The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

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

And the Supreme Court. Don't forget them. They disagree with you too.

that ruling was in error. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not. Nobody is unconnected with the militia; only militia service, well regulated.

Right. Your legal opinion is better, sharper, more educated and weightier then theirs is.

All they did was appeal to ignorance, not the law.

The People are the Militia.

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.

New York State Constitution.

Well regulated militia is also a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.

And, if course, your opinion is superior to theirs. I'd like to see you say exactly that.

I have a supreme argument, not merely a superior argument.

 

[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.

wrong R2D2. the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and is a blanket negative restriction on the federal government to interfere with that

A well regulated militia is necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared necessary in our Second Amendment.

The unorganized militia is the only militia we had back then. Historically you are wrong. Factually you are wrong, philosophically you are wrong, and philologically you are wrong. Basically you haven't got a rope to even piss up, you are so wrong.

No, it isn't. Did you not read any of the Militia Acts?

The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

 

[turtledude]

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.

wrong R2D2. the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and is a blanket negative restriction on the federal government to interfere with that

A well regulated militia is necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared necessary in our Second Amendment.

The unorganized militia is the only militia we had back then. Historically you are wrong. Factually you are wrong, philosophically you are wrong, and philologically you are wrong. Basically you haven't got a rope to even piss up, you are so wrong.

No, it isn't. Did you not read any of the Militia Acts?

The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

i have R2D2 and they have nothing to do with the rights of private citizens to own whatever firearms they want

 

[danielpalos]

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller tells the rest of the story. Paragraph (1) is merely the, Intent and Purpose statement.

 

[westwall]

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.

wrong R2D2. the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and is a blanket negative restriction on the federal government to interfere with that

A well regulated militia is necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared necessary in our Second Amendment.

The unorganized militia is the only militia we had back then. Historically you are wrong. Factually you are wrong, philosophically you are wrong, and philologically you are wrong. Basically you haven't got a rope to even piss up, you are so wrong.

No, it isn't. Did you not read any of the Militia Acts?

The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

Of course I have. Please point to the section where they supercede and revise the COTUS. Be specific. And you must have missed this section of the Militia Act. The blue part is the important part.

"Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols.

 

[hadit]

And the Supreme Court. Don't forget them. They disagree with you too.

that ruling was in error. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not. Nobody is unconnected with the militia; only militia service, well regulated.

Right. Your legal opinion is better, sharper, more educated and weightier then theirs is.

All they did was appeal to ignorance, not the law.

The People are the Militia.

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.

New York State Constitution.

Well regulated militia is also a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.

And, if course, your opinion is superior to theirs. I'd like to see you say exactly that.

I have a supreme argument, not merely a superior argument.

A legend in your own mind.

 

[turtledude]

that ruling was in error. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not. Nobody is unconnected with the militia; only militia service, well regulated.

Right. Your legal opinion is better, sharper, more educated and weightier then theirs is.

All they did was appeal to ignorance, not the law.

The People are the Militia.

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.

New York State Constitution.

Well regulated militia is also a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.

And, if course, your opinion is superior to theirs. I'd like to see you say exactly that.

I have a supreme argument, not merely a superior argument.

A legend in your own mind.

a very small fish in a puddle it would appear

 

[westwall]

Right. Your legal opinion is better, sharper, more educated and weightier then theirs is.

All they did was appeal to ignorance, not the law.

The People are the Militia.

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.

New York State Constitution.

Well regulated militia is also a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.

And, if course, your opinion is superior to theirs. I'd like to see you say exactly that.

I have a supreme argument, not merely a superior argument.

A legend in your own mind.

a very small fish in a puddle it would appear

More like an amoeba. When presented with evidence that blows his BS out of the water he flee's. Typical progressive.

 

[danielpalos]

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

wrong R2D2. the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and is a blanket negative restriction on the federal government to interfere with that

A well regulated militia is necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared necessary in our Second Amendment.

The unorganized militia is the only militia we had back then. Historically you are wrong. Factually you are wrong, philosophically you are wrong, and philologically you are wrong. Basically you haven't got a rope to even piss up, you are so wrong.

No, it isn't. Did you not read any of the Militia Acts?

The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

Of course I have. Please point to the section where they supercede and revise the COTUS. Be specific. And you must have missed this section of the Militia Act. The blue part is the important part.

"Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols.

And, they had to muster and present Arms.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

I really don't see what you want to say other than you can't argue with the evidence that I've provided, so your tactic appears to be that I should go half way and accept your made up stuff because you're not willing to accept undeniable evidence.

I don't think so.

