The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

I have danielpalos on ignore. Let me guess:

"Only Congress can determine the wellness of regulation of the milipeople or rhe peoplitia. Clueless and Causeless right wing morons fail to understand my reasoning which is backed soley by my buzzwors."

Did I get it right?

The right is inherent. The Constitutiondoes not grant the right, but protects the people from the federal government.

Yes, well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

danielpalos is the first poster I have ignored. Interesting. I do't have to read his repeated, unsupported bullshit. Just "Show Ignored Content"


"Clueless and Causeless"

"Wellness of regulation"

"Peoplitia"....of the people...

 

[danielpalos]

Like I have been saying for a while now; the right wing has nothing but diversion.

 

[westwall]

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.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?

No, silly person. It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.

Run along little sheep, run along.

Nothing but diversion, right wingers?

The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.

It really is that simple, except to the right wing.

No, it's pretty obvious that it is you who are the defective one. Like I stated previously, if it were your opinion that was correct the ruling elite would have disarmed us decades ago. As they haven't I think it is safe to say that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

 

[westwall]

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.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?

No, silly person. It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.

Run along little sheep, run along.

Dear westwall to be as fair and understanding as I can be,
I'd say the reason behind their views is they really truly BELIEVE
this to be the truth. Just like Christians KNOW God to be true
and just can't understand anything else or less. And how atheists
or secular nontheists just KNOW you don't need a God or Jesus,
and the religions that insist on that just must be wrong because
otherwise it leaves people out who just don't think that way.

Both sides truly believe they are expressing the truth, and
the other ways are projecting something else that isn't universal or
absolute truth.

Honestly westwall they just can't help but seeing it that way.
Just like atheists can't help it.
Or Christians can't help it.

The people who can't wrap their minds around same sex marriage
or see gender as anything by genetically chromosomal
can't help that.

The people who see gender as internally relative
and culturally subjective can't help that either.

When it comes to deep seated beliefs, insulting or attacking
people for whatever reason they have those view or whatever
ways they are able or UNABLE to explain why they do,
none of that helps or changes anything.

The main thing is neither should govt or laws be abused
to penalize people for beliefs they just can't help.
If that's what they believe, they have equal right to exercise
and express their views without penalty or discrimination by govt,
THEY JUST CAN'T ABUSE GOVT TO IMPOSE THEM EITHER.

I don't get it, I really hoped people could at least
SEE that both sides have their own beliefs.
But by their beliefs, they really believe their way is historically
true and can't see how the other sides beliefs have any validity.

And that is part of their beliefs!
Similar to the right to health care folks who can't see it
any other way but it must be through govt in order to
be established equally for all people. That's their belief, too.

They think that is natural, similar to how ChrisL was
arguing the right to bear arms is natural.

These political beliefs are something else!

I disagree with you. They are authoritarians at heart. dp here even proudly proclaims his Federalist viewpoint. Thus they will lie, cheat, and steal, to get their way. The more government power the better in their view.

 

[westwall]

I have danielpalos on ignore. Let me guess:

"Only Congress can determine the wellness of regulation of the milipeople or rhe peoplitia. Clueless and Causeless right wing morons fail to understand my reasoning which is backed soley by my buzzwors."

Did I get it right?

The right is inherent. The Constitutiondoes not grant the right, but protects the people from the federal government.

Yes, well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Yeppers, a government granting itself the right to defend itself from itself. It takes a special kind of stupid to push that particular line of "thought".

 

[turtledude]

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.

What I have that you have admitted you don' have, R2D2 is a degree in political science and Law from the very best programs in the USA. and I understand the constitution, its history, its meaning and its purpose. and guess what, your program is deficient. You don't know much of anything about this topic

 

[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.

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

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

yep, you must have read Cruikshank and my buddy St George Tucker

I've read Cruikshank, I'm just waiting for your argument on it.

Go read Harry Potter, somewhere in one of those books there's some evidence for my argument. When you've found that piece of evidence, I'll tell you what my argument is......

Are you up for that? Because that's what shit you're sending to me.

you're just another contrarian troll with a coloring of populist, who is hateful of those who are well educated in the law, because you are not. Harry Potter-WTF? Cruikshank notes that the founders did not create a right but merely recognized it and it was a not a right created by the constitution. Meaning its a right endowed by the creator and membership in a government created organization is not needed for that right to vest

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

yep, you must have read Cruikshank and my buddy St George Tucker

I've read Cruikshank, I'm just waiting for your argument on it.

