danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #4,581
Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.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.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.
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.
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.