The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

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.

Projecting much, right wingers; nothing but repeal is worthless.

 

[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.

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

You must be on the right wing. How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.

Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.

You still are avoiding what the meaning of "well regulated" was, back then. I have already shown you what it meant. Why do you not address that fact? Hmmm? Mayhaps because it destroys your entire argument.... Naaaaah it couldn't be that easy could it....

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Well regulated means whatever Congress says it means; only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law and claim they are for the, "gospel Truth".

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

 

[emilynghiem]

We have already had plenty of Regulation until the last 20 years of insanity, so no such thing is needed.

The Scary-Looking Weapons Ban?


I bought a post-ban civilian AK-47 for dirt cheap. Looked exactly like this one:

This is what the pre-ban civilian AK looked like:

That's what the Scary-Looking Gun Ban (Assault Weapons Ban) did.

JACK SHIT!!!

It didn't effect crime either.

Admit that you want to infringe on the right of Americans to have guns. Just admit it, so we can go ahead and have this war. This death by a thousand cuts bullshit is OVER. We want full repeal, and let States make their own gun laws, as was intended.

nobody needs an army machine gun or anything that looks like it. they are advertised that way now you're a man now your Macho now you can kill . We should also make armor illegal and cut the Macho bulshit. You can hunt and you can defend your house with a all kinds of Rifle hunting rifles and shotguns. You assholes are deluded and aren't going to save us from tyranny. Absolute brainwashed fear mongered right-wing insanity.

Hi francoHFW
I guess it's like the abortion argument
If you disagree with the choice, then don't have one!

 

[westwall]

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?

Well regulated means whatever Congress says it means; only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law and claim they are for the, "gospel Truth".

No, it means whatever the DICTIONARY says it means. That's why dictionary's get written. Here is the original meaning of the phrase, that has already been shown to you, and which you continue to ignore.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[turtledude]

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.

You must be on the right wing. How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.

Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.

when is your programmer going to fix your chip? your English is irregular and makes no sense

 

[westwall]

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.

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Factually wrong as you have been shown REPEATEDLY. It truly is amazing how divorced from reality you are. I find it amusing the mental gymnastics you must contort yourself into that you can even begin to think that the Bill of Rights enumerates all of these INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, but then they keep one for the government. As completely laughable a position as you can get.

 

[hunarcy]

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, the first part is the justification for putting the protection of the right in the first place.

Now, you have an amendment which is in the US Constitution in order to protect the militia.

You have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" and "militia duty".

You do NOT have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean carrying arms around.

You have the Supreme Court saying that the right to bear arms does not mean carrying arms around.

You do NOT have the Supreme Court saying the 2A protects carrying arms around.

So, which part makes you think "bear arms" means "carrying guns around"?

I'm confused at how people can take such evidence and then be like "nah, I don't like it, I'll ignore it ALL".

I know you are just determined to change the subject, but since I haven't said a word about "carrying guns around", I'll just leave you to your fantasy.

 

[turtledude]

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.

sorry R2D2 militias don't have rights, people do. the right of individual people cannot be infringed.

 

[sakinago]

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.

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Except for the word people...

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Dear danielpalos
do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?

When people TODAY don't even "all agree"

What makes you think they would have agreed back
then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!

The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.

They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.

So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

REGARDLESS? no, in ADDITION to, as part of the greater
body of Constitutional laws and principles.

You must be sarcastic here
There is even an Amendment that specifies enumeration of rights is not to disparage others.

But seriously danielpalos you do make a point
that DOES WORK with Conservatives and Constitutionalists:

You are RIGHT that no law including the Second Amendment
can be "taken out of context" with the REST of the Constitutional laws.

This is also why I make the argument that both sides'
political beliefs on this MUST BE EQUALLY included
represented and protected from exclusion or discrimination.

Because OTHERWISE it would VIOLATE the
First and Fourteenth Amendments on equal protection
of the laws including religious freedom.

