The Right To Bear Arms

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The organized, clue-full regulation of wellnitude of the cause-full peop-litia's collective right to be compelled to fight a war shall not be infringed.

 

[turtledude]

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.

We already have the right not to keep and bear arms. Your second part is a violation on due process and is unconstitutional. You are just a dumb bot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well regulated gun lovers may be necessary to the security of a free State.

artificial intelligence bots masquerading as posters are not necessary to the free flow of discussion. Rather, such bots are best seen as "Mordacs"-preventers of Information

 

[turtledude]

The organized, clue-full regulation of wellnitude of the cause-full peop-litia's collective right to be compelled to fight a war shall not be infringed.

the rights of people as proper persons as opposed to corporate citizens, to keep and program bots, is not necessary for a natural right of warfare discussion, therefore sovereign citizens can create artificial intelligence cyborgs pursuant to natural law

 

[emilynghiem]

The organized, clue-full regulation of wellnitude of the cause-full peop-litia's collective right to be compelled to fight a war shall not be infringed.

"A big unchecked govt -- being necessary to justify more taxes, outnumber Republicans, and scare NRA members into stockpiling more weapons -- the right of Liberals shall not be infringed in demanding all control of guns be entrusted to federal govt, except when protesting police and calling them racist pigs."

 

[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.

Yes, it does.

And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.

There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?

Give me a break, this is simple English.

Sadly, you are absolutely wasting time because you know only one definition applies. Glad I was out of town.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

Yes, it does.

And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.

There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?

Give me a break, this is simple English.

Can we agree frigidweirdo the purpose of the Second Amendment
is the federal govt will not totally deprive people of the right to bear arms.

And where people disagree is to what extent either
a. the rules of the militia apply to the people
or
b. the federal govt still regulates either the militia or the people
(but just can't deprive this right completely)

Is that assessment close enough? To where people generally agree
and where the conflicts lie.

If so, this sounds similar to the free exercise clause and the THREE issues there
1. not ESTABLISHING it by govt (and certainly NOT COMPELLING it as you and others discuss here)
2. not PROHIBITING totally
3. but to what degree can govt enforce "conditions" or "regulations"
Example: a religion that has people killing or harming others to "exorcise them from demons"
or depriving medical care to save the life of a child under the age of legal consent
(or in the case of ACA penalizing people for not complying with mandates that violate
their Constitutional beliefs but exempting "only certain religious members" from taxes while fining others)
(also this business of barring Christian exercise or expression in relation to public property, policy or institutions
but ENDORSING LGBT beliefs, expressions and exercise to the point of PENALIZING others with conflicting beliefs)

If we can at least agree the govt should neither prohibit nor compel,
then we can focus on where the majority of arguments lie
is on what level and to what extent can the actual "exercise" of bearing arms
be "regulated" for the purpose of preventing ABUSE that would violate law.

The tricky part here, if we don't agree on the meaning of federal/Constitutional law,
then both sides can go in circles arguing "not to violate that" where they don't even agree in the first place.

What I suggest here, is to let each person have their OWN layout of where they draw the lines
between federal, militia, and people, and stick within their OWN paradigm or framework.

These do NOT have to agree COMPLETELY with the next person.
Or you'll waste all day arguing what shade of grey is closer to black than white.
We'd have to pick apart each person's system by the PIXELS and use their OWN system for THEM to follow.
And group people by pixelation so at least those folks can communicate and agree with each other
what are violations or what is proper regulations UNDER THEIR WAY of delineating federal/militia/people.

Then mediate between the subgroups and try to manage a consensus that
accommodates all these ways, so everyone can access representation by their system or the closest to it.

It doesn't have to be perfectly 100% as long as people AGREE it's close enough for them to feel secure and included.

Thanks frigidweirdo I think someone like you could help orchestrate
such groups and help communicate between them. You may specialize
in this particular area more than I do. I'm more into explaining how to
separate the religious and political beliefs in general, but don't go into
as much historical detail as you and others here are able to discuss in depth.

The fact you have differences is actually good, that defines and maps out the
logistics of what we are facing. Most people can't get past the skin and you
are getting into the meat of the matter. So this is excellent, and I welcome
all the contributions especially where these disagree. We need to know what
we are dealing with beneath the surface if we are going to do "reconstructive"
surgery and align arteries with arteries and veins with veins so the system works
even with different functions of the arteries and veins going in opposite directions.