Go read Harry Potter, somewhere in one of those books there's some evidence for my argument. When you've found that piece of evidence, I'll tell you what my argument is......

Are you up for that? Because that's what shit you're sending to me.

you're just another contrarian troll with a coloring of populist, who is hateful of those who are well educated in the law, because you are not. Harry Potter-WTF? Cruikshank notes that the founders did not create a right but merely recognized it and it was a not a right created by the constitution. Meaning its a right endowed by the creator and membership in a government created organization is not needed for that right to vest

Oh come off it. How can I be a troll? You haven't answered the FIRST question I've asked. Every time you just duck and dive.

So, your whole point about Cruikshank was something I already knew in the first place. Oh, wow. Big news everyone, the sun rises in the morning.....

The problem with your "argument" is that we're discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. The PROTECT of the right.

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

See, I already said that today to someone else. Go figure.

The Second Amendment protects WHAT? The Second Amendment is Constitutional LAW, the LAW means something and protects something within the realms of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

It doesn't matter whether you think the right existed before or not. We're not discussing the right, we're discussing the Constitutional PROTECTION of that right.

 

[turtledude]

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

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

yep, you must have read Cruikshank and my buddy St George Tucker

I've read Cruikshank, I'm just waiting for your argument on it.

Go read Harry Potter, somewhere in one of those books there's some evidence for my argument. When you've found that piece of evidence, I'll tell you what my argument is......

Are you up for that? Because that's what shit you're sending to me.

you're just another contrarian troll with a coloring of populist, who is hateful of those who are well educated in the law, because you are not. Harry Potter-WTF? Cruikshank notes that the founders did not create a right but merely recognized it and it was a not a right created by the constitution. Meaning its a right endowed by the creator and membership in a government created organization is not needed for that right to vest

Oh come off it. How can I be a troll? You haven't answered the FIRST question I've asked. Every time you just duck and dive.

So, your whole point about Cruikshank was something I already knew in the first place. Oh, wow. Big news everyone, the sun rises in the morning.....

The problem with your "argument" is that we're discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. The PROTECT of the right.

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

See, I already said that today to someone else. Go figure.

The Second Amendment protects WHAT? The Second Amendment is Constitutional LAW, the LAW means something and protects something within the realms of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

It doesn't matter whether you think the right existed before or not. We're not discussing the right, we're discussing the Constitutional PROTECTION of that right.

lets cut the crap. do you believe the founders intended that the federal government have any gun control powers

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

What I have that you have admitted you don' have, R2D2 is a degree in political science and Law from the very best programs in the USA. and I understand the constitution, its history, its meaning and its purpose. and guess what, your program is deficient. You don't know much of anything about this topic

Hilarious.

A guy who can't argue for shit claiming to have lots of stuff.

Fuck you, I have a PhD in the right bear arms, I have a triple PhD in potato management and I won the Nobel Prize for knowing the most about the Second Amendment. What do you have?

 

[frigidweirdo]

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

yep, you must have read Cruikshank and my buddy St George Tucker

I've read Cruikshank, I'm just waiting for your argument on it.

Go read Harry Potter, somewhere in one of those books there's some evidence for my argument. When you've found that piece of evidence, I'll tell you what my argument is......

Are you up for that? Because that's what shit you're sending to me.

you're just another contrarian troll with a coloring of populist, who is hateful of those who are well educated in the law, because you are not. Harry Potter-WTF? Cruikshank notes that the founders did not create a right but merely recognized it and it was a not a right created by the constitution. Meaning its a right endowed by the creator and membership in a government created organization is not needed for that right to vest

Oh come off it. How can I be a troll? You haven't answered the FIRST question I've asked. Every time you just duck and dive.

So, your whole point about Cruikshank was something I already knew in the first place. Oh, wow. Big news everyone, the sun rises in the morning.....

The problem with your "argument" is that we're discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. The PROTECT of the right.

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

See, I already said that today to someone else. Go figure.

The Second Amendment protects WHAT? The Second Amendment is Constitutional LAW, the LAW means something and protects something within the realms of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

It doesn't matter whether you think the right existed before or not. We're not discussing the right, we're discussing the Constitutional PROTECTION of that right.

lets cut the crap. do you believe the founders intended that the federal government have any gun control powers

Well that's not a simple answer is it?

