The Right To Bear Arms

[ChrisL]

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.

No citizen group has the right to deny an individual the right to keep and bear arms either. It is a right!

 

[westwall]

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.

I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear danielpalos or Dear God
Whoever answers this between the two:

Do you NOT get the entire Constitutional context
and beliefs that went into the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

You act like these longstanding beliefs
are totally nonexistent and inconsequential
with no substance or place in history at all?

No wonder you make liberals look like clueless fools.

That's like the people who assume all Christianity
is made up, so all the good and historical contributions
to the world by Christians "doesn't count."

????

The whole context and spirit of why the founders
fought all odds to put together the Constitution
was to put into writing the SELF EXISTENT truths
about human nature and what it takes to govern
ourselves as civilly and democratically as possible,
including the process of representation in reforming
and defending due process when accusations of wrong
come up and need to be managed by checked rules.

Dear Jesus, too!

We all need freedom of speech and the right to petition,
to ensure due process is not controlled and violated
by a collective authority vested in centralized govt
that too easily gets abused and runs amok.

danielpalos these rights did not come from the Constitution
and do not depend on that. it depends on our AGREEMENT
to ENFORCE these principles that exist as part of the
laws of human nature. All humans need these, not just
US citizens or residents under the Constitution which is
the written statutory form of these laws established historically
and enforced by education and agreement to follow consistent precedents (while people dissent when we disagree with precendents or govt laws/rulings we argue are inconsistent and violate equal rights and freedoms).

These rights and freedoms exist as part of human nature,
with or without the Constitution which ENFORCED them in a written system of laws and democratic process so we could
COMMUNICATE in an organized fashion.

Do you not get these traditions at all?
I understand if you don't BELIEVE in this yourself.

My question at this point is why can't you include
and acknowledge that the conservatives and Constitutionalists who BELIEVE this explanation of human nature and Constitutional history
ARE valid and not just made up garbage
that you don't consider having any substance or value at all!

????

Can you tell me why you don't consider
any of this to be valid as a BELIEF?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, it is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

 

[westwall]

He has alr

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.

As we don't take trolls like you seriously, either.

 

[westwall]

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.

Yes, it is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

Do not respond here again until you have read the US v MIller document I provided. Then I want to hear your twisted reasoning on why we should ignore a Supreme Court decision.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.

That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.

The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.

 

[danielpalos]

He has alr

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.

As we don't take trolls like you seriously, either.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. Otherwise, y'all would have a valid argument.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Dear danielpalos or Dear God
Whoever answers this between the two:

Do you NOT get the entire Constitutional context
and beliefs that went into the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

You act like these longstanding beliefs
are totally nonexistent and inconsequential
with no substance or place in history at all?

No wonder you make liberals look like clueless fools.

That's like the people who assume all Christianity
is made up, so all the good and historical contributions
to the world by Christians "doesn't count."

????

The whole context and spirit of why the founders
fought all odds to put together the Constitution
was to put into writing the SELF EXISTENT truths
about human nature and what it takes to govern
ourselves as civilly and democratically as possible,
including the process of representation in reforming
and defending due process when accusations of wrong
come up and need to be managed by checked rules.

Dear Jesus, too!

We all need freedom of speech and the right to petition,
to ensure due process is not controlled and violated
by a collective authority vested in centralized govt
that too easily gets abused and runs amok.

danielpalos these rights did not come from the Constitution
and do not depend on that. it depends on our AGREEMENT
to ENFORCE these principles that exist as part of the
laws of human nature. All humans need these, not just
US citizens or residents under the Constitution which is
the written statutory form of these laws established historically
and enforced by education and agreement to follow consistent precedents (while people dissent when we disagree with precendents or govt laws/rulings we argue are inconsistent and violate equal rights and freedoms).

These rights and freedoms exist as part of human nature,
with or without the Constitution which ENFORCED them in a written system of laws and democratic process so we could
COMMUNICATE in an organized fashion.

Do you not get these traditions at all?
I understand if you don't BELIEVE in this yourself.

My question at this point is why can't you include
and acknowledge that the conservatives and Constitutionalists who BELIEVE this explanation of human nature and Constitutional history
ARE valid and not just made up garbage
that you don't consider having any substance or value at all!

????

Can you tell me why you don't consider
any of this to be valid as a BELIEF?

Don't hold your breath for an answer that makes any sense. You will suffocate.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

No citizen group has the right to deny an individual the right to keep and bear arms either. It is a right!

Yes and no ChrisL
Citizens have equal right to disarm a criminal
who is abusing firearms to commit a crime or threaten to.
You don't have to be police or military
to do this.

But you are right that you cannot violate or deprive rights
without due process; they do have to prove they are posing danger and have criminal intent.

Of course there are complications in proving "fear of danger or death" that even police are questioned and contested for invoking.

But citizens as individuals or groups do have rights to defense, to security, and to lawfully use firearms for the purpose of security and to prevent violations of law.

 

[westwall]

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.

