The Right To Bear Arms

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You cannot be serious.

Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.

All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.

Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library

Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
Article V
Section 21
"That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution. "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.

Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.

Now, here's the question.

Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?

I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.

In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".

So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".

"themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?

Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.

Yeah, okay. Not unequivocally, but "themselves" means collective? Really?

It's as if you are searching for a reason to distort the meaning of the 2nd. Why not just accept it and go about trying to amend the constitution? This war of words is starting to look desperate.

What does "themselves" mean?

It's rather vague.

It's an object pronoun. What would you replace "themselves" with here? What does it mean? What does it refer to? It refers to "the people". Are the people individual or a collective? They can be both.

themselves | Definition of themselves in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"reflexive
Used as the object of a verb or preposition to refer to a group of people or things previously mentioned as the subject of the clause.

‘countries unable to look after themselves’"

In the example here, each individual country can't look after itself. "Itself" being the object pronoun. So, they use the plural which is "themselves".

Themselves definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

"
They all seemed to be enjoying themselves.
The men talked amongst themselves.
All artists have part of themselves that they can never share with anyone else."

Well this has fucked up and gone italic forever. Great.

Anyway the first one is "enjoying themselves", collective but contains individuals.

The second one, the men are talking among themselves, it's impossible to talk among yourself. So it's collective and not individual.

Like I said, it can be both, ambiguous, because it refers to "them", which can be collective or individual collective.

But you trying to attack me for a "war of words", seriously dude, I'm making my case. If you can't be bothered, just say so and I won't waste my time with you. I really don't come on here to be fucked around. You might not agree with me, fine, but everything I say is logical.

I didn't intend any hostility in the "war of words" comment. I was offering an alternative course.

Have you ever heard "that depends on what your meaning of 'is' is"? That word game is automatically associated with pettifogging. It appears dishonest. That was my point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is one of the contemplated drafts in your source for "bear" meaning "military service."

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Why would it say "render military service in person" if "bear arms" means military service?

Different versions of the Amendment


June 8th 1789

but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.


August 17th 1789


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

August 24th 1789


but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Now, render military service in person was taken out of the Amendment and replaced with "bear arms", and then "bear arms" was replaced by "render military service". Why? No idea. However it seems to be synonymous, as shown by how Mr Jerry and Mr Jackson spoke.

But basically what you have here is militia duty. You'd render military service in the militia, individually, in person.

Again, those different drafts use military service in a distinct fashion from bearing arms.

Why not simply accept the more ordinary meaning of "bear arms" and go about trying to amend the constitution? The war over the text only puts honest observers on guard that you are trying to trick them, and drives them into the arms of the gun lobby.

Gun grabbers want an honest discussion, but come to the table trying to tell us the 2nd's text means something other than the plain meaning. Drop the act. Be honest that you want to disarm everyone, and let the chips fall.

Look. You have these drafts. Then you have what Mr Gerry and Mr Jackson said.

Mr Gerry 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.

Remember, this is in response to "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry was worried that if you make a law that says people shall not be compelled to bear arms, or as Mr Gerry says "militia duty", then the federal govt can declare someone religiously scrupulous and then declare that they can't bear arms, or carry out their militia duty.

Here, "bear arms" and "militia duty" are quite clearly synonymous. They mean the same thing. Mr Gerry has simply chosen to speak using different words.

Do you agree?

Mr Jackson is the same.

Why not accept the "ordinary mean of "bear arms""? Wow, is that your argument? "Why don't you just accept my argument which I can't back up with much, instead of your evidence filled argument?"

Er..... what? Seriously?

I don't accept an argument that I see as false. I see it as an agenda filled argument, and every time I discuss this with people, they HAVE TO ignore huge swathes of HISTORY and EVIDENCE and LOGIC. Go figure.

 

[turtledude]

You cannot be serious.

Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.

All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.

Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library

Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
Article V
Section 21
"That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution. "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.

Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.

Now, here's the question.

Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?

I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.

In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".

So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".

"themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?

Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.

frigidweirdo-do you go through all these contortions because you want to pretend that bannerrhoid gun laws are actually not contrary to the wishes of the founders? what is your purpose for this tortured analysis of the second?

No, my purpose is to find the truth.

I'm not someone with an agenda here, like everyone else. I'm more interested in using my brain than trying to show everyone how great I am because I can insult like a little child.