Firstly the US Constitution has the power to be Amendment. So.... from that point the Founders left open the possibility that the Constitution could be changed.

Secondly, the right to KEEP arms protects individuals to own arms. It doesn't protect them to own ALL arms and has generally been interpreted to mean "militia type" weapons or weapons useful for the militia.

However in the modern day the US militia (National Guard) has a lot of high tech weaponry that people don't think would be a good idea in the hands of individuals. What are people going to do with field artillery? Well in war against the US govt, I have no doubt it would be useful. So, why don't individuals have such weaponry?

The Founders lived in a time where weaponry was similar between Armed Forces weaponry and hunting weaponry. The modern era has changed at a lot.

Do you think the NRA supports "the right" of people to have field artillery and F-16s? No, they don't fight for this.They fight for handguns and perhaps other guns, but mostly guns.

What the Second Amendment protects is the right of individuals to own weapons. However the 2A doesn't prevent the US govt from banning certain types of weaponry, as long as individual can get their hands on weaponry that is not too expensive, then the right isn't being infringed upon.

But I asked a question about the right to BEAR arms. This is the right to KEEP arms.

Funny how you've moved it back into your comfort zone.

I answered your question, are you going to answer mine? It's been like a week and you've refused to answer.

Mr Gerry said that "bear arms" was "militia duty", Mr Jackson said it was "render military service". Mr Washington used the term synonymously with "render military service". The draft versions of the Second Amendment flitted between "bear arms" and "render military service" for their last clause which was removed from the Amendment because the Founding Fathers had a problem with it. Some of them, like Mr Jackson called for those who wouldn't bear arms to pay an equivalent. Why would govt require people to pay an equivalent for not carrying guns around?
The Supreme Court in Presser said that parading with guns was NOT protected by either the right to keep arms or the right to bear arms. The Heller case affirmed the Presser case.

All you have is a Supreme Court case that basically says that the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal government (though things have basically changed recently on this count, to include state governments) which means if I take your gun away, I am NOT infringing on your right to keep or bear arms.

That's all you have.

I have loads. You have nothing.

So my question is, what did Mr Gerry mean when he said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head." in relation to the clause that said: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Do you think Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" or "militia duty"?

 

[turtledude]

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.

What I have that you have admitted you don' have, R2D2 is a degree in political science and Law from the very best programs in the USA. and I understand the constitution, its history, its meaning and its purpose. and guess what, your program is deficient. You don't know much of anything about this topic

Hilarious.

A guy who can't argue for shit claiming to have lots of stuff.

Fuck you, I have a PhD in the right bear arms, I have a triple PhD in potato management and I won the Nobel Prize for knowing the most about the Second Amendment. What do you have?

I figured that would be like spraying troll-b-gone. Yo don't have any clue do you? you bannerrhoids come up with all sorts of ways to reinterpret the second amendment to allow your gun banning schemes.

 

[turtledude]

yep, you must have read Cruikshank and my buddy St George Tucker

I've read Cruikshank, I'm just waiting for your argument on it.

Go read Harry Potter, somewhere in one of those books there's some evidence for my argument. When you've found that piece of evidence, I'll tell you what my argument is......

Are you up for that? Because that's what shit you're sending to me.

you're just another contrarian troll with a coloring of populist, who is hateful of those who are well educated in the law, because you are not. Harry Potter-WTF? Cruikshank notes that the founders did not create a right but merely recognized it and it was a not a right created by the constitution. Meaning its a right endowed by the creator and membership in a government created organization is not needed for that right to vest

Oh come off it. How can I be a troll? You haven't answered the FIRST question I've asked. Every time you just duck and dive.

So, your whole point about Cruikshank was something I already knew in the first place. Oh, wow. Big news everyone, the sun rises in the morning.....

The problem with your "argument" is that we're discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. The PROTECT of the right.

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

See, I already said that today to someone else. Go figure.

The Second Amendment protects WHAT? The Second Amendment is Constitutional LAW, the LAW means something and protects something within the realms of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

It doesn't matter whether you think the right existed before or not. We're not discussing the right, we're discussing the Constitutional PROTECTION of that right.

lets cut the crap. do you believe the founders intended that the federal government have any gun control powers

Well that's not a simple answer is it?

