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.

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".

Like during the war between the States? Individuals are usually just criminals, not well regulated militia.

 

[danielpalos]

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

I took political science in school. You and most of the right wing have nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments.

The People are the Militia. That makes me right even if I am on the left, and you right wingers, just plain wrong; like usual.

 

[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.

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

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

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

they do have gun control powers in the federal districts.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.


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.

Yes, I get that a lot of people "don't agree".

However the point is they don't WANT to agree. You can present all the evidence in the world, but people like this will always reject what isn't convenient.

Okay. Your first point is that "bear" means "carry". It does. But it also means to have a child among other things.

My point here is that context is important. I've used the word "stool" as a perfect example. It means a shit and it means a wooden backless seat.

"The doctor asked him to sit on the stool", you use context to imply that it means the wooden backless seat rather than the shit, wouldn't you say?

The context of the "bear arms" is the Amendment starts with "A well regulated militia" and what does people carrying arms around in the streets have to do with the militia?

In the past the 2A was ONLY a limit of the Federal government. The Supreme Court hardly ever got cases for incorporation. But now that has changed.

The Inevitable Incorporation of the Second Amendment.

This article from 2010 shows this.

Okay you say "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."

It's actually easy to explain and logical.

I agree that it's a duty. If you read the debates in Congress which I have been using as my main source for my argument, you'll see they spoke about this quite a bit and wanted people to pay an equivalent. Why pay an equivalent for those who wouldn't walk around with guns? You'd literally be forcing people to be armed all the time. The Founding Fathers would never have done that. People didn't want that level of interference in their lives.

But here's the issue why they wanted to protect a duty.

The US Federal government could call up militia troops to federal duty.The feds had the power to arm the militia when in federal duty and also the power to DISARM the same people. It's in Article 1 Section 8.

But even easier than this:

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that the feds couldn't touch.

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 the weapons.

Without personnel the militia is nothing. Without arms the militia is nothing. They go hand in hand.

Now, ask yourself this question. What purpose does making a right to carry guns around give? It doesn't. It doesn't protect the militia, it doesn't help the militia.

Many things could have been protected in the Bill of Rights, but the reality was all of them had a purpose. Now you're trying to say the right to bear arms has not purpose other than because individuals want to. Then why didn't they protect the right to drink water? The right to breathe air? So many things that serve no purpose.

Imagine this. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to drink water and breathe air shall not be infringed."

Everyone would think the Founding Fathers were smoking some heavy shit. It makes not sense. And it makes no sense to have "the right of the people to keep arms and to walk around town with their gun stuck down their pants".



No only does your argument make no sense, but you've also failed to back it up with a single document. On the other hand I have PROOF, I mean, unless you're willing to stick your head up your ass, you can't deny what is said in the document I provided.

"bear arms" is used synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty" and is NOT used synonymously with "walk around with guns." It's that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

This can be found in New York's, State Constitution:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

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

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

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

???? Dear danielpalos
No, the Bill of Rights did not come from the Congressional level.
The Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was
added as a condition to get certain states to agree to ratify the
Constitution. So while all the States and their reps had a say in
how the 2nd and other Amendments were written in order to go
through the national process of being added to the Constitution,
the whole spirit and point of the CONTENTS of the Bill of Rights
is to define INDIVIDUAL rights that belong to STATES and PEOPLE
NOT TO FEDERAL GOVT WHICH IS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION PROPER.

I see you don't get the very spirit and purpose for the Bill of Rights.

I feel sorry for you and anyone who has to argue or try to explain this to you.

It is as difficult as trying to explain why God and Jesus are universally
important to humanity, while dealing with an atheist who doesn't see or experience what these things mean.

Not your fault, I just feel bad that this has created such ill will and distrust
when it really is a matter of people's individual beliefs. Similar to how people can't help identifying as gay or straight, transgender or cis whatever.

If you just don't believe in individual people having that right, but only states or in your case you believe federal govt is the regulating authority,
then that's your belief. I can respect that, but strongly urge you to do the same and respect the beliefs of others, without demeaning namecalling and insults, if you expect to be taken seriously either!

The natural law that you cannot argue exists regardless of legal system or religion is the Natural Law of Reciprocity or the Golden Rule.

danielpalos if you want others to respect you
take you seriously and include and protect YOUR views beliefs
and arguments, then if you treat them with that same
respect and inclusion, people tend to reciprocate.

If you seek to abuse govt to abridge prohibit exclude DISPARAGE
or otherwise Discriminate against others of different or opposing beliefs,
guess what? They become defensive of their rights and will do the
same to you as a defense mechanism.

this is human nature. that's what is meant by natural laws.
We operate that way by Conscience, by our naturally born free will.

So whenever you or I or anyone, especially a religious or political group, threatens to control, change, or regulate the beliefs or will of another person or group, that person or group will respond exactly as you and I would do,
and defend that position.

So the Golden Rule applies. If you want to reach a respectable solution that accommodates your views, it is just common sense and practical wisdom
to accommodate the views of others, and to respect their consent and beliefs, as you want your own beliefs and consent to be respected!

The Golden Rule of reciprocity appears in every major religion.
Ironically the worst place where I see it omitted or even negated
is in Constitutional laws, where people teach a separation of people
from govt to the point where we do not teach people to enforce the same rules for govt that we want for ourselves. We keep teaching that the responsibilities for law lie with govt and give more power there than to the people. So you wonder why people aren't equal. The ones with a chance at equality are the people taught to empower themselves with equal authority as anyone else either inside or outside a position of authority. We all have a right to petition until grievances are redressed so that we share equal voice in decisions on any level that we wish to participate and take responsibility.
As individuals, we have that, but not as govt where govt is limited between state, federal or local jurisdiction. So the people always have more power than the govt because we aren't limited to just one branch or one level.

What is missing is learning to treat others and respect the rights of others as we would want enforced for ourselves. The Constitution doesn't come out and say that, we have to figure that part out for ourselves.