I call bullshit on that. you sound like just another bannerrhoid hoping to pretend that the second amendment allows your bannerrhoid schemes

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Remember, this is in response to "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

"Bear arms" can mean carry a gun in that context.

That's the problem. It could mean carry a gun or weapon in the context of that entire discussion. It's not proof that "bear arms" exclusively means military service.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.

All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.

Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library

Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
Article V
Section 21
"That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution. "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.

Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.

Now, here's the question.

Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?

I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.

In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".

So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".

"themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?

Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.

Yeah, okay. Not unequivocally, but "themselves" means collective? Really?

It's as if you are searching for a reason to distort the meaning of the 2nd. Why not just accept it and go about trying to amend the constitution? This war of words is starting to look desperate.

What does "themselves" mean?

It's rather vague.

It's an object pronoun. What would you replace "themselves" with here? What does it mean? What does it refer to? It refers to "the people". Are the people individual or a collective? They can be both.

themselves | Definition of themselves in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"reflexive
Used as the object of a verb or preposition to refer to a group of people or things previously mentioned as the subject of the clause.

‘countries unable to look after themselves’"

In the example here, each individual country can't look after itself. "Itself" being the object pronoun. So, they use the plural which is "themselves".

Themselves definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

"
They all seemed to be enjoying themselves.
The men talked amongst themselves.
All artists have part of themselves that they can never share with anyone else."

Well this has fucked up and gone italic forever. Great.

Anyway the first one is "enjoying themselves", collective but contains individuals.

The second one, the men are talking among themselves, it's impossible to talk among yourself. So it's collective and not individual.

Like I said, it can be both, ambiguous, because it refers to "them", which can be collective or individual collective.

But you trying to attack me for a "war of words", seriously dude, I'm making my case. If you can't be bothered, just say so and I won't waste my time with you. I really don't come on here to be fucked around. You might not agree with me, fine, but everything I say is logical.

I didn't intend any hostility in the "war of words" comment. I was offering an alternative course.

Have you ever heard "that depends on what your meaning of 'is' is"? That word game is automatically associated with pettifogging. It appears dishonest. That was my point.

Let's try this again.

The term "stool".

"The doctor asked him to produce a stool sample"
"The doctor asked him to sit on the stool"

Does the first one mean the doctor wants the patient to cut a piece of the wooden backless seat and give it to the doctor?

Does the second one mean the doctor wants the patient to sit on a shit?

Context.

The context of the 2A is the militia. The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the militia. I'll show you it's so.

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So, if they have this clause, they could prevent individuals being in the militia and therefore destroy the Constitution.

He also said:

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown."

In fact the whole document is about preserving the militia, because they thought the militia was the most important thing to protect from the mal-administration of the government.

Why then insert something that has nothing to do with the militia?

You think my word game is dishonest. Yet I can PROVE that the term "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty", I've got documents from George Washington, Congressmen in the House debating this very thing, the Supreme Court, and you've got scraps that you have to really try hard to interpret to meet your meaning.

So, I'd suggest it's YOU who is being dishonest.When shown the FACTS you still push for your AGENDA, and your agenda demands that "bear arms" means "carry arms". But there's nothing much there to actually prove it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Remember, this is in response to "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

"Bear arms" can mean carry a gun in that context.

That's the problem. It could mean carry a gun or weapon in the context of that entire discussion. It's not proof that "bear arms" exclusively means military service.

Yes, "bear" CAN mean carry.

"stool" CAN mean shit. Does that mean when I say "The doctor told him to sit on the stool" that it MUST mean "shit"?

Come on. "bear" has five different meanings. How can it mean ALL of those.

You basically have the right to give birth to a gun, just because "bear" CAN mean "give birth", oh please.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.

All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.

Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library

Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
Article V
Section 21
"That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution. "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.

Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.

Now, here's the question.

Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?

I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.

In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".

So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".

"themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?

Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.

frigidweirdo-do you go through all these contortions because you want to pretend that bannerrhoid gun laws are actually not contrary to the wishes of the founders? what is your purpose for this tortured analysis of the second?

No, my purpose is to find the truth.

I'm not someone with an agenda here, like everyone else. I'm more interested in using my brain than trying to show everyone how great I am because I can insult like a little child.

I call bullshit on that. you sound like just another bannerrhoid hoping to pretend that the second amendment allows your bannerrhoid schemes

Do whatever the fuck you like. You could try having an argument that makes sense, but you don't want to.

