Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
For you 2aguy and others with your political beliefs and interpretation/understanding of the laws.
Neither will you and me preaching our beliefs
are going to change how frigidweirdo believes either!
So why not accept that we have two different schools of thought and beliefs here.
And those branch off into 4, given what frigidweirdo and ChrisL added on how they see it.
We are not going to change each other's minds or beliefs
by preaching and defending our own. We'll just deadlock
because each of us has equal right and responsibility for our own beliefs.
Question remains
how do we make public policy that reflects represents and includes
this diversity of beliefs including the conflicts and still protect everyone equally?
Because I don't "believe". I know things.
The reason I know and don't believe is because I came into the 2A debate with preconceived ideas, and then changed them when I saw the were wrong. Those people willing to change their views in light of new evidence don't need to believe.
The questions that do remain are similar to "why do people who have NO EVIDENCE to support their theory, keep believing in it?"
But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.not if your belief infringes on the rights of another. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t mean it should be put it into law. You have a right to your beliefs, but, once you put those beliefs into practice as law that steps on others rights, that’s no longer ok. That’s no longer equality. You doing so forces your beliefs onto othersNo, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
The Heller case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..
They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated". Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?
Dear Flash
As a Constitutionalist who believe in consent of the governed and including political beliefs
under religious freedom,
I argue that
* the same way Christians and Constitutionalists can't be forced to accept court rulings
on right to marriage and right to health care
* neither can secularists be forced by courts or govt to accept this belief
that right to bear arms is part of natural laws given by God or nature.
If their political beliefs are excluded or discriminated against instead of included equally,
that just as unconstitutional as the mandates and rulings that violated the rights
and beliefs of people with Christian and Constitutional beliefs negated or overruled by court rulings.
What we should learn by this is to allow
individuals to retain and protect their own interpretations
AND QUIT ABUSING GOVT OR PARTY TO EXCLUDE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER BELIEFS.
It is constitutional to REMOVE the ban AGAINST gay marriage
but not to incorporate and enforce that institution against the beliefs of others.
It is constitutional to REMOVE gun regulations that go too far
and violate due process of laws by depriving law abiding citizens of rights who haven't
been convicted of crimes, but not to EXCLUDE people who believe in more gun regulations.
They just have to propose and back rules and procedures for screening
that ALIGN with people of the other beliefs who AGREE on effective legislation and management.
We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
are biased against the beliefs of others.
But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.
So citizens such as frigidweirdo or me who contests a ruling as
biased by political belief against our own beliefs,
have EVERY RIGHT to argue we should be included constitutionally.
And we have that responsibility to defend our beliefs,
we just don't have the right to impose them on others through govt
or that's equally unconstitutional.
You have a right to keep and own a gun, any gun. Just like you have to right to own a car, or a knife, or computer, or whatever. Owning a gun (for self defense against whatever assailiant govt or other) is a natural right, as well as forming up groups is a natural right. Now if you use that gun/car/knife/computer for a crime that’s against the law since you are doing so to infringe on others rights. The difference between all of these tools mentioned and a gun is that gun is specifically mentioned in the 2nd. It’s mentioned for a reason because it’s an equalizer. And it’s also one of the first things that people seeking power go after.
The problem is your belief doesn't match reality.
The US Constitution doesn't say anything about "guns", there is no mention of the word "gun" in the Constitution, nor the Second Amendment. It says "arms".
arms | Definition of arms in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
"Weapons and ammunition; armaments."
Arms are more than just guns.
arms (noun) American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary
"weapons, for example guns or bombs"
So, are you able to have ALL guns and ALL bombs? Anti-aircraft guns? Atomic bombs? F-15s? Anti-tank guns? These are all arms.
Do you have the right to own all of these?
And state and local governments. It has meant that ever since it was written and ratified.When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something.
A typical liberal response. If they don't like what a law clearly says, they simply announce that it doesn't say it.The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says.
If you can't refute, ignore.
No, the Second Amendment has only recently been incorporated by the Supreme Court. In 2000 the 2A did NOT apply to the states.
Now it applies to all levels of govt in the US.
Okay, a "typical liberal response", your response is "typical don't pay attention to the facts or reality response".
Can the govt take away guns from the insane?
Can the govt take away guns from prisoners?
The answer is YES, the NRA SUPPORTS this, and MOST gun owners support this too. In fact most right wing gun owners often talk about people who "shouldn't have guns". It's GUN CONTROL.
[
No, the Second Amendment has only recently been incorporated by the Supreme Court. In 2000 the 2A did NOT apply to the states.