Again it's a natural law, that what we do unto others comes back to us.
Whether you call this reaping what you sow, the laws of karma or cause and effect, the laws of justice and peace. The Bill of Rights defines and protects the TOOLS we need from free speech and press, right to petition and due process; but doesn't require in writing that the people follow the laws if they want to invoke them. Again that is already inherent in the natural laws that people invoke without relying on any religion or set of laws to do it. That naturally occurs, and we live by these natural laws every day, in all relations. What we give is what we get. We attract the very reactions that we instigate with our own actions.

If you can understand the Golden Rule, then we have a chance to work with all people of all beliefs, and teach respect for contrasting beliefs while we work toward a solution that includes these respectively, so that none need to suffer compromise or threat to trounce on them.

We'd have to work on a local and state level, and I think by working with the NRA on training and screening procedures per police force or per military or state entity, we can do the equivalent of "well regulated militia" on a state local or national level, while respecting the consent of the people REGARDLESS OF THEIR BELIEFS, including the diehards who don't believe in either federal or state authority regulating arms. We can still work with those extremes of the spectrum if we can work with the extreme that you believe in that federal govt or Congress is the authority on this.

I know many more people who would only agree and barely agree if it was the local people deciding for themselves what procedures or policies would be used to ensure arms aren't abused for criminal intent or purposes. And they tend to be very big on not depriving rights without due process to prove that someone shouldn't have access to guns. So there is that extreme that those people have equal right to as you do to your beliefs.

Are you okay with this concept that given the contrasting political beliefs,
a solution should be crafted that accommodates people of all beliefs equally?

Do you agree with the spirit of the contract that in order to respect and include your arguments beliefs and interpretations, the same should be
afforded to other citizens like you who aren't trying to abuse such rights and protections to commit or enable abuse of laws or authority to infringe on the same of anyone else, but to defend the laws for all people agreeing on this purpose?

Thanks danielpalos
and CC also to frigidweirdo
If you both and I can agree on an approach of equal inclusion
I would be happy to work with you on a task force to address
the NRA and state governors on agreed approaches that
don't violate or impose on anyone's beliefs regardless how
diverse or conflicting. We can work around these state by state,
district by district, and agency by agnecy where each local
jurisdiction can agree and participate in forming their own policies
to ensure safety whie respecting the rights and beliefs of all people
under that jurisdiction, even where their beliefs are in the same conflict
that we are finding here. We must still work together on equal inclusion
if we are going to fulfill the standards and purpose of Constitutional laws protecting the rights of people and states from infringement, no matter how we frame or define these, based on our respective beliefs and arguments.

Thank you!

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Yes, I get that a lot of people "don't agree".

However the point is they don't WANT to agree. You can present all the evidence in the world, but people like this will always reject what isn't convenient.

Okay. Your first point is that "bear" means "carry". It does. But it also means to have a child among other things.

My point here is that context is important. I've used the word "stool" as a perfect example. It means a shit and it means a wooden backless seat.

"The doctor asked him to sit on the stool", you use context to imply that it means the wooden backless seat rather than the shit, wouldn't you say?

The context of the "bear arms" is the Amendment starts with "A well regulated militia" and what does people carrying arms around in the streets have to do with the militia?

In the past the 2A was ONLY a limit of the Federal government. The Supreme Court hardly ever got cases for incorporation. But now that has changed.

The Inevitable Incorporation of the Second Amendment.

This article from 2010 shows this.

Okay you say "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."

It's actually easy to explain and logical.

I agree that it's a duty. If you read the debates in Congress which I have been using as my main source for my argument, you'll see they spoke about this quite a bit and wanted people to pay an equivalent. Why pay an equivalent for those who wouldn't walk around with guns? You'd literally be forcing people to be armed all the time. The Founding Fathers would never have done that. People didn't want that level of interference in their lives.

But here's the issue why they wanted to protect a duty.

The US Federal government could call up militia troops to federal duty.The feds had the power to arm the militia when in federal duty and also the power to DISARM the same people. It's in Article 1 Section 8.

But even easier than this:

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that the feds couldn't touch.

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 the weapons.

Without personnel the militia is nothing. Without arms the militia is nothing. They go hand in hand.

Now, ask yourself this question. What purpose does making a right to carry guns around give? It doesn't. It doesn't protect the militia, it doesn't help the militia.

Many things could have been protected in the Bill of Rights, but the reality was all of them had a purpose. Now you're trying to say the right to bear arms has not purpose other than because individuals want to. Then why didn't they protect the right to drink water? The right to breathe air? So many things that serve no purpose.

Imagine this. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to drink water and breathe air shall not be infringed."

Everyone would think the Founding Fathers were smoking some heavy shit. It makes not sense. And it makes no sense to have "the right of the people to keep arms and to walk around town with their gun stuck down their pants".



No only does your argument make no sense, but you've also failed to back it up with a single document. On the other hand I have PROOF, I mean, unless you're willing to stick your head up your ass, you can't deny what is said in the document I provided.

"bear arms" is used synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty" and is NOT used synonymously with "walk around with guns." It's that simple.

Dear frigidweirdo
1. Wantingn or not wanting to agree is not a condition required by law to defend the right of equal protection of beliefs and due process to defend them from infringement
2. However, you are indirectly referring to natural laws, that by nature of social relations between humans, if you are not looking to resolve conflicts but to reject, by nature, people will tend to reject you and not seek to resolve things either. If you don't have faith that an agreement can be reached, it's that much harder to convince anyone else to have faith.
So the conflict and rejection goes in circles. By natural law, people don't want to be forced to change by an outside party or influence, especially a hostile competing one! That is part of natural law, so yes it affects the process.
3. Please see msg above to DP. I believe you and I and possibly DP care enough about this issue to start an initiative to address these conflicts and propose solutions that would allow freedom for people of all views or arguments to reach agreement on local levels. The point would be to resolve and redress grievances so there can be agreement that the policies in place would PREVENT the abuses and violations feared as putting people at risk, but would NOT violate or impose on either beliefs that federal state or other govt does or does not have authority to regulate firearms, or any variation of those beliefs on either side, for or against.