You haven't even answered my first question yet. And yet you claim to be lawyer. Look at Bootney Lee Farnsworth, he's at least discussing the issues I bring up. You haven't even managed that.

 

[turtledude]

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library

Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
Article V
Section 21
"That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution. "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.

Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.

Now, here's the question.

Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?

I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.

In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".

So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".

"themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?

Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.

frigidweirdo-do you go through all these contortions because you want to pretend that bannerrhoid gun laws are actually not contrary to the wishes of the founders? what is your purpose for this tortured analysis of the second?

No, my purpose is to find the truth.

I'm not someone with an agenda here, like everyone else. I'm more interested in using my brain than trying to show everyone how great I am because I can insult like a little child.

I call bullshit on that. you sound like just another bannerrhoid hoping to pretend that the second amendment allows your bannerrhoid schemes

Do whatever the fuck you like. You could try having an argument that makes sense, but you don't want to.

You haven't even answered my first question yet. And yet you claim to be lawyer. Look at Bootney Lee Farnsworth, he's at least discussing the issues I bring up. You haven't even managed that.

because your nonsense has been put to bed so many times before. you think that your stupid arguments are novel?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.

Now, here's the question.

Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?

I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.

In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".

So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".

"themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?

Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.

frigidweirdo-do you go through all these contortions because you want to pretend that bannerrhoid gun laws are actually not contrary to the wishes of the founders? what is your purpose for this tortured analysis of the second?

No, my purpose is to find the truth.

I'm not someone with an agenda here, like everyone else. I'm more interested in using my brain than trying to show everyone how great I am because I can insult like a little child.

I call bullshit on that. you sound like just another bannerrhoid hoping to pretend that the second amendment allows your bannerrhoid schemes

Do whatever the fuck you like. You could try having an argument that makes sense, but you don't want to.

You haven't even answered my first question yet. And yet you claim to be lawyer. Look at Bootney Lee Farnsworth, he's at least discussing the issues I bring up. You haven't even managed that.

because your nonsense has been put to bed so many times before. you think that your stupid arguments are novel?

Haha, hilarious.

Okay, I've had enough. I played with you, you couldn't produce even the slightest thing. You're a bullshitter and going on ignore so I don't have to suffer the paint of your crap.

Go enjoy telling people how you're a lawyer, and when you finish High School, you might even get a job in as a waiter or something.

Bye.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from carrying a gun.
(this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.

Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. 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. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of carrying a gun.

Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.

Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of carrying a gun, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of carrying a gun, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.

Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of carrying a gun? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.

I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.

The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,

Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.

Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.

Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.

Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.

[20 Aug.]

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to carry a gun, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to carry a gun.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nope; Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States

The wellness of regulation?


But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right. I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.

Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.

It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.

The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.

I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.

So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.

This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!

Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo

Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.

I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief. I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
I would be MISERABLE AS FU.

I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.

So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.

Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.

So glad I take this approach.

Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.

It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.

So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.

He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.

You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.

The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.

I'm sorry Emily, I really don't see how you have come to the conclusion that "the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia."

I didn't say that. I'm worried that you're not understanding what I'm writing, or worried even more that you're not reading what I'm writing and just thinking you know what I'm saying.

I'll explain.

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons. The reason why this is protected in the 2A is so that it protects the militia. The US federal govt could call people up into federal service, then take away their guns while there. The 2A prevents this.

An individual gets to keep guns when not in the militia too. The reason for the protection is the militia, but this doesn't limit ownership to militia membership in any way.

Why? Well, because this would destroy the militia. The militia needs a ready supply of arms in times of need, you take them away from individuals in times with no need, then in times of need there is no need.

The same for the right to bear arms. You have a right to be in the militia in times of quiet and in times of need. Without people being in the militia in times of quiet, then in times of need it might be impossible to get into the militia.

Hi frigidweirdo and thanks for clarifying and explaining in depth and detail
So are you saying that
individuals have the right to keep arms
but only to bear arms within a govt regulated militia?

 

[hunarcy]

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?

Hopefully your questions will be answered. Constitution Check: What does it mean that there is a right to “bear” guns? - National Constitution Center

Oh, and honestly, Miller would imply that yes you should be allowed to have artillery. I'm sure that I can't support someone like you having artillery, but Miller's implication that weapons useful to the military is all that is protected seems clear.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from carrying a gun.
(this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.

Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. 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. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of carrying a gun.

Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.

Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of carrying a gun, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of carrying a gun, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.

Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of carrying a gun? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.

I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.

The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,

Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.

Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.

Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.

Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.

[20 Aug.]

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to carry a gun." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to carry a gun, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to carry a gun.

Okay

1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.

Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?

I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.

2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?

Again, any evidence for this? No.

I could go on and on.

There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nope; Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States

The wellness of regulation?


But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right. I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.

Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.

It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.

The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.

I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.

So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.

This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!

Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo

Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.

I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief. I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
I would be MISERABLE AS FU.

I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.

So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.

Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.

So glad I take this approach.

Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.

It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.

So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.

He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.

You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.

The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.

I'm sorry Emily, I really don't see how you have come to the conclusion that "the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia."

I didn't say that. I'm worried that you're not understanding what I'm writing, or worried even more that you're not reading what I'm writing and just thinking you know what I'm saying.

I'll explain.

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons. The reason why this is protected in the 2A is so that it protects the militia. The US federal govt could call people up into federal service, then take away their guns while there. The 2A prevents this.

An individual gets to keep guns when not in the militia too. The reason for the protection is the militia, but this doesn't limit ownership to militia membership in any way.

Why? Well, because this would destroy the militia. The militia needs a ready supply of arms in times of need, you take them away from individuals in times with no need, then in times of need there is no need.

The same for the right to bear arms. You have a right to be in the militia in times of quiet and in times of need. Without people being in the militia in times of quiet, then in times of need it might be impossible to get into the militia.

Hi frigidweirdo and thanks for clarifying and explaining in depth and detail
So are you saying that
individuals have the right to keep arms
but only to bear arms within a govt regulated militia?

Not really.

I'm saying individuals have a right to keep arms and individuals have a right to be in the militia.

Basically what you just said is "but only to be in the militia within a govt regulated militia", well, yes, there is only one Militia you can belong to and that's your state militia where the state appoints the officers.

The Founding Fathers didn't want to have tinpot armies appearing everywhere. That wouldn't be a good force, it would threaten the Constitution and good government and may not prevent bad government.

There is a right to self defense, and with that a right to carry guns LAWFULLY (ie, if they make a law preventing it, then you can't, so much for a right huh?) but it's just not in the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment isn't about self defense.

Had it started "self defence is an important right for individual citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms" then I might agree with your stance. But it doesn't.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

Hopefully your questions will be answered. Constitution Check: What does it mean that there is a right to “bear” guns? - National Constitution Center

Oh, and honestly, Miller would imply that yes you should be allowed to have artillery. I'm sure that I can't support someone like you having artillery, but Miller's implication that weapons useful to the military is all that is protected seems clear.

No, I'm not doing that. Either you provide your argument, or don't bother. I'm not arguing with some person on that website. Copy and paste the relevant parts that support YOUR argument, I'm debating with YOU.

 

[emilynghiem]

dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.

Indeed. And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". What part of that sentence do you not understand?

Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

the unorganized militia may be infringed.

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

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

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.

Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.

I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.

That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well. So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.

Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!

In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *

Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!

Yours truly,
Emily
Glad to live in Texas!

* Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

The wellness of regulation?


But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right. I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.

Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.

It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.

The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.

I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.

So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.

This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!

Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo

Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.

I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief. I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
I would be MISERABLE AS FU.

I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.

So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.

Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.

So glad I take this approach.

Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.

It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.

So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.

He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.

You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.

The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.

I'm sorry Emily, I really don't see how you have come to the conclusion that "the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia."

I didn't say that. I'm worried that you're not understanding what I'm writing, or worried even more that you're not reading what I'm writing and just thinking you know what I'm saying.

I'll explain.

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons. The reason why this is protected in the 2A is so that it protects the militia. The US federal govt could call people up into federal service, then take away their guns while there. The 2A prevents this.

An individual gets to keep guns when not in the militia too. The reason for the protection is the militia, but this doesn't limit ownership to militia membership in any way.

Why? Well, because this would destroy the militia. The militia needs a ready supply of arms in times of need, you take them away from individuals in times with no need, then in times of need there is no need.

The same for the right to bear arms. You have a right to be in the militia in times of quiet and in times of need. Without people being in the militia in times of quiet, then in times of need it might be impossible to get into the militia.

