The Right To Bear Arms

[Quantum Windbag]

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.

DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet

Somebody already posted it, I suggested they talk to their English teacher about dependent clauses.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

Intelligent people are not confused by grammar, only idiots are.

 

[Contumacious]

Somebody already posted it, I suggested they talk to their English teacher about dependent clauses.

Dependent clauses confusion is bullshit. We are free people with UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Free people can buy ANYTHING THEIR HEARTS DESIRE. They don't need their neighbors nor the government's consent.

.

 

[Rinata]

I just posted what the amendment says exactly. Everybody interprets it in their own way. Maybe the two phrases can be taken independently but we will never know if that was the intent.

We know that they considered the right to arms to be among "the great residuum" retained by the people after we granted the limited powers to government. We know they believed the right was not created, granted or given by the Amendment thus the words of the Amendment can't be "interpreted" to modify, condition, qualify or restrain the right.

Madison said:

"[Bills of Rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government."​

We the People don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there( we would possess it without any Constitutional recognition); we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

All the Bill of Rights does is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it. Your militia based "interpretation" is the product of profound ignorance. You are arguing an absurdity completely divorced from the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

What a bunch of crap. You are the one that is profoundly ignorant. You'll say anything to convince people that you should own as many guns as you want to protect yourself and loved ones.

 

[Abatis]

I just posted what the amendment says exactly. Everybody interprets it in their own way. Maybe the two phrases can be taken independently but we will never know if that was the intent.

We know that they considered the right to arms to be among "the great residuum" retained by the people after we granted the limited powers to government. We know they believed the right was not created, granted or given by the Amendment thus the words of the Amendment can't be "interpreted" to modify, condition, qualify or restrain the right.

Madison said:

"[Bills of Rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government."​

We the People don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there( we would possess it without any Constitutional recognition); we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

All the Bill of Rights does is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it. Your militia based "interpretation" is the product of profound ignorance. You are arguing an absurdity completely divorced from the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

What a bunch of crap. You are the one that is profoundly ignorant. You'll say anything to convince people that you should own as many guns as you want to protect yourself and loved ones.

I know I'm going to regret this but why is that a bunch of crap?

I mean really, are you aware of the Federalist's opposition to adding a bill of rights to the Constitution and what their arguments were?

Madison was once a vocal opponent but his opinion changed and he became the editor of the state proposals and the speech I linked to and quoted from was; James Madison Addresses the House of Representatives, 8 June 1789, on the Necessity of Amendments to the Constitution

You might want to read that before you call me ignorant.

Conferred powers and retained rights . . . those are the most fundamental principles of the Constitution and establishes the maxim, ALL NOT CONFERRED IS RETAINED which of course is the basis of the 9th and 10th Amendments which stand as testaments to the Federalist's arguments (even though they "lost" the debate over adding a bill of rights).

If you want to play a sleuth find Madison's formal introduction of the proposed amendments to Congress. He wanted to insert the amendments in the BODY of the Constitution, within the particular Articles and Sections that they were modifying / effecting. Madison did not propose [what would become] the 2nd Amendment being inserted in Article I, § 8, the powers of Congress (and the militia clauses).

Go be a good citizen and come back and tell us where Madison wanted to insert the right to arms amendment.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Lakhota]

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

I just posted what the amendment says exactly. Everybody interprets it in their own way. Maybe the two phrases can be taken independently but we will never know if that was the intent.

We know that they considered the right to arms to be among "the great residuum" retained by the people after we granted the limited powers to government. We know they believed the right was not created, granted or given by the Amendment thus the words of the Amendment can't be "interpreted" to modify, condition, qualify or restrain the right.

Madison said:

"[Bills of Rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government."​

We the People don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there( we would possess it without any Constitutional recognition); we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

All the Bill of Rights does is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it. Your militia based "interpretation" is the product of profound ignorance. You are arguing an absurdity completely divorced from the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

What a bunch of crap. You are the one that is profoundly ignorant. You'll say anything to convince people that you should own as many guns as you want to protect yourself and loved ones.

You don't need convinced that we should own as many guns as we want to protect ourselves and our loved ones. Because, that's just the way it is. Why would anyone need to convince you when those are the facts of the matter? If you need convincing, then you must live in some fantasy land somewhere and you're completely oblivious to the United States Constitution and what it contains. But, since most people aren't as clueless as you? Convincing you really doesn't matter.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

We know that they considered the right to arms to be among "the great residuum" retained by the people after we granted the limited powers to government. We know they believed the right was not created, granted or given by the Amendment thus the words of the Amendment can't be "interpreted" to modify, condition, qualify or restrain the right.

