

The First Amendment has the right to freedom of religion, right to protest and right of freedom of speech and the press. All of these are protected in the First Amendment because of their impact on politics.

Freedom of speech so you can talk about politics, freedom to protest so you can protest politicians, freedom of religion so there isn't a state religion.

Of course individuals can use their freedom of speech in other ways, there is no limit on the freedom of speech to just politics.

However in the Bill of Rights there is no protection of the right to walk. The right to breathe. The right to eat food. The right to play games. There are so many things NOT PROTECTED, and that's because they're not directly connected with politics. Hence the 10th Amendment.

The Second Amendment is about the militia. That's what it starts with "A well regulated militia..." It protects the militia by protecting individuals.

No, it's NOT about the militia. It's about the Right of the People, or as you insist, the right of individuals, to keep and bear arms. The dependent clause about the militia is just one justification for the 2nd Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.

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

It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.

The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.

I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.

So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.

This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!

Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo

Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.

I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief. I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
I would be MISERABLE AS FU.

I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.

So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.

Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.

So glad I take this approach.

Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.

It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.

So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.

He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.

You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.

The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

You have already been schooled on this repeatedly. You are wrong. You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes. Time for you to get some new material.

dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.

Indeed. And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". What part of that sentence do you not understand?

Only 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.

the unorganized militia may be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

He has alr

Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?

Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.

If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.

I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision. I wonder why you ignore that?

Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.

Oh? I see. When presented by facts that completely destroy your meme you flee. i get it. Then by all means go someplace else. This Board is for adults to discuss things. I am sure there are play pens out there for those of your ilk.

westwall I think you and frigidweirdo do much
better sticking to content. When you start engaging in the
same juvenile jabs at people not principles and points,
I can't much tell the difference between you and whom you criticize.

I personally thought frigidweirdo was doing quite well citing historical reasoning, even though I disagree and believe this is taken out of context with the obvious greater philosophy and foundation behind America's independence and Constitutional traditions.

May I ask you both NOT to personally attack and district,
and to PLEASE stick with the historical citations that you
both have been providing which I find edifying and enlightening.

Please continue with that, and not the other which I understand may be just to take a break from the heavy intellectual discourse. Maybe it's just human to exchange a few punches
before getting back to work...

He has already been shown the pertinent historical documents that refute his arguments. He ignores them, thus he is not engaging in legit discourse so he is not worthy of any sort of consideration.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about politics or the law.