It has always applied to the states. However, it has taken court cases like McDonald v Chicago to affirm it.
The right existed since the Bill of Rights was established. Just because some stupid anti gun nut Liberals didn't understand it and it took court cases to affirm it doesn't mean that it didn't exist from the beginning.
However, if you want to be absurd and somehow claim that the Bill of Rights does not protect individual rights in the US then go ahead. We hear silly shit like that all the time on this forum.
Our Founding Fathers had it right to establish a Bill of Rights so that some oppressive elected body could not take away our individual God endowed liberties. Like they suspected there would be assholes that would try to take those liberties away. Unfortunately it has taken court cases at one time or another to incorporate almost all of the amendments in the BoRs.
You point is really moot for any discussion on the legality of prohibiting the possession of firearms nowadays given the McDonald ruling.. It is like arguing that slavery was OK before the 13th Amendment.
[
No, the Second Amendment has only recently been incorporated by the Supreme Court. In 2000 the 2A did NOT apply to the states.
It has always applied to the states. However, it has taken court cases like McDonald v Chicago to affirm it.
The right existed since the Bill of Rights was established. Just because some stupid anti gun nut Liberals didn't understand it and it took court cases to affirm it doesn't mean that it didn't exist from the beginning.
However, if you want to be absurd and somehow claim that the Bill of Rights does not protect individual rights in the US then go ahead. We hear silly shit like that all the time on this forum.
Our Founding Fathers had it right to establish a Bill of Rights so that some oppressive elected body could not take away our individual God endowed liberties. Like they suspected there would be assholes that would try to take those liberties away. Unfortunately it has taken court cases at one time or another to incorporate almost all of the amendments in the BoRs.
You point is really moot for any discussion on the legality of prohibiting the possession of firearms nowadays given the McDonald ruling.. It is like arguing that slavery was OK before the 13th Amendment.
Actually, that is innaccurate....the 2nd Amendment was not created by nor is it dependent on the "Bill of Rights" or the Constitution....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page 19.....
A pre exisitng right
We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”
As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16
----------
Well then, I guess every single country, with a justice system that imprisons people is in violation of international human rights laws. Kind of weird how the UN, made up of countries that all violate human rights in this way, made up some hypocritical human rights laws....That’s the discussion topic...prisoners, and they absolutely are evidence. Evidence is found in reality. They forfeit their right to weapons including firearms, among many many other things. Sometimes they even loose their right to life (which is probably the most important “human right”), I mean after you loose that it kind of makes the rest of your “rights” useless. That’s not an infringement, there’s zero middle ground on right to life. I’m not getting into your asinine appeal to ignorance, in this asinine red herring, for a downhill argument.The evidence is in our prisoners. You can come up with whatever alternative reality you want. Their rights are forfeit, you go where they tell you, eat when they tell you, work when they tell you, wear what they tell you, you can only get what they allow you, they search you when they want to with/without your permission and without a warrant or probable cause, and if you are condemned to execution, you are killed. That’s the reality. We grant them certain privileges, those are not the same as rights. The “rights” they have are limited to being kept alive, in “livable” conditions. Outside of that, anything that can be revoked, or “infringed” as you like to state it, is not a right. You can try to argue they are rights, they’re not, that’s a misnomer, they are privileges.So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.
I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.
Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.
You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.
The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.
No, the evidence isn't the prisoners.
You say they've had their rights forfeited, I say they've had them infringed upon. Either way they don't have their freedom.
Basically you have nothing. No evidence at all. Great.
No, you haven't shown they've forfeited their rights. That's the problem.
Have the Chinese forfeited their rights? Because they also don't have certain rights.
Prisoners have some rights while in prison, the Chinese have some rights in China.
Again, and AGAIN and AGAIN. The UN says that all humans have HUMAN RIGHTS as a part of being a HUMAN BEING. That they don't lose these rights based on status, gender, whatever.
You ignore this EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME.
And for FUCK'S SAKE, you can't even write lose properly. How am I expecting you to actually get around to understand what the UN said?
You don't understand Human Rights, you don't understand English words, you don't understand the UN Convention of Human Rights. You understand NOTHING and yet you're here pretending to have a debate and you're going around using words like "asinine" to describe what I'm talking about.
I'm losing my patience.
Or they justly deny them their civil rights since they found the people guilty of crimes, guilty...So when someone knowingly commits a crime, that knowingly can lead to prison, they kind of take that risk don’t they?