We just need to organize people of like beliefs, and we can deal with both schools of thoughts,
and all variations thereof.

Thanks you frigidweirdo and please do consider seriously
my proposal to form a task force on mediating these differences
instead of people bullying back and forth and attacking each other's party members and leaders over this.
We need equal inclusion, not dominating one belief system over another.
And we can work out all other differences and conflicts from there!

Thanks for spelling out how you see it, which helps TREMENDOUSLY!!!
I don't even get or follow it all, but see as long as you get it you can explain to others.

The issue here is the meaning of the term "bear arms".

On the one hand you have people with an agenda twisting history to meet their agenda, ignoring almost all of the facts, pretending the English language is rigid and doing whatever the hell they want.

On the other hand you have facts, logic and an argument.

You want a task force to mediate on this?

What?

YOU are the one with an agenda that is trying to twist things and ignoring facts.

 

[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?

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

Yes, it does.

And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.

There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?

Give me a break, this is simple English.

Sadly, you are absolutely wasting time because you know only one definition applies. Glad I was out of town.

I know all of the definitions of "bear", I also know how the Founding Fathers used the term "bear arms", and it's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't have their head stuck up their ass.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Yes, it does.

And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.

There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?

Give me a break, this is simple English.

Can we agree frigidweirdo the purpose of the Second Amendment
is the federal govt will not totally deprive people of the right to bear arms.

And where people disagree is to what extent either
a. the rules of the militia apply to the people
or
b. the federal govt still regulates either the militia or the people
(but just can't deprive this right completely)

Is that assessment close enough? To where people generally agree
and where the conflicts lie.

If so, this sounds similar to the free exercise clause and the THREE issues there
1. not ESTABLISHING it by govt (and certainly NOT COMPELLING it as you and others discuss here)
2. not PROHIBITING totally
3. but to what degree can govt enforce "conditions" or "regulations"
Example: a religion that has people killing or harming others to "exorcise them from demons"
or depriving medical care to save the life of a child under the age of legal consent
(or in the case of ACA penalizing people for not complying with mandates that violate
their Constitutional beliefs but exempting "only certain religious members" from taxes while fining others)
(also this business of barring Christian exercise or expression in relation to public property, policy or institutions
but ENDORSING LGBT beliefs, expressions and exercise to the point of PENALIZING others with conflicting beliefs)

If we can at least agree the govt should neither prohibit nor compel,
then we can focus on where the majority of arguments lie
is on what level and to what extent can the actual "exercise" of bearing arms
be "regulated" for the purpose of preventing ABUSE that would violate law.

The tricky part here, if we don't agree on the meaning of federal/Constitutional law,
then both sides can go in circles arguing "not to violate that" where they don't even agree in the first place.

What I suggest here, is to let each person have their OWN layout of where they draw the lines
between federal, militia, and people, and stick within their OWN paradigm or framework.

These do NOT have to agree COMPLETELY with the next person.
Or you'll waste all day arguing what shade of grey is closer to black than white.
We'd have to pick apart each person's system by the PIXELS and use their OWN system for THEM to follow.
And group people by pixelation so at least those folks can communicate and agree with each other
what are violations or what is proper regulations UNDER THEIR WAY of delineating federal/militia/people.

Then mediate between the subgroups and try to manage a consensus that
accommodates all these ways, so everyone can access representation by their system or the closest to it.

It doesn't have to be perfectly 100% as long as people AGREE it's close enough for them to feel secure and included.

Thanks frigidweirdo I think someone like you could help orchestrate
such groups and help communicate between them. You may specialize
in this particular area more than I do. I'm more into explaining how to
separate the religious and political beliefs in general, but don't go into
as much historical detail as you and others here are able to discuss in depth.

The fact you have differences is actually good, that defines and maps out the
logistics of what we are facing. Most people can't get past the skin and you
are getting into the meat of the matter. So this is excellent, and I welcome
all the contributions especially where these disagree. We need to know what
we are dealing with beneath the surface if we are going to do "reconstructive"
surgery and align arteries with arteries and veins with veins so the system works
even with different functions of the arteries and veins going in opposite directions.

We just need to organize people of like beliefs, and we can deal with both schools of thoughts,
and all variations thereof.