So danielpalos both you and others have equal right
to exercise and defend your respective political beliefs.
If we are REALLY to enforce equal Constitutional protections
for ALL PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF CREED.

Thanks for showing why this is so important danielpalos
if people like me didn't include and respect your beliefs equally
you would be excluded from expressing and exercising them!

So by the same token, those with opposing beliefs and
interpretations from yours equally invoke the same freedom
to DEFEND THEIR INTERPRETATION AND BELIEFS FROM YOURS.

I hope you get this point.
Maybe frigidweirdo will get it
and understand why it's so hard for Conservatives to
accommodate and include "views they believe to be WRONG":
when frigidweirdo and apparently you
have the same difficulty acknowledging valid rights
to believe YOU believe are wrong as well!

I hope the irony isn't lost on you
and that you are both intelligent to see that this is mutual
where both sides struggle to manage conflicts with beliefs
they believe are just plain wrong and have no standing
to be taken seriously! My goodness, please tell me
you get this even where you don't agree with the opposing beliefs!

I don't have to agree with your and frigidweirdo's statements
views and beliefs to defend your right to those equally under
Constitutional principles ethics and standards;
am I the only one willing to do that here?

Good ness!!!!

The problem here Emily is that laws have been made. You disagree with the laws, so you pretend that the laws mean something different to what they actually mean in order to promote your own view on the matter.

Everything I have said is backed up with plenty of evidence. Everything you have said has been backed up with almost nothing other than your own opinion.

Hi frigidweirdo
1. and the same is said of your interpretation, where the opposing view also says the law was written to mean individual rights, and the historical arguments and reasoning of the founders back up THAT view.

2. I agree with the law as written. I think it is interesting that both sides can interpret the same laws and justify their own beliefs/interpretations.

So I don't disagree with the law.

I disagree with either side imposing their interpretation to the point of demeaning or discriminating against people of the other view.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Well regulated means whatever Congress says it means; only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law and claim they are for the, "gospel Truth".

No, it means whatever the DICTIONARY says it means. That's why dictionary's get written. Here is the original meaning of the phrase, that has already been shown to you, and which you continue to ignore.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it doesn't. Congress has to prescribe, well regulated, for the militia of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You must be on the right wing. How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.

Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.

when is your programmer going to fix your chip? your English is irregular and makes no sense

Who cares; y'all have, nothing but repeal, anyway.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Factually wrong as you have been shown REPEATEDLY. It truly is amazing how divorced from reality you are. I find it amusing the mental gymnastics you must contort yourself into that you can even begin to think that the Bill of Rights enumerates all of these INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, but then they keep one for the government. As completely laughable a position as you can get.

dude; You do not know what you are talking about.

The subject of Arms is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8. It really is that simple.

 

[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.

sorry R2D2 militias don't have rights, people do. the right of individual people cannot be infringed.

The People are the Militia, bozo.

 

[westwall]

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.

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Factually wrong as you have been shown REPEATEDLY. It truly is amazing how divorced from reality you are. I find it amusing the mental gymnastics you must contort yourself into that you can even begin to think that the Bill of Rights enumerates all of these INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, but then they keep one for the government. As completely laughable a position as you can get.

dude; You do not know what you are talking about.

The subject of Arms is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8. It really is that simple.

Only if you don't understand the English language, or are delusional. Or, to put it another way, if your position were indeed correct, then our firearms would have been confiscated decades ago.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Except for the word people...

The People, not the Person. There are no Individual rights. The People are the Militia.

 

[westwall]

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?

Well regulated means whatever Congress says it means; only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law and claim they are for the, "gospel Truth".

No, it means whatever the DICTIONARY says it means. That's why dictionary's get written. Here is the original meaning of the phrase, that has already been shown to you, and which you continue to ignore.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it doesn't. Congress has to prescribe, well regulated, for the militia of the United States.

Wrongo again O. It's amazing how ignorant of history, the law, and the COTUS you truly are.