Firstly the US Constitution has the power to be Amendment. So.... from that point the Founders left open the possibility that the Constitution could be changed.

Secondly, the right to KEEP arms protects individuals to own arms. It doesn't protect them to own ALL arms and has generally been interpreted to mean "militia type" weapons or weapons useful for the militia.

However in the modern day the US militia (National Guard) has a lot of high tech weaponry that people don't think would be a good idea in the hands of individuals. What are people going to do with field artillery? Well in war against the US govt, I have no doubt it would be useful. So, why don't individuals have such weaponry?

The Founders lived in a time where weaponry was similar between Armed Forces weaponry and hunting weaponry. The modern era has changed at a lot.

Do you think the NRA supports "the right" of people to have field artillery and F-16s? No, they don't fight for this.They fight for handguns and perhaps other guns, but mostly guns.

What the Second Amendment protects is the right of individuals to own weapons. However the 2A doesn't prevent the US govt from banning certain types of weaponry, as long as individual can get their hands on weaponry that is not too expensive, then the right isn't being infringed upon.

But I asked a question about the right to BEAR arms. This is the right to KEEP arms.

Funny how you've moved it back into your comfort zone.

I answered your question, are you going to answer mine? It's been like a week and you've refused to answer.

Mr Gerry said that "bear arms" was "militia duty", Mr Jackson said it was "render military service". Mr Washington used the term synonymously with "render military service". The draft versions of the Second Amendment flitted between "bear arms" and "render military service" for their last clause which was removed from the Amendment because the Founding Fathers had a problem with it. Some of them, like Mr Jackson called for those who wouldn't bear arms to pay an equivalent. Why would govt require people to pay an equivalent for not carrying guns around?
The Supreme Court in Presser said that parading with guns was NOT protected by either the right to keep arms or the right to bear arms. The Heller case affirmed the Presser case.

All you have is a Supreme Court case that basically says that the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal government (though things have basically changed recently on this count, to include state governments) which means if I take your gun away, I am NOT infringing on your right to keep or bear arms.

That's all you have.

I have loads. You have nothing.

So my question is, what did Mr Gerry mean when he said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head." in relation to the clause that said: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Do you think Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" or "militia duty"?

complete fail-its not about what the people can do its what the government can do and where was the government given ANY power to regulate what arms you could

KEEP
BEAR
OWN
MAKE
BUY
USE
BARTER
TRADE
SELL
GIFT
CARRY
etc

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

What I have that you have admitted you don' have, R2D2 is a degree in political science and Law from the very best programs in the USA. and I understand the constitution, its history, its meaning and its purpose. and guess what, your program is deficient. You don't know much of anything about this topic

Hilarious.

A guy who can't argue for shit claiming to have lots of stuff.

Fuck you, I have a PhD in the right bear arms, I have a triple PhD in potato management and I won the Nobel Prize for knowing the most about the Second Amendment. What do you have?

I figured that would be like spraying troll-b-gone. Yo don't have any clue do you? you bannerrhoids come up with all sorts of ways to reinterpret the second amendment to allow your gun banning schemes.

You insult all the time.

My kid has stuff in cages that is smarter than you are

you're an idiot

Portman is an idiot? LOL that 's funny coming from the forum's biggest dullard

you're an idiot. we need to bankrupt the plaintiffs for filing idiotic lawsuits

listen moron. assault weapons are rarely used in murders. Less than two percent of all homicides involve the class of firearms that "assault weapons" are a sub part of. Hammers and knives, fists and baseball bats are used in more murders than the style of firearms that cause you to void in your panties.

so you are both a moron and a liar. You hear the word "assault weapon" and your bladder fails. because you are ignorant of firearms, and a leftwing idiot who hates the NRA and its support of conservative candidates. That is what motivates your stupidity

I could go on all day. I only looked up the world "idiot", and I got 49 responses. This is part of your "debate strategy" no doubt. Come off it, you claim to be a lawyer.

I'm not reinterpreting the Constitution. I've backed up EVERYTHING I've said. You've backed up almost nothing, and then when you do it's irrelevant.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I've read Cruikshank, I'm just waiting for your argument on it.

Go read Harry Potter, somewhere in one of those books there's some evidence for my argument. When you've found that piece of evidence, I'll tell you what my argument is......