Thanks you frigidweirdo and please do consider seriously
my proposal to form a task force on mediating these differences
instead of people bullying back and forth and attacking each other's party members and leaders over this.
We need equal inclusion, not dominating one belief system over another.
And we can work out all other differences and conflicts from there!

Thanks for spelling out how you see it, which helps TREMENDOUSLY!!!
I don't even get or follow it all, but see as long as you get it you can explain to others.

The issue here is the meaning of the term "bear arms".

On the one hand you have people with an agenda twisting history to meet their agenda, ignoring almost all of the facts, pretending the English language is rigid and doing whatever the hell they want.

On the other hand you have facts, logic and an argument.

You want a task force to mediate on this?

What?

YOU are the one with an agenda that is trying to twist things and ignoring facts.

What facts would I be ignoring then?

 

[hunarcy]

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.

Yes, it does.

And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.

There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?

Give me a break, this is simple English.

Sadly, you are absolutely wasting time because you know only one definition applies. Glad I was out of town.

I know all of the definitions of "bear", I also know how the Founding Fathers used the term "bear arms", and it's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't have their head stuck up their ass.

Then you should apologize for wasting our time and pull your head out of your ass. Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[hunarcy]

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

Yes, it does.

And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.

There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?

Give me a break, this is simple English.

Can we agree frigidweirdo the purpose of the Second Amendment
is the federal govt will not totally deprive people of the right to bear arms.

And where people disagree is to what extent either
a. the rules of the militia apply to the people
or
b. the federal govt still regulates either the militia or the people
(but just can't deprive this right completely)

Is that assessment close enough? To where people generally agree
and where the conflicts lie.

If so, this sounds similar to the free exercise clause and the THREE issues there
1. not ESTABLISHING it by govt (and certainly NOT COMPELLING it as you and others discuss here)
2. not PROHIBITING totally
3. but to what degree can govt enforce "conditions" or "regulations"
Example: a religion that has people killing or harming others to "exorcise them from demons"
or depriving medical care to save the life of a child under the age of legal consent
(or in the case of ACA penalizing people for not complying with mandates that violate
their Constitutional beliefs but exempting "only certain religious members" from taxes while fining others)
(also this business of barring Christian exercise or expression in relation to public property, policy or institutions
but ENDORSING LGBT beliefs, expressions and exercise to the point of PENALIZING others with conflicting beliefs)

If we can at least agree the govt should neither prohibit nor compel,
then we can focus on where the majority of arguments lie
is on what level and to what extent can the actual "exercise" of bearing arms
be "regulated" for the purpose of preventing ABUSE that would violate law.

The tricky part here, if we don't agree on the meaning of federal/Constitutional law,
then both sides can go in circles arguing "not to violate that" where they don't even agree in the first place.

What I suggest here, is to let each person have their OWN layout of where they draw the lines
between federal, militia, and people, and stick within their OWN paradigm or framework.

These do NOT have to agree COMPLETELY with the next person.
Or you'll waste all day arguing what shade of grey is closer to black than white.
We'd have to pick apart each person's system by the PIXELS and use their OWN system for THEM to follow.
And group people by pixelation so at least those folks can communicate and agree with each other
what are violations or what is proper regulations UNDER THEIR WAY of delineating federal/militia/people.

Then mediate between the subgroups and try to manage a consensus that
accommodates all these ways, so everyone can access representation by their system or the closest to it.

It doesn't have to be perfectly 100% as long as people AGREE it's close enough for them to feel secure and included.

Thanks frigidweirdo I think someone like you could help orchestrate
such groups and help communicate between them. You may specialize
in this particular area more than I do. I'm more into explaining how to
separate the religious and political beliefs in general, but don't go into
as much historical detail as you and others here are able to discuss in depth.

The fact you have differences is actually good, that defines and maps out the
logistics of what we are facing. Most people can't get past the skin and you
are getting into the meat of the matter. So this is excellent, and I welcome
all the contributions especially where these disagree. We need to know what
we are dealing with beneath the surface if we are going to do "reconstructive"
surgery and align arteries with arteries and veins with veins so the system works
even with different functions of the arteries and veins going in opposite directions.

We just need to organize people of like beliefs, and we can deal with both schools of thoughts,
and all variations thereof.