As for people who refuse to agree or have no faith, they will probably participate as objectors voting on the proposals yay or nay, but not actively pursuing the conflict resolution and working through the objections to find better alternatives that don't get a nay. People play different roles, and some just want to play the judge that rules yes or no, and have no interest or ability to do the work to reach a mutually agreed solution that doesn't compromise the consent of anyone affected by that policy decision.

As long as people have their role in the process, they will not feel left out.
We just don't all play the same roles, and can't get discouraged or judge each other for that. We just have to make sure the naysayers who play that role don't block up the conflict resolution process for the ones earnestly trying to work through objections and find ways around those.

I've seen this consensus process fail when the Greens tried to facilitate meetings for Occupy, so the key I learned is to keep the objectors and their role separate from the facilitators. There has to be agreement to resolve the reasons for objections, but that doesn't always come from the objectors themselves. It's like separating the judicial from the legislative process. This same separation of powers happens among people trying to form a group decision. There are ways to manage the different roles, so it doesn't obstruct the democratic process of redressing grievances and arriving at an agreement on law and contract decisions among a diverse group. it just takes careful facilitation to include all people of diverse beliefs and roles.

Better to start small, show how this can work, and then present it as a model to a larger group and encourage others to replicate the same process.

Each group may arrive at a different decision because of the makeup of the people that decision represents. But it is important to teach inclusion of beliefs, as well as the approach to conflict that varies as well, as you point out. Thank you FW and I hope we can work together to create a model for this

See other msg that I should have addressed to you as well.
Yours truly, Emily

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

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

???? Dear danielpalos
No, the Bill of Rights did not come from the Congressional level.
The Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was
added as a condition to get certain states to agree to ratify the
Constitution. So while all the States and their reps had a say in
how the 2nd and other Amendments were written in order to go
through the national process of being added to the Constitution,
the whole spirit and point of the CONTENTS of the Bill of Rights
is to define INDIVIDUAL rights that belong to STATES and PEOPLE
NOT TO FEDERAL GOVT WHICH IS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION PROPER.

I see you don't get the very spirit and purpose for the Bill of Rights.

I feel sorry for you and anyone who has to argue or try to explain this to you.

It is as difficult as trying to explain why God and Jesus are universally
important to humanity, while dealing with an atheist who doesn't see or experience what these things mean.

Not your fault, I just feel bad that this has created such ill will and distrust
when it really is a matter of people's individual beliefs. Similar to how people can't help identifying as gay or straight, transgender or cis whatever.

If you just don't believe in individual people having that right, but only states or in your case you believe federal govt is the regulating authority,
then that's your belief. I can respect that, but strongly urge you to do the same and respect the beliefs of others, without demeaning namecalling and insults, if you expect to be taken seriously either!

The natural law that you cannot argue exists regardless of legal system or religion is the Natural Law of Reciprocity or the Golden Rule.

danielpalos if you want others to respect you
take you seriously and include and protect YOUR views beliefs
and arguments, then if you treat them with that same
respect and inclusion, people tend to reciprocate.

If you seek to abuse govt to abridge prohibit exclude DISPARAGE
or otherwise Discriminate against others of different or opposing beliefs,
guess what? They become defensive of their rights and will do the
same to you as a defense mechanism.

this is human nature. that's what is meant by natural laws.
We operate that way by Conscience, by our naturally born free will.

So whenever you or I or anyone, especially a religious or political group, threatens to control, change, or regulate the beliefs or will of another person or group, that person or group will respond exactly as you and I would do,
and defend that position.

So the Golden Rule applies. If you want to reach a respectable solution that accommodates your views, it is just common sense and practical wisdom
to accommodate the views of others, and to respect their consent and beliefs, as you want your own beliefs and consent to be respected!

The Golden Rule of reciprocity appears in every major religion.
Ironically the worst place where I see it omitted or even negated
is in Constitutional laws, where people teach a separation of people
from govt to the point where we do not teach people to enforce the same rules for govt that we want for ourselves. We keep teaching that the responsibilities for law lie with govt and give more power there than to the people. So you wonder why people aren't equal. The ones with a chance at equality are the people taught to empower themselves with equal authority as anyone else either inside or outside a position of authority. We all have a right to petition until grievances are redressed so that we share equal voice in decisions on any level that we wish to participate and take responsibility.
As individuals, we have that, but not as govt where govt is limited between state, federal or local jurisdiction. So the people always have more power than the govt because we aren't limited to just one branch or one level.

What is missing is learning to treat others and respect the rights of others as we would want enforced for ourselves. The Constitution doesn't come out and say that, we have to figure that part out for ourselves.

Again it's a natural law, that what we do unto others comes back to us.
Whether you call this reaping what you sow, the laws of karma or cause and effect, the laws of justice and peace. The Bill of Rights defines and protects the TOOLS we need from free speech and press, right to petition and due process; but doesn't require in writing that the people follow the laws if they want to invoke them. Again that is already inherent in the natural laws that people invoke without relying on any religion or set of laws to do it. That naturally occurs, and we live by these natural laws every day, in all relations. What we give is what we get. We attract the very reactions that we instigate with our own actions.

If you can understand the Golden Rule, then we have a chance to work with all people of all beliefs, and teach respect for contrasting beliefs while we work toward a solution that includes these respectively, so that none need to suffer compromise or threat to trounce on them.

We'd have to work on a local and state level, and I think by working with the NRA on training and screening procedures per police force or per military or state entity, we can do the equivalent of "well regulated militia" on a state local or national level, while respecting the consent of the people REGARDLESS OF THEIR BELIEFS, including the diehards who don't believe in either federal or state authority regulating arms. We can still work with those extremes of the spectrum if we can work with the extreme that you believe in that federal govt or Congress is the authority on this.

I know many more people who would only agree and barely agree if it was the local people deciding for themselves what procedures or policies would be used to ensure arms aren't abused for criminal intent or purposes. And they tend to be very big on not depriving rights without due process to prove that someone shouldn't have access to guns. So there is that extreme that those people have equal right to as you do to your beliefs.