Madison said:

"[Bills of Rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government."​

We the People don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there( we would possess it without any Constitutional recognition); we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

All the Bill of Rights does is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it. Your militia based "interpretation" is the product of profound ignorance. You are arguing an absurdity completely divorced from the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

What a bunch of crap. You are the one that is profoundly ignorant. You'll say anything to convince people that you should own as many guns as you want to protect yourself and loved ones.

I know I'm going to regret this but why is that a bunch of crap?

I mean really, are you aware of the Federalist's opposition to adding a bill of rights to the Constitution and what their arguments were?

Madison was once a vocal opponent but his opinion changed and he became the editor of the state proposals and the speech I linked to and quoted from was; James Madison Addresses the House of Representatives, 8 June 1789, on the Necessity of Amendments to the Constitution

You might want to read that before you call me ignorant.

Conferred powers and retained rights . . . those are the most fundamental principles of the Constitution and establishes the maxim, ALL NOT CONFERRED IS RETAINED which of course is the basis of the 9th and 10th Amendments which stand as testaments to the Federalist's arguments (even though they "lost" the debate over adding a bill of rights).

If you want to play a sleuth find Madison's formal introduction of the proposed amendments to Congress. He wanted to insert the amendments in the BODY of the Constitution, within the particular Articles and Sections that they were modifying / effecting. Madison did not propose [what would become] the 2nd Amendment being inserted in Article I, § 8, the powers of Congress (and the militia clauses).

Go be a good citizen and come back and tell us where Madison wanted to insert the right to arms amendment.

Come on Abatis. Trying to educate a leftist about the Constitution, the Founding Fathers and the history of this nation is a fruitless endeavor. You might as well bang your head against a wall, you'd probably make greater progress. You say Constitution to a leftist and they probably think you're referring to how they look.

 

[Lakhota]

Who gives a shit what Madison said. All that matters is the final ratified document. Just like the founders' religious beliefs or lack thereof - which were irrelevant to the Godless Constitution that was ratified.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Who gives a shit what Madison said. All that matters is the final ratified document. Just like the founders' religious beliefs or lack thereof - which were irrelevant to the Godless Constitution that was ratified.

Ratification requires 3/4's of the states. Liberals will NEVER gain 3/4's of the States.. Not even in your best dream..

Lastly, the United States Constitution is a living, breathing document that is the basis of everything this country stands for. America has been a great nation and what makes her great are the people within who have held God and liberty as beacons of light. Not you, nor any other leftist can change that history.

 

[Lakhota]

America was founded on murder and theft.

 

[koshergrl]

There's some asshole in another thread saying that if we don't give up our guns, *they* will take our children while they're at school.

There's a reason progressives want us unarmed, ppl.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

America was founded on murder and theft.

I happen to agree with your intent in regard to what was done to the Native American. It's a black eye in our history but no nation is without mistakes. As far as you're concerned, you're truly one of the more extreme posters here and just about everything you say sounds insane.

 

[beretta304]

America was founded on murder and theft.

I happen to agree with your intent in regard to what was done to the Native American. It's a black eye in our history but no nation is without mistakes. As far as you're concerned, you're truly one of the more extreme posters here and just about everything you say sounds insane.

She may be a native but she's no American.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

America was founded on murder and theft.

I happen to agree with your intent in regard to what was done to the Native American. It's a black eye in our history but no nation is without mistakes. As far as you're concerned, you're truly one of the more extreme posters here and just about everything you say sounds insane.

She may be a native but she's no American.

Lakhota is a she?! I agree with you there.. It's certainly NOT an American.

 

[beretta304]

I happen to agree with your intent in regard to what was done to the Native American. It's a black eye in our history but no nation is without mistakes. As far as you're concerned, you're truly one of the more extreme posters here and just about everything you say sounds insane.

She may be a native but she's no American.

Lakhota is a she?! I agree with you there.. It's certainly NOT an American.

I don't know what it is...metrosexual maybe.

 

[koshergrl]

She's native like I'm a prima ballerina.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

She's native like I'm a prima ballerina.

 

[beretta304]

Likely some little drunken leftist dope posting from mommy's basement. Probably figured pretending to be a Native American would garner some sympathy and people would go easy on it.