The Right To Bear Arms

[emilynghiem]

What did "well regulated" mean back then? You have already been shown what it meant, so how are you going to twist that?

Well regulated means whatever Congress says it means; only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law and claim they are for the, "gospel Truth".

No, it means whatever the DICTIONARY says it means. That's why dictionary's get written. Here is the original meaning of the phrase, that has already been shown to you, and which you continue to ignore.


The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

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

Only the clueless and the Causeless gainsay that contention.

No danielpalos sorry
the local police, the state rangers and other such entities
have their own local rules. These can't be "in conflict"
with the Constitution as previously cited above (see

After 30 years of b******* misinformation propaganda and the NRA going batshit, 1 wonders when the semi insane GOP voters will come back to the Civilized world. All people need is hunting guns to protect themselves. Our country is close to insane at this point. The hero in this case should not be allowed assault rifles because that would have stopped the mentally ill guy from having an assault rifle. Duh.

Okay. Call for a constitutional convention. Congress was not given the Constitutional authority to regulate firearms, but they are doing it anyway. Change the Constitution, and you can get your way.

Dear Bootney Lee Farnsworth
If I were going to call for a Constitutional convention, it would be over this whole problem with competing "political beliefs" including how to separate policies and programs by party, similar to an agreement to keep religious agenda out of govt but with political religions, and how to resolve conflicts BEFORE they end up in Congress or Courts, backlogging the democratic process, reducing election campaigns to bullying tactics, and/or costing taxpayers for flawed policies that have to be contested or corrected after such decisions were made by govt instead of addressing the objections in advance.

 

[emilynghiem]

I have danielpalos on ignore. Let me guess:

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

Did I get it right?

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

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

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

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

What danielpalos ???

Just because YOU are associating individual rights with criminal intent doesn't mean that's what other people mean by individual rights!

Again, maybe my Texas bias is showing. But the people who commit crimes are doing so because of criminal intent, not because they are acting as individuals.

And that goes for police, govt and military officials also known for abusing their power or positions to violate rights and laws.

Just being part of a regulated group doesn't ensure they will be law abiding.

Just being individual and NOT part of a group doesn't imply unlawful intent or actions either!

The common factor is whether someone, either individually or as part of a group, is DEFENDING the law, and/or using firearms to defend the law.

And from what I am used to seeing, the people who defend the true spirit and meaning of Constitution tend to be responsible and law abiding. They tend NOT to want federal govt to dictate or overregulate people's lives and freedom; not out of criminal intent but the opposite motivation of WANTING to PRESERVE rights and freedoms which requires RESPONSIBILITY.

So they aim even harder to ensure they are following and enforcing the laws in order to protect their rights.

Maybe you've seen otherwise in your experiences???

 

[Papageorgio]

So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?

The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"

Is this one right or is this two rights?

For example, the First Amendment

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.

The 4A

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.

Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.

Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.

The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".

No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.

Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.

"The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.

"bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".

KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP

Heller confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.

You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that, the Heller holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.

The mental gynastics is glorious.

Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.

Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.

The founders and Constitution say otherwise if you were a real American.

Where? Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Could you expound on that thought.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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 havi

They wouldn't. Your entire argument is
Bear arms = military service

Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.

Well, read this again:

"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 bear arms, 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 bear arms."

Use what? Arms? Not military service, but use guns.

So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns? Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term. He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.

Bear arms means use guns.

You are right. We don't have the right to keep and carry. We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed. You pinted yourself into that corner.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My right to shoot my motherfucking guns shall not be infringed. I will shoot them any fucking time, any fucking place I want!!!

It was used that way in the debates. Therefore, bear arms means use guns. Use means shoot. I can shoot my guns anytime, anywhere, goddammit.


Wanna re-think your argument?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

...or we could compromise. You can agree that bear arms means to carry, not shoot. It's up to you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 havi

They wouldn't. Your entire argument is
Bear arms = military service

Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.

Well, read this again:

"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 bear arms, 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 bear arms."

Use what? Arms? Not military service, but use guns.

So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns? Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term. He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.

Bear arms means use guns.

You are right. We don't have the right to keep and carry. We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed. You pinted yourself into that corner.

No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.

Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.

Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.

In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.

However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?

The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.

"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."

Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....

Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.

You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.

If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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 havi

They wouldn't. Your entire argument is
Bear arms = military service

Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.

Well, read this again:

"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 bear arms, 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 bear arms."

Use what? Arms? Not military service, but use guns.

So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns? Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term. He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.

Bear arms means use guns.

You are right. We don't have the right to keep and carry. We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed. You pinted yourself into that corner.

No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.

Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.

Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.

In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.

However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?

The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.

"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."

Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....

Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.

You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.

If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?