Are you okay with this concept that given the contrasting political beliefs,
a solution should be crafted that accommodates people of all beliefs equally?

Do you agree with the spirit of the contract that in order to respect and include your arguments beliefs and interpretations, the same should be
afforded to other citizens like you who aren't trying to abuse such rights and protections to commit or enable abuse of laws or authority to infringe on the same of anyone else, but to defend the laws for all people agreeing on this purpose?

Thanks danielpalos
and CC also to frigidweirdo
If you both and I can agree on an approach of equal inclusion
I would be happy to work with you on a task force to address
the NRA and state governors on agreed approaches that
don't violate or impose on anyone's beliefs regardless how
diverse or conflicting. We can work around these state by state,
district by district, and agency by agnecy where each local
jurisdiction can agree and participate in forming their own policies
to ensure safety whie respecting the rights and beliefs of all people
under that jurisdiction, even where their beliefs are in the same conflict
that we are finding here. We must still work together on equal inclusion
if we are going to fulfill the standards and purpose of Constitutional laws protecting the rights of people and states from infringement, no matter how we frame or define these, based on our respective beliefs and arguments.

Thank you!

dear, you don't know what you are talking about. Congress must prescribe, "wellness of regulation" for the Militia of the United States.

Only the clueless and the Causeless gainsay that contention.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear danielpalos
Not true. the GOP has been arguing for VA reform and that's another way
to reform health care starting with govt programs and expanding to serve
the greater population.

The Democrats keep demanding to ban executions.
Do you think they have a plan in place to replace that with?
No. The option of life imprisonment puts guards at risk by inmates
who have no reason left not to kill or cause further problems since
they already would have the maximum.

there needs to be the option of something else such as deportation
and exchange with prisons developed with Mexico to "exchange"
law abiding immigrants with people who commit capital crimes.
That's one suggestion I've proposed.

I believe Democrats can also come up with better plans than
the mandates argued as unconstitutional.

What I propose is Democrats work on prison reforms
and transforming those facilities and resources toward
sustainable health care not just for inmates but the greater population.

and GOP can invest their taxes for health care into VA reform
and focus there before expanding to provide services for
other elderly disabled and people in need "in addition" to veterans
which would have first priority.

How does this apply to the OP on gun regulations:
1. the same concept of RESPECTING both political beliefs
would solve this health care problem as it would the divide over gun control
let people of separate political beliefs pursue their own solutions for
their collective membership and not interfere with people of other beliefs.
allow both to separate their beliefs, and fund the policies they believe in

2. the same solution of spiritual healing that can cure medical and physical conditions also helps in diagnosing treating managing or curing
criminal illness abuse and addictive disorders
that are the problem with policing guns to keep them out of
the hands of dangerous people that haven't committed crimes yet
or those who have abuses on record but aren't being properly screened and barred

Because spiritual healing still requires voluntary participation and choice,
even in cases where it has been studied and documented medically,
this cannot be legislated on a federal level. Perhaps the funding of researh
and development medically can be orchestrated through federal or state govt,
such as an alternative to funding stem cell or marijuana research that is equaly contested as biased, but the choice of implementing endorsing or participating
in such therapy would only work as a free choice. Even the spiritual healing practioners and teachers who train people in teams will attest it only works by free choice to accept and ask help for forgiveness as the key factor in order for the healing to work.

3. further note: the same spiritual healing process also would affect the relationsihps externally between the political forces competing over policy. So it has an outward effect as well, not only just internally on the issue of cost-effective means of reducing the burden of health care and addressing the mental illness screening with gun policies and criminal prevention.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Dear danielpalos
Not true. the GOP has been arguing for VA reform and that's another way
to reform health care starting with govt programs and expanding to serve
the greater population.

The Democrats keep demanding to ban executions.
Do you think they have a plan in place to replace that with?
No. The option of life imprisonment puts guards at risk by inmates
who have no reason left not to kill or cause further problems since
they already would have the maximum.

there needs to be the option of something else such as deportation
and exchange with prisons developed with Mexico to "exchange"
law abiding immigrants with people who commit capital crimes.
That's one suggestion I've proposed.

I believe Democrats can also come up with better plans than
the mandates argued as unconstitutional.

What I propose is Democrats work on prison reforms
and transforming those facilities and resources toward
sustainable health care not just for inmates but the greater population.

and GOP can invest their taxes for health care into VA reform
and focus there before expanding to provide services for
other elderly disabled and people in need "in addition" to veterans
which would have first priority.

How does this apply to the OP on gun regulations:
1. the same concept of RESPECTING both political beliefs
would solve this health care problem as it would the divide over gun control
let people of separate political beliefs pursue their own solutions for
their collective membership and not interfere with people of other beliefs.
allow both to separate their beliefs, and fund the policies they believe in

2. the same solution of spiritual healing that can cure medical and physical conditions also helps in diagnosing treating managing or curing
criminal illness abuse and addictive disorders
that are the problem with policing guns to keep them out of
the hands of dangerous people that haven't committed crimes yet
or those who have abuses on record but aren't being properly screened and barred

Because spiritual healing still requires voluntary participation and choice,
even in cases where it has been studied and documented medically,
this cannot be legislated on a federal level. Perhaps the funding of researh
and development medically can be orchestrated through federal or state govt,
such as an alternative to funding stem cell or marijuana research that is equaly contested as biased, but the choice of implementing endorsing or participating
in such therapy would only work as a free choice. Even the spiritual healing practioners and teachers who train people in teams will attest it only works by free choice to accept and ask help for forgiveness as the key factor in order for the healing to work.

3. further note: the same spiritual healing process also would affect the relationsihps externally between the political forces competing over policy. So it has an outward effect as well, not only just internally on the issue of cost-effective means of reducing the burden of health care and addressing the mental illness screening with gun policies and criminal prevention.

Irrelevant to this discussion. maybe it should be in a health care thread.