 

[westwall]

wrong R2D2. the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and is a blanket negative restriction on the federal government to interfere with that

A well regulated militia is necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared necessary in our Second Amendment.

The unorganized militia is the only militia we had back then. Historically you are wrong. Factually you are wrong, philosophically you are wrong, and philologically you are wrong. Basically you haven't got a rope to even piss up, you are so wrong.

No, it isn't. Did you not read any of the Militia Acts?

The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

Of course I have. Please point to the section where they supercede and revise the COTUS. Be specific. And you must have missed this section of the Militia Act. The blue part is the important part.

"Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols.

And, they had to muster and present Arms.

And the WEAPONS WERE THEIRS! Not the governments. Now feel free to run along loser...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

danielpalos said something. but I don't have to read it.

"Show Ignored Content"



Lemme guess:

"The wellness of Clueless and Causeless bearing of military service by the peoplitia is organized."

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Ignorantly? I've posted the evidence. You've posted only your thoughts.

Yes, Miller was about the RIGHT TO KEEP ARMS. We're talking about the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

Do you have any evidence, any logic, anything that suggests the right to bear arms means "carry arms"? Anything?

Well, artillery is standard military weaponry. Almost all militaries in the world have artillery. Should I be allowed to have artillery in my yard?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Do you have any evidence, any logic, anything that suggests the right to bear arms means "carry arms"? Anything?

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

There can hardly be a question, at least about what Thomas Jefferson believed regarding the right to carry meaning ACTUALLY CARRY on your person, rather than your interpretation of military service.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

Jefferson seemed to anticipate the left's attack on the plain language of the 2nd.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

That is ridiculous.

It will not be changed in the foreseeable future.

Regardless of how much left wing politicians WISH to change it the outcry would be to loud and powerful. Even without the protection of the NRA.

Sorry but your claim it will be changed is nonsense and shows ignorance of how Americans feel about the subject.

The second is neither antiquated or obsolete any more than the first is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

I appreciate you making actual arguments. Despite my asshole-ish demeanor on this forum, I am not opposed to an honest discussion and will consider your points. I am a liberty-first guy, so you can understand my tendencies.

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.

They did protect the right to drink water, and all other natural rights, in the 9th Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The right to keep arms and carry them on your person was a well-established natural right at the time. (please tell me you are not going to make me provide a source for this). Current law is not inconsistent with this argument on the limits of Congress regarding arms, as States had banned the open carry of firearms many years ago, but to my knowledge, there is no federal ban on the open or concealed carry of firearms. I could be wrong, and will admit my mistake readily.

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.

I apologize, but I have not seen the document to which you are referring. Could you post a link again? Thanks.

I am not opposed to reviewing any evidence anyone has to offer.

Understand, as I said, I am a liberty-first guy. I label myself a libertarian for convenience, but I am really a classic liberal.

I believe our founders were also classic liberals. They believed in government by and for the people. I have provided documentation, that our founders all understood the right to possess and carry arms to be a natural right, that existed before governments.

I have provided quotes from the founders that support my argument that they intended the people to be armed as a security against government, to keep government in line and working for the people.

Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment may be correct, but given the history of the right, and the intent of the 9th Amendment, the right to keep and carry was not to be infringed by Congress, but remained the authority of the States.

Okay, fine, they protected a lot of stuff in the 9th Amendment. Now, what's the difference between all the things they protected in the 1st to 8th Amendments and those in the 9th Amendment?

Drinking water doesn't impact the govt. It's just a general day to day thing. The things protected were things where the Americans had had grievances with the British. Now, there hadn't been grievances about carrying arms around.

But here's the thing. I'm not saying there isn't a right to self defense, for example. I'm just saying it isn't in the Second Amendment.

Yes, I'm going to make you source your claim. You made the argument. I want to see it. Where is there evidence of a right to carry arms around. Also I want evidence that the Founding Fathers felt the need to put this into an Amendment which starts "A well regulated militia".

Though the latter would be preferable because even with a right to carry arms around, it's still not in the Second Amendment.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is the document I've been referring to.

Here are the relevant parts

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry: "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."

Mr Jackson: "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

And there's more, these are just prove what I'm saying.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you have any evidence, any logic, anything that suggests the right to bear arms means "carry arms"? Anything?

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

There can hardly be a question, at least about what Thomas Jefferson believed regarding the right to carry meaning ACTUALLY CARRY on your person, rather than your interpretation of military service.

Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.

Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.

 

[cnm]

We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.

More like founded on the notion that Brit treaties with Iroquois didn't count.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Now, there hadn't been grievances about carrying arms around.

I disagree with that. The Gun Powder Incident in of 1774 in Virginia and the Powder Alarm in Massachusetts played a DIRECT role in causing The Revolution.