Hi frigidweirdo and thanks for clarifying and explaining in depth and detail
So are you saying that
individuals have the right to keep arms
but only to bear arms within a govt regulated militia?

Not really.

I'm saying individuals have a right to keep arms and individuals have a right to be in the militia.

Basically what you just said is "but only to be in the militia within a govt regulated militia", well, yes, there is only one Militia you can belong to and that's your state militia where the state appoints the officers.

The Founding Fathers didn't want to have tinpot armies appearing everywhere. That wouldn't be a good force, it would threaten the Constitution and good government and may not prevent bad government.

There is a right to self defense, and with that a right to carry guns LAWFULLY (ie, if they make a law preventing it, then you can't, so much for a right huh?) but it's just not in the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment isn't about self defense.

Had it started "self defence is an important right for individual citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms" then I might agree with your stance. But it doesn't.

Okay frigidweirdo so you do believe in the right of self defense of individuals to carry/bear arms lawfully but you just don't believe in citing the Second Amendment to justify that. That's fair.

I also agree that the right is limited to LAWFULLY.

So it looks like where we disagree is on how the Second Amendment is used or abused.

That's understandable also, since I also "stretch" the use of the given language in the Bill of Rights in order to EXPRESS natural laws underlying these principles.

So I also use more liberty in interpretations that go beyond history and tradition.

For example, I have used "right peaceably to assemble" more liberally to mean the right to peace in public, and not to be subjected to a breach or disruption of the people by other people's abusive, violent or threatening actions.

That's not the usual interpretation, but when dealing with natural laws, I either cite that passage or the "right to security in persons houses and effects" to mean the right of people to have security and protection from unlawful threats of violating their rights. This goes beyond just GOVT not infringing, but people respecting each other's rights and not threatening violations on each other!

I interpret "the right to petition for redress of grievances" more broadly than just govt, but among people if we are to be our own govt and resolve our own issues.

I understand that other people may not accept or follow these broader generalized interpretations, but that is the closest I can come when trying to explain the natural law principles underlying the Bill of Rights. I use free exercise of religion to mean free will and both political and religious beliefs equally, which is not established precedent either. But that to me is closer to reflecting natural laws that cover the broader scope of what people will defend of their free will, consent, beliefs etc.

As long as we agree on principles and the spirit of the laws, that is the main thing.
people will not all agree on language, so that is relative anyway.

I'm glad we agree more than disagree on the spirit of the laws.
The other differences I can deal with, as long as we get the same meaning
overall.

Thanks for explaining, and in the future, I would strongly suggest
you make it clear that you do believe in the individual rights lawfully invoked.

If you emphasize this as clearly as you did here,
then it's clear you are not threatening other people's core beliefs,
but just stating historical disagreement on WHERE the law
defines or protects this. You are not negating the principle
but just the language and law being cited.

Thank you very much and I hope you find more
success in reconciling with others by focusing on the
spirit and principles of the laws where you agree first,
before addressing the differences and disagreements.

If more people understood that you are not dismissing
the content of the principles but just the letter of the law being cited,
you should be heard and received more readily!

 

[westwall]

This is one of the contemplated drafts in your source for "bear" meaning "military service."

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Why would it say "render military service in person" if "bear arms" means military service?

Different versions of the Amendment


June 8th 1789

but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.


August 17th 1789


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

August 24th 1789


but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Now, render military service in person was taken out of the Amendment and replaced with "bear arms", and then "bear arms" was replaced by "render military service". Why? No idea. However it seems to be synonymous, as shown by how Mr Jerry and Mr Jackson spoke.

But basically what you have here is militia duty. You'd render military service in the militia, individually, in person.

Because the wording was convoluted. The passage here is for the Quakers (pacifists) who would not fight. However they would give medical aid etc. You need to read more history.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Indeed. And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". What part of that sentence do you not understand?

Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

the unorganized militia may be infringed.

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

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

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.

Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.

I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.

That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well. So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.

Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!

In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *

Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!

Yours truly,
Emily
Glad to live in Texas!

* Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt.

Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.

You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.

I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?

The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.

The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.

The same for militia personnel.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.

It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.

The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.

I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.

So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.

This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!

Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo

Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.

I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief. I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
I would be MISERABLE AS FU.

I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.

So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.

Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.

So glad I take this approach.

Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.

It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.

So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.