No. I am show how your interpritation of "bear arms" exclusively meaning military service, fails when it means "use" in that quote. Not military dudty. USE.

Your argument that bear arms means militarty duty in the 2A is discredited, not only by its use in that context as aright, not a duty, but also by the quote above, where compelling someone to bear arms, when they would rather die than use arms. It is a completely separate meaning in that quote, because he is spacifically refurring to the use of arms, not military duty.

If you cannot at least concede that the above quote weakens your militarty-duty argument, then we are done talking. You are unreasonable and have made up your mind on the topic, regardless of the evidence.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 havi

They wouldn't. Your entire argument is
Bear arms = military service

Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.

Well, read this again:

"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 bear arms, 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 bear arms."

Use what? Arms? Not military service, but use guns.

So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns? Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term. He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.

Bear arms means use guns.

You are right. We don't have the right to keep and carry. We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed. You pinted yourself into that corner.

No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.

Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.

Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.

In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.

However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?

The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.

"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."

Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....

Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.

You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.

If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?

No. I am show how your interpritation of "bear arms" exclusively meaning military service, fails when it means "use" in that quote. Not military dudty. USE.

Your argument that bear arms means militarty duty in the 2A is discredited, not only by its use in that context as aright, not a duty, but also by the quote above, where compelling someone to bear arms, when they would rather die than use arms. It is a completely separate meaning in that quote, because he is spacifically refurring to the use of arms, not military duty.

If you cannot at least concede that the above quote weakens your militarty-duty argument, then we are done talking. You are unreasonable and have made up your mind on the topic, regardless of the evidence.

No, I don't see how it fails at all.

You can use arms, you can bear arms. When you are in the militia you are bearing arms. The "arms" part is guns, especially in relation to 1789. You can bear arms and use arms.

The "bear arms" comes from the term "carry", however "bear arms" together means "militia duty" or "render military service". Literally you're carrying arms in military service. It doesn't mean to carry arms in civilian life.

You say my argument is discredited, er.. no, it's not. You're throwing sticks and hoping one of them hits, they're not hitting. Then you're telling me they hit.

Fine, if you expect me to agree with your very loose argument, when you've been ignoring my very strong argument, and then you're going to walk away because I won't agree without your argument, then go. I don't care.

I'd have walked away from you a long time ago. But I didn't.

You don't learn by demanding people agree with you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, to recap:

The 2A states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Argument: "Bear Arms" does not mean "carry" in that context. See House of Rep. debates on the 2nd, where they use "bear arms" in the context of a military duty, rather than a right.

Counter: In part of that very debate, one guy says "what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them?" In that context, "bearing arms" is not referring to military duty, but to the objects themselves, when he mentions their objection to using them.

Bear arms refers to the arms themselves in the same source proffered as evidence the term means military duty in the 2md. Coupled with it being called a right in the 2nd, the military duty argument falls apart.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I don't expect you to agree with my overall position. I do expect a reasonable person to concede points that are clear. I agree that "bear arms" means to render military service or refers to a militia duty in some context.

The "bear arms" comes from the term "carry", however "bear arms" together means "militia duty" or "render military service". Literally you're carrying arms in military service. It doesn't mean to carry arms in civilian life.

This is all I was asking you to concede. Bear arms means carry, at least some of the time, or is not exclusively used to mean militia duty or military service.

Where we disagree is its use in the context of the 2nd, where it is cast as a right, not militia duty or a rendering of military service. It is expressed as a right. My argument is that it can't mean militia duty when it is cast or phrased as such, which leaves it to other interpretations. The only reasonable interpretation in that context is to carry.

You may disagree, but you cannot claim that military service or militia duty was clearly the intent, based on your source.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't expect you to agree with my overall position. I do expect a reasonable person to concede points that are clear. I agree that "bear arms" means to render military service or refers to a militia duty in some context.

The "bear arms" comes from the term "carry", however "bear arms" together means "militia duty" or "render military service". Literally you're carrying arms in military service. It doesn't mean to carry arms in civilian life.

This is all I was asking you to concede. Bear arms means carry, at least some of the time, or is not exclusively used to mean militia duty or military service.

Where we disagree is its use in the context of the 2nd, where it is cast as a right, not militia duty or a rendering of military service. It is expressed as a right. My argument is that it can't mean militia duty when it is cast or phrased as such, which leaves it to other interpretations. The only reasonable interpretation in that context is to carry.

You may disagree, but you cannot claim that military service or militia duty was clearly the intent, based on your source.

Well, if it's clear, I'll let you know.

My points have been far clearer than yours, so it makes me wonder why you're not bowing down at my feet, seeing how this is how you'd expect me to react.

No "bear" can mean carry. "bear arms" could mean carry arms. However there are times when people use phrases to mean something different to the usual meaning, and we have here a situation where the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service", and not just in this document, but elsewhere.