I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.

That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.

The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.

Yes, the People are the militia and they were expected to bring their own weapons with them. I find it amusing that you think the government, the ultimate example of force in a country would have needed to enumerate a Right for itself to be able to defend itself........................ from itself? Your "argument" is laughable.

 

[emilynghiem]

He has alr

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.

As we don't take trolls like you seriously, either.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. Otherwise, y'all would have a valid argument.

Do you understand you come across the same way
danielpalos

 

[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.

Dear danielpalos or Dear God
Whoever answers this between the two:

Do you NOT get the entire Constitutional context
and beliefs that went into the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

You act like these longstanding beliefs
are totally nonexistent and inconsequential
with no substance or place in history at all?

No wonder you make liberals look like clueless fools.

That's like the people who assume all Christianity
is made up, so all the good and historical contributions
to the world by Christians "doesn't count."

????

The whole context and spirit of why the founders
fought all odds to put together the Constitution
was to put into writing the SELF EXISTENT truths
about human nature and what it takes to govern
ourselves as civilly and democratically as possible,
including the process of representation in reforming
and defending due process when accusations of wrong
come up and need to be managed by checked rules.

Dear Jesus, too!

We all need freedom of speech and the right to petition,
to ensure due process is not controlled and violated
by a collective authority vested in centralized govt
that too easily gets abused and runs amok.

danielpalos these rights did not come from the Constitution
and do not depend on that. it depends on our AGREEMENT
to ENFORCE these principles that exist as part of the
laws of human nature. All humans need these, not just
US citizens or residents under the Constitution which is
the written statutory form of these laws established historically
and enforced by education and agreement to follow consistent precedents (while people dissent when we disagree with precendents or govt laws/rulings we argue are inconsistent and violate equal rights and freedoms).

These rights and freedoms exist as part of human nature,
with or without the Constitution which ENFORCED them in a written system of laws and democratic process so we could
COMMUNICATE in an organized fashion.

Do you not get these traditions at all?
I understand if you don't BELIEVE in this yourself.

My question at this point is why can't you include
and acknowledge that the conservatives and Constitutionalists who BELIEVE this explanation of human nature and Constitutional history
ARE valid and not just made up garbage
that you don't consider having any substance or value at all!

????

Can you tell me why you don't consider
any of this to be valid as a BELIEF?

dear right wingers; we already have Ten Commandments from a God.

Our Constitution is a political instrument for political animals, that is all.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

No citizen group has the right to deny an individual the right to keep and bear arms either. It is a right!

Yes and no ChrisL
Citizens have equal right to disarm a criminal
who is abusing firearms to commit a crime or threaten to.
You don't have to be police or military
to do this.

But you are right that you cannot violate or deprive rights
without due process; they do have to prove they are posing danger and have criminal intent.

Of course there are complications in proving "fear of danger or death" that even police are questioned and contested for invoking.

But citizens as individuals or groups do have rights to defense, to security, and to lawfully use firearms for the purpose of security and to prevent violations of law.

A criminal, sure. But that's not what these posters want. They want everyone disarmed because of the actions of a few lunatics. Maybe they are projecting and don't trust themselves enough to own and use a firearm responsibly or maybe they are cowards? I don't really know, but I do know this much. We will not give up any of our rights to government or citizens traitors without a fight!

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.

That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.

The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.

Yes, the People are the militia and they were expected to bring their own weapons with them. I find it amusing that you think the government, the ultimate example of force in a country would have needed to enumerate a Right for itself to be able to defend itself........................ from itself? Your "argument" is laughable.

Only well regulated militia had to muster. Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

He has alr

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.

As we don't take trolls like you seriously, either.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. Otherwise, y'all would have a valid argument.

Do you understand you come across the same way
danielpalos

Dear Persons of the Opposing View,

I also resort to the fewest fallacies.

 

[westwall]

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.

I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.

That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.

The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.

Both the House, the Senate, and the POTUS were solid left wingers. The Court was evenly split. As usual you are factually wrong.

 

[westwall]

He has alr
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.

As we don't take trolls like you seriously, either.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. Otherwise, y'all would have a valid argument.

Do you understand you come across the same way
danielpalos

Dear Persons of the Opposing View,

I also resort to the fewest fallacies.

That's funny, you ignore well known fact so your entire argument is one HUUUUGE fallacy.

 

[westwall]

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.

I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.

That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.

The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.

Yes, the People are the militia and they were expected to bring their own weapons with them. I find it amusing that you think the government, the ultimate example of force in a country would have needed to enumerate a Right for itself to be able to defend itself........................ from itself? Your "argument" is laughable.

Only well regulated militia had to muster. Only the right wing, never gets it.

What did "well regulated" mean back then? You have already been shown what it meant, so how are you going to twist that?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia? Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.

Article 1, Section 8:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority. Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right? That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).

If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!

The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right. Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state. But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.

It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.

I am not going to re-quote all the founders again. You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot. You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.

I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning. If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.

I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.