Are you up for that? Because that's what shit you're sending to me.

you're just another contrarian troll with a coloring of populist, who is hateful of those who are well educated in the law, because you are not. Harry Potter-WTF? Cruikshank notes that the founders did not create a right but merely recognized it and it was a not a right created by the constitution. Meaning its a right endowed by the creator and membership in a government created organization is not needed for that right to vest

Oh come off it. How can I be a troll? You haven't answered the FIRST question I've asked. Every time you just duck and dive.

So, your whole point about Cruikshank was something I already knew in the first place. Oh, wow. Big news everyone, the sun rises in the morning.....

The problem with your "argument" is that we're discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. The PROTECT of the right.

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

See, I already said that today to someone else. Go figure.

The Second Amendment protects WHAT? The Second Amendment is Constitutional LAW, the LAW means something and protects something within the realms of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

It doesn't matter whether you think the right existed before or not. We're not discussing the right, we're discussing the Constitutional PROTECTION of that right.

lets cut the crap. do you believe the founders intended that the federal government have any gun control powers

Well that's not a simple answer is it?

Firstly the US Constitution has the power to be Amendment. So.... from that point the Founders left open the possibility that the Constitution could be changed.

Secondly, the right to KEEP arms protects individuals to own arms. It doesn't protect them to own ALL arms and has generally been interpreted to mean "militia type" weapons or weapons useful for the militia.

However in the modern day the US militia (National Guard) has a lot of high tech weaponry that people don't think would be a good idea in the hands of individuals. What are people going to do with field artillery? Well in war against the US govt, I have no doubt it would be useful. So, why don't individuals have such weaponry?

The Founders lived in a time where weaponry was similar between Armed Forces weaponry and hunting weaponry. The modern era has changed at a lot.

Do you think the NRA supports "the right" of people to have field artillery and F-16s? No, they don't fight for this.They fight for handguns and perhaps other guns, but mostly guns.

What the Second Amendment protects is the right of individuals to own weapons. However the 2A doesn't prevent the US govt from banning certain types of weaponry, as long as individual can get their hands on weaponry that is not too expensive, then the right isn't being infringed upon.

But I asked a question about the right to BEAR arms. This is the right to KEEP arms.

Funny how you've moved it back into your comfort zone.

I answered your question, are you going to answer mine? It's been like a week and you've refused to answer.

Mr Gerry said that "bear arms" was "militia duty", Mr Jackson said it was "render military service". Mr Washington used the term synonymously with "render military service". The draft versions of the Second Amendment flitted between "bear arms" and "render military service" for their last clause which was removed from the Amendment because the Founding Fathers had a problem with it. Some of them, like Mr Jackson called for those who wouldn't bear arms to pay an equivalent. Why would govt require people to pay an equivalent for not carrying guns around?
The Supreme Court in Presser said that parading with guns was NOT protected by either the right to keep arms or the right to bear arms. The Heller case affirmed the Presser case.

All you have is a Supreme Court case that basically says that the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal government (though things have basically changed recently on this count, to include state governments) which means if I take your gun away, I am NOT infringing on your right to keep or bear arms.

That's all you have.

I have loads. You have nothing.

So my question is, what did Mr Gerry mean when he said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head." in relation to the clause that said: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Do you think Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" or "militia duty"?

complete fail-its not about what the people can do its what the government can do and where was the government given ANY power to regulate what arms you could

KEEP
BEAR
OWN
MAKE
BUY
USE
BARTER
TRADE
SELL
GIFT
CARRY
etc

I didn't say it wasn't.

The Constitution is about the powers of the US Federal government.

The Bill of Rights is about the limits of power on the US Federal govt.

So what?

So it means that the US Federal govt cannot infringe on the right of people to bear arms.

So what does "bear arms" mean?

It means "render military service" and "militia duty".

I've proven this.

Whether individuals can carry weapons is not an issue of the Second Amendment. I don't need a Constitutional right to be able to do something. However we're talking about what the US govt is specifically unable to do due to the SECOND AMENDMENT.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

No imentally ill person should have guns especially a collection of military assault weapons with bump stocks...

Anyone who is adjudicated mentally ill cannot own firearms.