Now, the nearest thing you have to getting "bear arms" to mean "walk around with guns" is where something could be read both ways. Beyond that there's no logic in your argument.

Why the hell would the Founding Fathers A) protect the right of individuals to carry guns around with them in an Amendment about the Militia? What does an individual carrying guns around have to do with the militia exactly? B) why they therefore would not protect one of the two things a militia needs in order to function when you have some of the Founding Fathers basically saying "if you put this clause into the Constitution then there's no point in having the amendment because the militia will be totally useless" and C) the NRA supports carry and conceal permits which would be complete UNNECESSARY if there were a right recognized to walk around with guns and D) why the Supreme Court said there is no right in the Second Amendment that protects the carrying of arms.

Oh, I can claim that "bear arms" means "militia duty" and "render military service" because this is EXACTLY what my source says. And also I have the backing of my A) B) C) and D) to make a very strong argument. What you have, I'll concede, is not very much and mostly throwing sticks and hoping the hit something, which they don't.

 

[hunarcy]

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 havi

They wouldn't. Your entire argument is
Bear arms = military service

Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.

Well, read this again:

"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 bear arms, 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 bear arms."

Use what? Arms? Not military service, but use guns.

So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns? Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term. He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.

Bear arms means use guns.

You are right. We don't have the right to keep and carry. We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed. You pinted yourself into that corner.

No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.

Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.

Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.

In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.

However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?

The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.

"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."

Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....

Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.

You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.

If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?

bear means to carry. Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.

 

[hunarcy]

I don't expect you to agree with my overall position. I do expect a reasonable person to concede points that are clear. I agree that "bear arms" means to render military service or refers to a militia duty in some context.

The "bear arms" comes from the term "carry", however "bear arms" together means "militia duty" or "render military service". Literally you're carrying arms in military service. It doesn't mean to carry arms in civilian life.

This is all I was asking you to concede. Bear arms means carry, at least some of the time, or is not exclusively used to mean militia duty or military service.

Where we disagree is its use in the context of the 2nd, where it is cast as a right, not militia duty or a rendering of military service. It is expressed as a right. My argument is that it can't mean militia duty when it is cast or phrased as such, which leaves it to other interpretations. The only reasonable interpretation in that context is to carry.

You may disagree, but you cannot claim that military service or militia duty was clearly the intent, based on your source.

Well, if it's clear, I'll let you know.

My points have been far clearer than yours, so it makes me wonder why you're not bowing down at my feet, seeing how this is how you'd expect me to react.

No "bear" can mean carry. "bear arms" could mean carry arms. However there are times when people use phrases to mean something different to the usual meaning, and we have here a situation where the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service", and not just in this document, but elsewhere.

Now, the nearest thing you have to getting "bear arms" to mean "walk around with guns" is where something could be read both ways. Beyond that there's no logic in your argument.

Why the hell would the Founding Fathers A) protect the right of individuals to carry guns around with them in an Amendment about the Militia? What does an individual carrying guns around have to do with the militia exactly? B) why they therefore would not protect one of the two things a militia needs in order to function when you have some of the Founding Fathers basically saying "if you put this clause into the Constitution then there's no point in having the amendment because the militia will be totally useless" and C) the NRA supports carry and conceal permits which would be complete UNNECESSARY if there were a right recognized to walk around with guns and D) why the Supreme Court said there is no right in the Second Amendment that protects the carrying of arms.

Oh, I can claim that "bear arms" means "militia duty" and "render military service" because this is EXACTLY what my source says. And also I have the backing of my A) B) C) and D) to make a very strong argument. What you have, I'll concede, is not very much and mostly throwing sticks and hoping the hit something, which they don't.

"Why the hell would the Founding Fathers A) protect the right of individuals to carry guns around with them in an Amendment about the Militia?"

Very good. Because no matter what you want to believe, the right is reserved to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I am advocating for a Ninth Amendment, right to not keep and bear Arms and draft gun lovers, first.

 

[danielpalos]

So, to recap:

The 2A states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Argument: "Bear Arms" does not mean "carry" in that context. See House of Rep. debates on the 2nd, where they use "bear arms" in the context of a military duty, rather than a right.

Counter: In part of that very debate, one guy says "what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them?" In that context, "bearing arms" is not referring to military duty, but to the objects themselves, when he mentions their objection to using them.

Bear arms refers to the arms themselves in the same source proffered as evidence the term means military duty in the 2md. Coupled with it being called a right in the 2nd, the military duty argument falls apart.

Only if you omit the fact that the People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and those people shall not be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't expect you to agree with my overall position. I do expect a reasonable person to concede points that are clear. I agree that "bear arms" means to render military service or refers to a militia duty in some context.