He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.

You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.

The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.

I'm sorry Emily, I really don't see how you have come to the conclusion that "the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia."

I didn't say that. I'm worried that you're not understanding what I'm writing, or worried even more that you're not reading what I'm writing and just thinking you know what I'm saying.

I'll explain.

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons. The reason why this is protected in the 2A is so that it protects the militia. The US federal govt could call people up into federal service, then take away their guns while there. The 2A prevents this.

An individual gets to keep guns when not in the militia too. The reason for the protection is the militia, but this doesn't limit ownership to militia membership in any way.

Why? Well, because this would destroy the militia. The militia needs a ready supply of arms in times of need, you take them away from individuals in times with no need, then in times of need there is no need.

The same for the right to bear arms. You have a right to be in the militia in times of quiet and in times of need. Without people being in the militia in times of quiet, then in times of need it might be impossible to get into the militia.

Hi frigidweirdo and thanks for clarifying and explaining in depth and detail
So are you saying that
individuals have the right to keep arms
but only to bear arms within a govt regulated militia?

Not really.

I'm saying individuals have a right to keep arms and individuals have a right to be in the militia.

Basically what you just said is "but only to be in the militia within a govt regulated militia", well, yes, there is only one Militia you can belong to and that's your state militia where the state appoints the officers.

The Founding Fathers didn't want to have tinpot armies appearing everywhere. That wouldn't be a good force, it would threaten the Constitution and good government and may not prevent bad government.

There is a right to self defense, and with that a right to carry guns LAWFULLY (ie, if they make a law preventing it, then you can't, so much for a right huh?) but it's just not in the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment isn't about self defense.

Had it started "self defence is an important right for individual citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms" then I might agree with your stance. But it doesn't.

Okay frigidweirdo so you do believe in the right of self defense of individuals to carry/bear arms lawfully but you just don't believe in citing the Second Amendment to justify that. That's fair.

I also agree that the right is limited to LAWFULLY.

So it looks like where we disagree is on how the Second Amendment is used or abused.

That's understandable also, since I also "stretch" the use of the given language in the Bill of Rights in order to EXPRESS natural laws underlying these principles.

So I also use more liberty in interpretations that go beyond history and tradition.

For example, I have used "right peaceably to assemble" more liberally to mean the right to peace in public, and not to be subjected to a breach or disruption of the people by other people's abusive, violent or threatening actions.

That's not the usual interpretation, but when dealing with natural laws, I either cite that passage or the "right to security in persons houses and effects" to mean the right of people to have security and protection from unlawful threats of violating their rights. This goes beyond just GOVT not infringing, but people respecting each other's rights and not threatening violations on each other!

I interpret "the right to petition for redress of grievances" more broadly than just govt, but among people if we are to be our own govt and resolve our own issues.

I understand that other people may not accept or follow these broader generalized interpretations, but that is the closest I can come when trying to explain the natural law principles underlying the Bill of Rights. I use free exercise of religion to mean free will and both political and religious beliefs equally, which is not established precedent either. But that to me is closer to reflecting natural laws that cover the broader scope of what people will defend of their free will, consent, beliefs etc.

As long as we agree on principles and the spirit of the laws, that is the main thing.
people will not all agree on language, so that is relative anyway.

I'm glad we agree more than disagree on the spirit of the laws.
The other differences I can deal with, as long as we get the same meaning
overall.

Thanks for explaining, and in the future, I would strongly suggest
you make it clear that you do believe in the individual rights lawfully invoked.

If you emphasize this as clearly as you did here,
then it's clear you are not threatening other people's core beliefs,
but just stating historical disagreement on WHERE the law
defines or protects this. You are not negating the principle
but just the language and law being cited.

Thank you very much and I hope you find more
success in reconciling with others by focusing on the
spirit and principles of the laws where you agree first,
before addressing the differences and disagreements.

If more people understood that you are not dismissing
the content of the principles but just the letter of the law being cited,
you should be heard and received more readily!

I agree there's a right to self defense. As for carrying guns, it's not really a right. I know this because the NRA supports carry and conceal permits. If you need a permit to carry guns, then it's not a right, but a privilege, it's allowed by law in certain circumstances.

Well, I am threatening people's core beliefs. The first belief being that they know everything and don't need to be told. There are so many people on forums like this who just "believe" and don't take any time to understand.