Supposedly, in a perfect world, if you're an idiot

So it's not the fact that there are no gun laws but rather the fact that they are not enforced

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

you're just another contrarian troll with a coloring of populist, who is hateful of those who are well educated in the law, because you are not. Harry Potter-WTF? Cruikshank notes that the founders did not create a right but merely recognized it and it was a not a right created by the constitution. Meaning its a right endowed by the creator and membership in a government created organization is not needed for that right to vest

Oh come off it. How can I be a troll? You haven't answered the FIRST question I've asked. Every time you just duck and dive.

So, your whole point about Cruikshank was something I already knew in the first place. Oh, wow. Big news everyone, the sun rises in the morning.....

The problem with your "argument" is that we're discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. The PROTECT of the right.

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

See, I already said that today to someone else. Go figure.

The Second Amendment protects WHAT? The Second Amendment is Constitutional LAW, the LAW means something and protects something within the realms of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

It doesn't matter whether you think the right existed before or not. We're not discussing the right, we're discussing the Constitutional PROTECTION of that right.

lets cut the crap. do you believe the founders intended that the federal government have any gun control powers

Well that's not a simple answer is it?

Firstly the US Constitution has the power to be Amendment. So.... from that point the Founders left open the possibility that the Constitution could be changed.

Secondly, the right to KEEP arms protects individuals to own arms. It doesn't protect them to own ALL arms and has generally been interpreted to mean "militia type" weapons or weapons useful for the militia.

However in the modern day the US militia (National Guard) has a lot of high tech weaponry that people don't think would be a good idea in the hands of individuals. What are people going to do with field artillery? Well in war against the US govt, I have no doubt it would be useful. So, why don't individuals have such weaponry?

The Founders lived in a time where weaponry was similar between Armed Forces weaponry and hunting weaponry. The modern era has changed at a lot.

Do you think the NRA supports "the right" of people to have field artillery and F-16s? No, they don't fight for this.They fight for handguns and perhaps other guns, but mostly guns.

What the Second Amendment protects is the right of individuals to own weapons. However the 2A doesn't prevent the US govt from banning certain types of weaponry, as long as individual can get their hands on weaponry that is not too expensive, then the right isn't being infringed upon.

But I asked a question about the right to BEAR arms. This is the right to KEEP arms.

Funny how you've moved it back into your comfort zone.

I answered your question, are you going to answer mine? It's been like a week and you've refused to answer.

Mr Gerry said that "bear arms" was "militia duty", Mr Jackson said it was "render military service". Mr Washington used the term synonymously with "render military service". The draft versions of the Second Amendment flitted between "bear arms" and "render military service" for their last clause which was removed from the Amendment because the Founding Fathers had a problem with it. Some of them, like Mr Jackson called for those who wouldn't bear arms to pay an equivalent. Why would govt require people to pay an equivalent for not carrying guns around?
The Supreme Court in Presser said that parading with guns was NOT protected by either the right to keep arms or the right to bear arms. The Heller case affirmed the Presser case.

All you have is a Supreme Court case that basically says that the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal government (though things have basically changed recently on this count, to include state governments) which means if I take your gun away, I am NOT infringing on your right to keep or bear arms.

That's all you have.

I have loads. You have nothing.

So my question is, what did Mr Gerry mean when he said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head." in relation to the clause that said: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Do you think Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" or "militia duty"?

complete fail-its not about what the people can do its what the government can do and where was the government given ANY power to regulate what arms you could

KEEP
BEAR
OWN
MAKE
BUY
USE
BARTER
TRADE
SELL
GIFT
CARRY
etc

I didn't say it wasn't.

The Constitution is about the powers of the US Federal government.

The Bill of Rights is about the limits of power on the US Federal govt.

So what?

So it means that the US Federal govt cannot infringe on the right of people to bear arms.

So what does "bear arms" mean?

It means "render military service" and "militia duty".

I've proven this.

Whether individuals can carry weapons is not an issue of the Second Amendment. I don't need a Constitutional right to be able to do something. However we're talking about what the US govt is specifically unable to do due to the SECOND AMENDMENT.

I don't agree with you on the meaning of "bear" as it applies to the 2nd, but at least you are making sense, or making a legitimate argument. I appreciate that.


I think "bear" means to carry. I think Congress has acted improperly for decades, given the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments.

State and local governments had the authority to limilt time, place, and manner of carrying arms. Cruikshank made that clear. Presser held that the 2A is an individual right, not a militia right, holding a law or action by local governments preventing militias from marching the streets with guns was not an infringement od this individual right. States also had the authority to limit the type of arms one could keep. But, now that is questionable, given the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment.