The "bear arms" comes from the term "carry", however "bear arms" together means "militia duty" or "render military service". Literally you're carrying arms in military service. It doesn't mean to carry arms in civilian life.

This is all I was asking you to concede. Bear arms means carry, at least some of the time, or is not exclusively used to mean militia duty or military service.

Where we disagree is its use in the context of the 2nd, where it is cast as a right, not militia duty or a rendering of military service. It is expressed as a right. My argument is that it can't mean militia duty when it is cast or phrased as such, which leaves it to other interpretations. The only reasonable interpretation in that context is to carry.

You may disagree, but you cannot claim that military service or militia duty was clearly the intent, based on your source.

Well, if it's clear, I'll let you know.

My points have been far clearer than yours, so it makes me wonder why you're not bowing down at my feet, seeing how this is how you'd expect me to react.

No "bear" can mean carry. "bear arms" could mean carry arms. However there are times when people use phrases to mean something different to the usual meaning, and we have here a situation where the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service", and not just in this document, but elsewhere.

Now, the nearest thing you have to getting "bear arms" to mean "walk around with guns" is where something could be read both ways. Beyond that there's no logic in your argument.

Why the hell would the Founding Fathers A) protect the right of individuals to carry guns around with them in an Amendment about the Militia? What does an individual carrying guns around have to do with the militia exactly? B) why they therefore would not protect one of the two things a militia needs in order to function when you have some of the Founding Fathers basically saying "if you put this clause into the Constitution then there's no point in having the amendment because the militia will be totally useless" and C) the NRA supports carry and conceal permits which would be complete UNNECESSARY if there were a right recognized to walk around with guns and D) why the Supreme Court said there is no right in the Second Amendment that protects the carrying of arms.

Oh, I can claim that "bear arms" means "militia duty" and "render military service" because this is EXACTLY what my source says. And also I have the backing of my A) B) C) and D) to make a very strong argument. What you have, I'll concede, is not very much and mostly throwing sticks and hoping the hit something, which they don't.

"Why the hell would the Founding Fathers A) protect the right of individuals to carry guns around with them in an Amendment about the Militia?"

Very good. Because no matter what you want to believe, the right is reserved to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

The People are the Militia.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No "bear" can mean carry. "bear arms" could mean carry arms. However there are times when people use phrases to mean something different to the usual meaning, and we have here a situation where the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service", and not just in this document, but elsewhere.

But before we even look back to their intent:

"We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:" Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980). "n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.'" 503 U.S. 249, 254.

You are trying to give the words keep and bear arms a meaning that is not ordinary or usual in that context, especially given the expression is stated as a right, not a duty. No one has ever expressed a right to be compelled into military service or a right to pay taxes. The ordinary meaning of compelling military service is a duty. Because "bear arms" could be used both ways, the language itself is clear regarding duty verses right.

I don't think we even get to a discussion about legislative intent, because there is no ambiguity, but I will go ahead and entertain your argument and assume there is an ambiguity, despite such an exercise being unnecessary under the circumstances.

Get me a source where some founder at that time expressed a legal duty as a right, and I will take a hard look.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the militia. No one is unconnected with the militia.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why the hell would the Founding Fathers

A) protect the right of individuals to carry guns around with them in an Amendment about the Militia? What does an individual carrying guns around have to do with the militia exactly?

Because, when read as a whole, the effect is NOT to establish a militia. We end up here every fucking time. IT IS NOT ABOUT ESTABLISHING OR ARMING A MILITIA. That is already done in Art. 1, Sec. 8.

The effect of the Amendment is prohibiting the federal government from infringing on pre-existing rights. Those are the right to keep and the right to bear. It makes no difference whether those arms would be used in a militia. It is a protection of those pre-existing rights.

B) why they therefore would not protect one of the two things a militia needs in order to function when you have some of the Founding Fathers basically saying "if you put this clause into the Constitution then there's no point in having the amendment because the militia will be totally useless"

I don't follow your point.

Congress was granted the power to organize, arm, and "discipline" or train, a militia in Art.1, Sec.8. The people wouldn't need to be armed i Congress could arm them.

C) the NRA supports carry and conceal permits which would be complete UNNECESSARY if there were a right recognized to walk around with guns and

Or, the NRA is trying to restore what we should already have, by doing what it does best. Lobbying. The NRA is doing what you are doing, but in reverse Piecemeal restoration, instead of piecemeal erosion.

D) why the Supreme Court said there is no right in the Second Amendment that protects the carrying of arms.

When? I call bullshit. You can't be referring to Presser, because the Court specifically HELD that the 2nd Amendment is a prohibition against Congress, and that Illinois was under no such prohibition. If you are trying to tie Presser to the 2nd, you are mistaken.