Thanks you frigidweirdo and please do consider seriously
my proposal to form a task force on mediating these differences
instead of people bullying back and forth and attacking each other's party members and leaders over this.
We need equal inclusion, not dominating one belief system over another.
And we can work out all other differences and conflicts from there!

Thanks for spelling out how you see it, which helps TREMENDOUSLY!!!
I don't even get or follow it all, but see as long as you get it you can explain to others.

The issue here is the meaning of the term "bear arms".

On the one hand you have people with an agenda twisting history to meet their agenda, ignoring almost all of the facts, pretending the English language is rigid and doing whatever the hell they want.

On the other hand you have facts, logic and an argument.

You want a task force to mediate on this?

What?

YOU are the one with an agenda that is trying to twist things and ignoring facts.

What facts would I be ignoring then?

The definition for bear arms, for example. You really are so determined to be pedantic that I'm starting to pity you. I hope your Thanksgiving is a good one.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Yes, it does.

And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.

There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?

Give me a break, this is simple English.

Sadly, you are absolutely wasting time because you know only one definition applies. Glad I was out of town.

I know all of the definitions of "bear", I also know how the Founding Fathers used the term "bear arms", and it's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't have their head stuck up their ass.

Then you should apologize for wasting our time and pull your head out of your ass. Happy Thanksgiving.

I'll tell you what, I'll put your ass on ignore. How about that.You go run along and kill some injuns, and then when you get back, I'll be out of your sorry life.

Bye.

 

[turtledude]

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

Yes, it does.

And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.

There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?

Give me a break, this is simple English.

Sadly, you are absolutely wasting time because you know only one definition applies. Glad I was out of town.

I know all of the definitions of "bear", I also know how the Founding Fathers used the term "bear arms", and it's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't have their head stuck up their ass.

Then you should apologize for wasting our time and pull your head out of your ass. Happy Thanksgiving.

I'll tell you what, I'll put your ass on ignore. How about that.You go run along and kill some injuns, and then when you get back, I'll be out of your sorry life.

Bye.

don't go away mad, just go away

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...

... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...

... and the threat of overkill firepower...

... for the average citizen.

Nope.

Nope.

And nope.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete. We're the United Freakin States. We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.

If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French. And no one wants that.

Important is an utterly subjective term, since it depends on the priorities of the person. To many people, it IS the most important. To anyone with a knowlege of history and human nature, it is definitely as important as any. To people who lounge in their easy chairs, assuming that their freedom is simply a law of nature, like winter following summer, it is negligible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Yes, it is ALWAYS only a matter of time before the tyrants show up and demolish freedoms that have been neglected and allowed to erode. Thanks for warning us of your designs on totalitarianism.

 

[Lakhota]

Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say

Sensible gun control could solve that problem. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.

 

[emilynghiem]

Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say

Sensible gun control could solve that problem. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.

Sure Lakhota
As if banning and regulating abortions is going to prevent unwanted pregnancies that cause abortions.
Last I checked, the argument against this was people were going to get abortions anyway.
So making them illegal isn't going to solve the problems CAUSING the abortions.

Banning guns isn't going to solve the problem of mental and criminal illness
behind abusing weapons for crimes whether murder-suicide, mass shootings, etc.

However, Lakhota, if you want to make it a requirement
that people who buy these specialized firearms
get insurance, screening or licensing through an agreed institution,
including the NRA if they want to take on responsibility for screening
and gun insurance, then perhaps the requirement could be agreed on
to use spiritual healing methods for diagnosing, treating and curing mental disorders.

That wouldn't be a ban, but an agreed process of screening for mental illness.
If the NRA doesn't agree with govt doing this and setting up regulations,
maybe they should be in charge of screening and insuring their own members
under rules they agree would ensure Constitutional compliance and not abuses.

 

[turtledude]

Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say

Sensible gun control could solve that problem. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.

you're an idiot. almost every modern handgun used by civilian police is semi auto. stupid moron.

 

[turtledude]

Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say

Sensible gun control could solve that problem. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.

Sure Lakhota
As if banning and regulating abortions is going to prevent unwanted pregnancies that cause abortions.
Last I checked, the argument against this was people were going to get abortions anyway.
So making them illegal isn't going to solve the problems CAUSING the abortions.

society would be better if morons who want to ban stuff were seen as social pariahs and shunned by intelligent people. Chief Lying Dog is a hard core bannerrhoid idiot