The SCOTUS has allowed Congressional overreach, refusing to directly address the relationship between Amendments 2, 9, 10, and 14, as they relate to Congressional authority to regulate firearms., or at least I have not seen such a decision, with my limited study on The Court's decisions on the topic,. Cruikshank came close, but they were deciding whether to uphold the convictions of Klansmen under the Enforcement Act of 1870. The Court overturned those convictions, holding that the 14th Amendment applies to States, not individuals, and that the 2nd only limits Congress. But, I am always open to a discussion on SCOTUS opinions.

The question I have about your interpretation of "bear" arms goes to intent. Why would the founders feel compelled to preserve the right to take up arms in a militia or render military service. That was not a right, but a duty.

Which interpretation makes more sense?

The right of the people to keep arms and (the duty) render military service shall not be infringed, or the right to keep and carry arms?

There is no ambiguity. Attaching a "military service" interpreataion to "bear" goes against the plain meaning of the text in the Amendment. The word "bear" in this context means to carry. They may have used the word in the context of military service, but that use also meant to carry, or to take up arms. I could see your interpretation working in the context od the right to take up arms as needed, for whatever ligitimate purpose, but that would also be a stretch, give the attitudes and practices of the day, where packing a pistol was as common as carrying a wallet and mobile phone is today.

If the intended meaning of the word "bear" means military service, and not to carry on one's person, why would the founders limit Congrass on the right to keep arms, but leave Congress with the authority to prevent individuals from waling around armed, which was a very common practice at the time? That angle makes no sense.

Nor does the interpretation that the phrase "keep amd carry" has a singular legal meaning, like "sell and convey" or "null and void" when there is no precident for such an interpretation, and when doing so renders the 2nd or Art. 1, Sec. 8 meaningless, ineffective, or redundant.

I think we can all agree that the 2nd preserves the individual right by excluding Congress from any arms regulation, given both the Presser and Cruikshank decisions.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?

No, silly person. It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.

Run along little sheep, run along.

Nothing but diversion, right wingers?

The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.

It really is that simple, except to the right wing.

No, it's pretty obvious that it is you who are the defective one. Like I stated previously, if it were your opinion that was correct the ruling elite would have disarmed us decades ago. As they haven't I think it is safe to say that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

why do y'all waste your time with politics; gossip girls is what y'all are best at.

Well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?

Federalists have good arguments, unlike republicans.



No, silly person. It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.

Run along little sheep, run along.

Dear westwall to be as fair and understanding as I can be,
I'd say the reason behind their views is they really truly BELIEVE
this to be the truth. Just like Christians KNOW God to be true
and just can't understand anything else or less. And how atheists
or secular nontheists just KNOW you don't need a God or Jesus,
and the religions that insist on that just must be wrong because
otherwise it leaves people out who just don't think that way.

Both sides truly believe they are expressing the truth, and
the other ways are projecting something else that isn't universal or
absolute truth.

Honestly westwall they just can't help but seeing it that way.
Just like atheists can't help it.
Or Christians can't help it.

The people who can't wrap their minds around same sex marriage
or see gender as anything by genetically chromosomal
can't help that.

The people who see gender as internally relative
and culturally subjective can't help that either.

When it comes to deep seated beliefs, insulting or attacking
people for whatever reason they have those view or whatever
ways they are able or UNABLE to explain why they do,
none of that helps or changes anything.

The main thing is neither should govt or laws be abused
to penalize people for beliefs they just can't help.
If that's what they believe, they have equal right to exercise
and express their views without penalty or discrimination by govt,
THEY JUST CAN'T ABUSE GOVT TO IMPOSE THEM EITHER.

I don't get it, I really hoped people could at least
SEE that both sides have their own beliefs.
But by their beliefs, they really believe their way is historically
true and can't see how the other sides beliefs have any validity.

And that is part of their beliefs!
Similar to the right to health care folks who can't see it
any other way but it must be through govt in order to
be established equally for all people. That's their belief, too.

They think that is natural, similar to how ChrisL was
arguing the right to bear arms is natural.

These political beliefs are something else!

I disagree with you. They are authoritarians at heart. dp here even proudly proclaims his Federalist viewpoint. Thus they will lie, cheat, and steal, to get their way. The more government power the better in their view.

Federalists have good arguments, unlike republicans.