 

[hunarcy]

*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.

Right now I'm making the case that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty".

If you jump into someone else's conversation and then complain that you did not say something that is the debate, then that's your problem.

There appear, at this point, to be two argument.

The first is mine, backed up with sources from the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, you name it.

The second is that "bear arms" means carry arms.

The only evidence for this is that "bear" can mean "carry" therefore it MUST mean carry even though there are 5 different definitions for the term "bear" and that if you ignore all of my evidence, then there's no evidence to suggest that "bear arms" means carry arms.

Would you care to join this discussion or not?

In that you ignorantly continue to insist that it's all about the military service, I have no interest in engaging your delusion.

I will point out that the Miller decision was based on the idea that a sawed off shotgun was not standard military weaponry, which implies that standard military weaponry should be in the hands of the People. That is why fully automatic weapons aren't banned. Just taxed with a special tax.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

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

???? Dear danielpalos
No, the Bill of Rights did not come from the Congressional level.
The Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was
added as a condition to get certain states to agree to ratify the
Constitution. So while all the States and their reps had a say in
how the 2nd and other Amendments were written in order to go
through the national process of being added to the Constitution,
the whole spirit and point of the CONTENTS of the Bill of Rights
is to define INDIVIDUAL rights that belong to STATES and PEOPLE
NOT TO FEDERAL GOVT WHICH IS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION PROPER.

I see you don't get the very spirit and purpose for the Bill of Rights.

I feel sorry for you and anyone who has to argue or try to explain this to you.

It is as difficult as trying to explain why God and Jesus are universally
important to humanity, while dealing with an atheist who doesn't see or experience what these things mean.

Not your fault, I just feel bad that this has created such ill will and distrust
when it really is a matter of people's individual beliefs. Similar to how people can't help identifying as gay or straight, transgender or cis whatever.

If you just don't believe in individual people having that right, but only states or in your case you believe federal govt is the regulating authority,
then that's your belief. I can respect that, but strongly urge you to do the same and respect the beliefs of others, without demeaning namecalling and insults, if you expect to be taken seriously either!

The natural law that you cannot argue exists regardless of legal system or religion is the Natural Law of Reciprocity or the Golden Rule.

danielpalos if you want others to respect you
take you seriously and include and protect YOUR views beliefs
and arguments, then if you treat them with that same
respect and inclusion, people tend to reciprocate.

If you seek to abuse govt to abridge prohibit exclude DISPARAGE
or otherwise Discriminate against others of different or opposing beliefs,
guess what? They become defensive of their rights and will do the
same to you as a defense mechanism.

this is human nature. that's what is meant by natural laws.
We operate that way by Conscience, by our naturally born free will.

So whenever you or I or anyone, especially a religious or political group, threatens to control, change, or regulate the beliefs or will of another person or group, that person or group will respond exactly as you and I would do,
and defend that position.

So the Golden Rule applies. If you want to reach a respectable solution that accommodates your views, it is just common sense and practical wisdom
to accommodate the views of others, and to respect their consent and beliefs, as you want your own beliefs and consent to be respected!

The Golden Rule of reciprocity appears in every major religion.
Ironically the worst place where I see it omitted or even negated
is in Constitutional laws, where people teach a separation of people
from govt to the point where we do not teach people to enforce the same rules for govt that we want for ourselves. We keep teaching that the responsibilities for law lie with govt and give more power there than to the people. So you wonder why people aren't equal. The ones with a chance at equality are the people taught to empower themselves with equal authority as anyone else either inside or outside a position of authority. We all have a right to petition until grievances are redressed so that we share equal voice in decisions on any level that we wish to participate and take responsibility.
As individuals, we have that, but not as govt where govt is limited between state, federal or local jurisdiction. So the people always have more power than the govt because we aren't limited to just one branch or one level.

What is missing is learning to treat others and respect the rights of others as we would want enforced for ourselves. The Constitution doesn't come out and say that, we have to figure that part out for ourselves.

Again it's a natural law, that what we do unto others comes back to us.
Whether you call this reaping what you sow, the laws of karma or cause and effect, the laws of justice and peace. The Bill of Rights defines and protects the TOOLS we need from free speech and press, right to petition and due process; but doesn't require in writing that the people follow the laws if they want to invoke them. Again that is already inherent in the natural laws that people invoke without relying on any religion or set of laws to do it. That naturally occurs, and we live by these natural laws every day, in all relations. What we give is what we get. We attract the very reactions that we instigate with our own actions.

If you can understand the Golden Rule, then we have a chance to work with all people of all beliefs, and teach respect for contrasting beliefs while we work toward a solution that includes these respectively, so that none need to suffer compromise or threat to trounce on them.

We'd have to work on a local and state level, and I think by working with the NRA on training and screening procedures per police force or per military or state entity, we can do the equivalent of "well regulated militia" on a state local or national level, while respecting the consent of the people REGARDLESS OF THEIR BELIEFS, including the diehards who don't believe in either federal or state authority regulating arms. We can still work with those extremes of the spectrum if we can work with the extreme that you believe in that federal govt or Congress is the authority on this.

I know many more people who would only agree and barely agree if it was the local people deciding for themselves what procedures or policies would be used to ensure arms aren't abused for criminal intent or purposes. And they tend to be very big on not depriving rights without due process to prove that someone shouldn't have access to guns. So there is that extreme that those people have equal right to as you do to your beliefs.

Are you okay with this concept that given the contrasting political beliefs,
a solution should be crafted that accommodates people of all beliefs equally?

Do you agree with the spirit of the contract that in order to respect and include your arguments beliefs and interpretations, the same should be
afforded to other citizens like you who aren't trying to abuse such rights and protections to commit or enable abuse of laws or authority to infringe on the same of anyone else, but to defend the laws for all people agreeing on this purpose?

Thanks danielpalos
and CC also to frigidweirdo
If you both and I can agree on an approach of equal inclusion
I would be happy to work with you on a task force to address
the NRA and state governors on agreed approaches that
don't violate or impose on anyone's beliefs regardless how
diverse or conflicting. We can work around these state by state,
district by district, and agency by agnecy where each local
jurisdiction can agree and participate in forming their own policies
to ensure safety whie respecting the rights and beliefs of all people
under that jurisdiction, even where their beliefs are in the same conflict
that we are finding here. We must still work together on equal inclusion
if we are going to fulfill the standards and purpose of Constitutional laws protecting the rights of people and states from infringement, no matter how we frame or define these, based on our respective beliefs and arguments.

Thank you!

dear, you don't know what you are talking about. Congress must prescribe, "wellness of regulation" for the Militia of the United States.

Only the clueless and the Causeless gainsay that contention.

No danielpalos sorry
the local police, the state rangers and other such entities
have their own local rules. These can't be "in conflict"
with the Constitution as previously cited above (see Bootney Lee Farnsworth
verbatim citations with emphasis added to show where these apply to federal
The Right To Bear Arms)
but that doesn't mean the federal regulates them from the top down.

I guess you are one of those people who does not
make a distinction between state and federal govt.

If the feds were in charge of all the things the states
can do locally, we'd be in a bigger mess than we are now.

The feds cannot handle the demand over three states plus PR
over hurricane disaster relief affecting indivudals and businesses.
The demand is too great, and has to be allocated to the states.

Or the people would not get any help waiting in one long line
for federal employees to manage all those decisions.

Same with health care. Same with crime and gun controls.

None of the people or state level agencies shoudl be in the
business of "violating" or conflicting with Constitutional and
national laws But that's NOT the same as federal govt
regulating them!

I find it ironic danielpalos that you argue for your position.
but if it were TRULY the federal govt in charge of regulations,
and if the opposite viewpoint were the one the federal govt took,
then YOUR VIEWPOINT could be ruled as being in violation
of the Constitutional laws and their intent.

so just be glad that isn't how it works.

Of course people and states have the right to regulate themselves
as long as it doesn't violate equal Constitutional protections of others.

So far no states or federal govt has passed any law making it illegal
for people of your belief to influence the regulations on guns.

But if you argue that the federal govt would have a right to regulate
for the states, then that could mean taking away your right to influence
such legislation as part of federal regulations!

you think that wouldn't happen? What do you think happened when Obama and Congress passed and signed the health care mandates FINING people with PENALTIES who didn't have the right to contest or vote on that change in law. The belief that federal govt could regulate health care to that extent was imposed
on everyone else under penalty of law, masked as a tax bill when it wasn't passed and voted on in Congress as a tax bill or the vote would have failed. it was passed as a health bill where that interpretation failed in court.

if you believe in federal govt legislating and regulating to this extent, with no distinction from state govt that represents the local populations separately from the other states doing the same,
then I would argue for your right to be under that if you believe in it.

But that does not give you the right to impose this belief
on others who separate state jurisdiction from federal.
Govt on all levels should still respect Constitutional laws for all people.
But that's not the same as federal regulations from the top down
being inseparable from state jurisdiction.

I'm sorry you don't make this distinction.

It's ironic to me that imposing your beliefs on everyone else
would in itself be a violation of the Constitution
were it not for the SEPARATION of the levels
of federal, state and people. So just by the fact you can make
your argument and have the freedom to do so, comes from the
very separation of authority that allows people and states that freedom.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear danielpalos
Not true. the GOP has been arguing for VA reform and that's another way
to reform health care starting with govt programs and expanding to serve
the greater population.

The Democrats keep demanding to ban executions.
Do you think they have a plan in place to replace that with?
No. The option of life imprisonment puts guards at risk by inmates
who have no reason left not to kill or cause further problems since
they already would have the maximum.

there needs to be the option of something else such as deportation
and exchange with prisons developed with Mexico to "exchange"
law abiding immigrants with people who commit capital crimes.
That's one suggestion I've proposed.

I believe Democrats can also come up with better plans than
the mandates argued as unconstitutional.

What I propose is Democrats work on prison reforms
and transforming those facilities and resources toward
sustainable health care not just for inmates but the greater population.

and GOP can invest their taxes for health care into VA reform
and focus there before expanding to provide services for
other elderly disabled and people in need "in addition" to veterans
which would have first priority.

How does this apply to the OP on gun regulations:
1. the same concept of RESPECTING both political beliefs
would solve this health care problem as it would the divide over gun control
let people of separate political beliefs pursue their own solutions for
their collective membership and not interfere with people of other beliefs.
allow both to separate their beliefs, and fund the policies they believe in

2. the same solution of spiritual healing that can cure medical and physical conditions also helps in diagnosing treating managing or curing
criminal illness abuse and addictive disorders
that are the problem with policing guns to keep them out of
the hands of dangerous people that haven't committed crimes yet
or those who have abuses on record but aren't being properly screened and barred

Because spiritual healing still requires voluntary participation and choice,
even in cases where it has been studied and documented medically,
this cannot be legislated on a federal level. Perhaps the funding of researh
and development medically can be orchestrated through federal or state govt,
such as an alternative to funding stem cell or marijuana research that is equaly contested as biased, but the choice of implementing endorsing or participating
in such therapy would only work as a free choice. Even the spiritual healing practioners and teachers who train people in teams will attest it only works by free choice to accept and ask help for forgiveness as the key factor in order for the healing to work.

3. further note: the same spiritual healing process also would affect the relationsihps externally between the political forces competing over policy. So it has an outward effect as well, not only just internally on the issue of cost-effective means of reducing the burden of health care and addressing the mental illness screening with gun policies and criminal prevention.

Irrelevant to this discussion. maybe it should be in a health care thread.

Dear danielpalos
How it applies is
1. it shows the same inability to separate state govt from federal
in both cases of health care and gun policies.
This shows it's an issue of political belief, independent of which issue
the belief is applied to.
2. the solution of using spiritual healing to address criminal abuses
for prevention of gun violence by proper screening
affects both gun policies and health care costs.

the reason this is KEY to gun policies: the solution to mental illness
can only be addressed LOCALLY. it cannot be regulated federally.
So that's a big factor in resolving issues of who regulates gun policies.
The solutions point to LOCAL jurisdiction. and yes this will affect health care as well.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

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

???? Dear danielpalos
No, the Bill of Rights did not come from the Congressional level.
The Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was
added as a condition to get certain states to agree to ratify the
Constitution. So while all the States and their reps had a say in
how the 2nd and other Amendments were written in order to go
through the national process of being added to the Constitution,
the whole spirit and point of the CONTENTS of the Bill of Rights
is to define INDIVIDUAL rights that belong to STATES and PEOPLE
NOT TO FEDERAL GOVT WHICH IS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION PROPER.

I see you don't get the very spirit and purpose for the Bill of Rights.

I feel sorry for you and anyone who has to argue or try to explain this to you.

It is as difficult as trying to explain why God and Jesus are universally
important to humanity, while dealing with an atheist who doesn't see or experience what these things mean.

Not your fault, I just feel bad that this has created such ill will and distrust
when it really is a matter of people's individual beliefs. Similar to how people can't help identifying as gay or straight, transgender or cis whatever.

If you just don't believe in individual people having that right, but only states or in your case you believe federal govt is the regulating authority,
then that's your belief. I can respect that, but strongly urge you to do the same and respect the beliefs of others, without demeaning namecalling and insults, if you expect to be taken seriously either!

The natural law that you cannot argue exists regardless of legal system or religion is the Natural Law of Reciprocity or the Golden Rule.

danielpalos if you want others to respect you
take you seriously and include and protect YOUR views beliefs
and arguments, then if you treat them with that same
respect and inclusion, people tend to reciprocate.

If you seek to abuse govt to abridge prohibit exclude DISPARAGE
or otherwise Discriminate against others of different or opposing beliefs,
guess what? They become defensive of their rights and will do the
same to you as a defense mechanism.

this is human nature. that's what is meant by natural laws.
We operate that way by Conscience, by our naturally born free will.

So whenever you or I or anyone, especially a religious or political group, threatens to control, change, or regulate the beliefs or will of another person or group, that person or group will respond exactly as you and I would do,
and defend that position.

So the Golden Rule applies. If you want to reach a respectable solution that accommodates your views, it is just common sense and practical wisdom
to accommodate the views of others, and to respect their consent and beliefs, as you want your own beliefs and consent to be respected!

The Golden Rule of reciprocity appears in every major religion.
Ironically the worst place where I see it omitted or even negated
is in Constitutional laws, where people teach a separation of people
from govt to the point where we do not teach people to enforce the same rules for govt that we want for ourselves. We keep teaching that the responsibilities for law lie with govt and give more power there than to the people. So you wonder why people aren't equal. The ones with a chance at equality are the people taught to empower themselves with equal authority as anyone else either inside or outside a position of authority. We all have a right to petition until grievances are redressed so that we share equal voice in decisions on any level that we wish to participate and take responsibility.
As individuals, we have that, but not as govt where govt is limited between state, federal or local jurisdiction. So the people always have more power than the govt because we aren't limited to just one branch or one level.

What is missing is learning to treat others and respect the rights of others as we would want enforced for ourselves. The Constitution doesn't come out and say that, we have to figure that part out for ourselves.

Again it's a natural law, that what we do unto others comes back to us.
Whether you call this reaping what you sow, the laws of karma or cause and effect, the laws of justice and peace. The Bill of Rights defines and protects the TOOLS we need from free speech and press, right to petition and due process; but doesn't require in writing that the people follow the laws if they want to invoke them. Again that is already inherent in the natural laws that people invoke without relying on any religion or set of laws to do it. That naturally occurs, and we live by these natural laws every day, in all relations. What we give is what we get. We attract the very reactions that we instigate with our own actions.

If you can understand the Golden Rule, then we have a chance to work with all people of all beliefs, and teach respect for contrasting beliefs while we work toward a solution that includes these respectively, so that none need to suffer compromise or threat to trounce on them.

We'd have to work on a local and state level, and I think by working with the NRA on training and screening procedures per police force or per military or state entity, we can do the equivalent of "well regulated militia" on a state local or national level, while respecting the consent of the people REGARDLESS OF THEIR BELIEFS, including the diehards who don't believe in either federal or state authority regulating arms. We can still work with those extremes of the spectrum if we can work with the extreme that you believe in that federal govt or Congress is the authority on this.

I know many more people who would only agree and barely agree if it was the local people deciding for themselves what procedures or policies would be used to ensure arms aren't abused for criminal intent or purposes. And they tend to be very big on not depriving rights without due process to prove that someone shouldn't have access to guns. So there is that extreme that those people have equal right to as you do to your beliefs.

Are you okay with this concept that given the contrasting political beliefs,
a solution should be crafted that accommodates people of all beliefs equally?

Do you agree with the spirit of the contract that in order to respect and include your arguments beliefs and interpretations, the same should be
afforded to other citizens like you who aren't trying to abuse such rights and protections to commit or enable abuse of laws or authority to infringe on the same of anyone else, but to defend the laws for all people agreeing on this purpose?

Thanks danielpalos
and CC also to frigidweirdo
If you both and I can agree on an approach of equal inclusion
I would be happy to work with you on a task force to address
the NRA and state governors on agreed approaches that
don't violate or impose on anyone's beliefs regardless how
diverse or conflicting. We can work around these state by state,
district by district, and agency by agnecy where each local
jurisdiction can agree and participate in forming their own policies
to ensure safety whie respecting the rights and beliefs of all people
under that jurisdiction, even where their beliefs are in the same conflict
that we are finding here. We must still work together on equal inclusion
if we are going to fulfill the standards and purpose of Constitutional laws protecting the rights of people and states from infringement, no matter how we frame or define these, based on our respective beliefs and arguments.

Thank you!

dear, you don't know what you are talking about. Congress must prescribe, "wellness of regulation" for the Militia of the United States.

Only the clueless and the Causeless gainsay that contention.

No danielpalos sorry
the local police, the state rangers and other such entities
have their own local rules. These can't be "in conflict"
with the Constitution as previously cited above (see Bootney Lee Farnsworth
verbatim citations with emphasis added to show where these apply to federal
The Right To Bear Arms)
but that doesn't mean the federal regulates them from the top down.

I guess you are one of those people who does not
make a distinction between state and federal govt.

If the feds were in charge of all the things the states
can do locally, we'd be in a bigger mess than we are now.

The feds cannot handle the demand over three states plus PR
over hurricane disaster relief affecting indivudals and businesses.
The demand is too great, and has to be allocated to the states.

Or the people would not get any help waiting in one long line
for federal employees to manage all those decisions.

Same with health care. Same with crime and gun controls.

None of the people or state level agencies shoudl be in the
business of "violating" or conflicting with Constitutional and
national laws But that's NOT the same as federal govt
regulating them!

I find it ironic danielpalos that you argue for your position.
but if it were TRULY the federal govt in charge of regulations,
and if the opposite viewpoint were the one the federal govt took,
then YOUR VIEWPOINT could be ruled as being in violation
of the Constitutional laws and their intent.

so just be glad that isn't how it works.

Of course people and states have the right to regulate themselves
as long as it doesn't violate equal Constitutional protections of others.

So far no states or federal govt has passed any law making it illegal
for people of your belief to influence the regulations on guns.

But if you argue that the federal govt would have a right to regulate
for the states, then that could mean taking away your right to influence
such legislation as part of federal regulations!

you think that wouldn't happen? What do you think happened when Obama and Congress passed and signed the health care mandates FINING people with PENALTIES who didn't have the right to contest or vote on that change in law. The belief that federal govt could regulate health care to that extent was imposed
on everyone else under penalty of law, masked as a tax bill when it wasn't passed and voted on in Congress as a tax bill or the vote would have failed. it was passed as a health bill where that interpretation failed in court.

if you believe in federal govt legislating and regulating to this extent, with no distinction from state govt that represents the local populations separately from the other states doing the same,
then I would argue for your right to be under that if you believe in it.

But that does not give you the right to impose this belief
on others who separate state jurisdiction from federal.
Govt on all levels should still respect Constitutional laws for all people.
But that's not the same as federal regulations from the top down
being inseparable from state jurisdiction.

I'm sorry you don't make this distinction.

It's ironic to me that imposing your beliefs on everyone else
would in itself be a violation of the Constitution
were it not for the SEPARATION of the levels
of federal, state and people. So just by the fact you can make
your argument and have the freedom to do so, comes from the
very separation of authority that allows people and states that freedom.

Dear, Only Congress can prescribe "well regulated" to the Militia of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Dear danielpalos
Not true. the GOP has been arguing for VA reform and that's another way
to reform health care starting with govt programs and expanding to serve
the greater population.

The Democrats keep demanding to ban executions.
Do you think they have a plan in place to replace that with?
No. The option of life imprisonment puts guards at risk by inmates
who have no reason left not to kill or cause further problems since
they already would have the maximum.

there needs to be the option of something else such as deportation
and exchange with prisons developed with Mexico to "exchange"
law abiding immigrants with people who commit capital crimes.
That's one suggestion I've proposed.

I believe Democrats can also come up with better plans than
the mandates argued as unconstitutional.

What I propose is Democrats work on prison reforms
and transforming those facilities and resources toward
sustainable health care not just for inmates but the greater population.

and GOP can invest their taxes for health care into VA reform
and focus there before expanding to provide services for
other elderly disabled and people in need "in addition" to veterans
which would have first priority.

How does this apply to the OP on gun regulations:
1. the same concept of RESPECTING both political beliefs
would solve this health care problem as it would the divide over gun control
let people of separate political beliefs pursue their own solutions for
their collective membership and not interfere with people of other beliefs.
allow both to separate their beliefs, and fund the policies they believe in

2. the same solution of spiritual healing that can cure medical and physical conditions also helps in diagnosing treating managing or curing
criminal illness abuse and addictive disorders
that are the problem with policing guns to keep them out of
the hands of dangerous people that haven't committed crimes yet
or those who have abuses on record but aren't being properly screened and barred

Because spiritual healing still requires voluntary participation and choice,
even in cases where it has been studied and documented medically,
this cannot be legislated on a federal level. Perhaps the funding of researh
and development medically can be orchestrated through federal or state govt,
such as an alternative to funding stem cell or marijuana research that is equaly contested as biased, but the choice of implementing endorsing or participating
in such therapy would only work as a free choice. Even the spiritual healing practioners and teachers who train people in teams will attest it only works by free choice to accept and ask help for forgiveness as the key factor in order for the healing to work.

3. further note: the same spiritual healing process also would affect the relationsihps externally between the political forces competing over policy. So it has an outward effect as well, not only just internally on the issue of cost-effective means of reducing the burden of health care and addressing the mental illness screening with gun policies and criminal prevention.

Irrelevant to this discussion. maybe it should be in a health care thread.

Dear danielpalos
How it applies is
1. it shows the same inability to separate state govt from federal
in both cases of health care and gun policies.
This shows it's an issue of political belief, independent of which issue
the belief is applied to.
2. the solution of using spiritual healing to address criminal abuses
for prevention of gun violence by proper screening
affects both gun policies and health care costs.

the reason this is KEY to gun policies: the solution to mental illness
can only be addressed LOCALLY. it cannot be regulated federally.
So that's a big factor in resolving issues of who regulates gun policies.
The solutions point to LOCAL jurisdiction. and yes this will affect health care as well.

I believe we don't need our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror Because we have a Second Amendment.

 

[BluesLegend]

Its not rocket science, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" go ahead gun control nuts throw yourselves against that slab of granite.

 

[BluesLegend]

Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.

 

[danielpalos]

Its not rocket science, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" go ahead gun control nuts throw yourselves against that slab of granite.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

 

[danielpalos]

Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.

Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.