So why isn’t it a human rights violation when they are infringed upon by government? Because infringing also means taking them away. If a government silences somebody from trash talking government, infringing on their right to speech, then they’ve lost their free speech, and said government is in violation.Well then, I guess every single country, with a justice system that imprisons people is in violation of international human rights laws. Kind of weird how the UN, made up of countries that all violate human rights in this way, made up some hypocritical human rights laws....That’s the discussion topic...prisoners, and they absolutely are evidence. Evidence is found in reality. They forfeit their right to weapons including firearms, among many many other things. Sometimes they even loose their right to life (which is probably the most important “human right”), I mean after you loose that it kind of makes the rest of your “rights” useless. That’s not an infringement, there’s zero middle ground on right to life. I’m not getting into your asinine appeal to ignorance, in this asinine red herring, for a downhill argument.The evidence is in our prisoners. You can come up with whatever alternative reality you want. Their rights are forfeit, you go where they tell you, eat when they tell you, work when they tell you, wear what they tell you, you can only get what they allow you, they search you when they want to with/without your permission and without a warrant or probable cause, and if you are condemned to execution, you are killed. That’s the reality. We grant them certain privileges, those are not the same as rights. The “rights” they have are limited to being kept alive, in “livable” conditions. Outside of that, anything that can be revoked, or “infringed” as you like to state it, is not a right. You can try to argue they are rights, they’re not, that’s a misnomer, they are privileges.
No, the evidence isn't the prisoners.
You say they've had their rights forfeited, I say they've had them infringed upon. Either way they don't have their freedom.
Basically you have nothing. No evidence at all. Great.
No, you haven't shown they've forfeited their rights. That's the problem.
Have the Chinese forfeited their rights? Because they also don't have certain rights.
Prisoners have some rights while in prison, the Chinese have some rights in China.
Again, and AGAIN and AGAIN. The UN says that all humans have HUMAN RIGHTS as a part of being a HUMAN BEING. That they don't lose these rights based on status, gender, whatever.
You ignore this EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME.
And for FUCK'S SAKE, you can't even write lose properly. How am I expecting you to actually get around to understand what the UN said?
You don't understand Human Rights, you don't understand English words, you don't understand the UN Convention of Human Rights. You understand NOTHING and yet you're here pretending to have a debate and you're going around using words like "asinine" to describe what I'm talking about.
I'm losing my patience.
Or they justly deny them their civil rights since they found the people guilty of crimes, guilty...So when someone knowingly commits a crime, that knowingly can lead to prison, they kind of take that risk don’t they?
Christ almighty... you seriously don't get it, do you?
It's not hard to understand that the theory of Human Rights assumes ALL people have rights that cannot be taken away, and they can only be infringed upon, is it?
So why isn’t it a human rights violation when they are infringed upon by government? Because infringing also means taking them away. If a government silences somebody from trash talking government, infringing on their right to speech, then they’ve lost their free speech, and said government is in violation.Well then, I guess every single country, with a justice system that imprisons people is in violation of international human rights laws. Kind of weird how the UN, made up of countries that all violate human rights in this way, made up some hypocritical human rights laws....That’s the discussion topic...prisoners, and they absolutely are evidence. Evidence is found in reality. They forfeit their right to weapons including firearms, among many many other things. Sometimes they even loose their right to life (which is probably the most important “human right”), I mean after you loose that it kind of makes the rest of your “rights” useless. That’s not an infringement, there’s zero middle ground on right to life. I’m not getting into your asinine appeal to ignorance, in this asinine red herring, for a downhill argument.No, the evidence isn't the prisoners.
You say they've had their rights forfeited, I say they've had them infringed upon. Either way they don't have their freedom.
Basically you have nothing. No evidence at all. Great.
No, you haven't shown they've forfeited their rights. That's the problem.
Have the Chinese forfeited their rights? Because they also don't have certain rights.
Prisoners have some rights while in prison, the Chinese have some rights in China.
Again, and AGAIN and AGAIN. The UN says that all humans have HUMAN RIGHTS as a part of being a HUMAN BEING. That they don't lose these rights based on status, gender, whatever.
You ignore this EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME.
And for FUCK'S SAKE, you can't even write lose properly. How am I expecting you to actually get around to understand what the UN said?
You don't understand Human Rights, you don't understand English words, you don't understand the UN Convention of Human Rights. You understand NOTHING and yet you're here pretending to have a debate and you're going around using words like "asinine" to describe what I'm talking about.
I'm losing my patience.
Or they justly deny them their civil rights since they found the people guilty of crimes, guilty...So when someone knowingly commits a crime, that knowingly can lead to prison, they kind of take that risk don’t they?
Christ almighty... you seriously don't get it, do you?
It's not hard to understand that the theory of Human Rights assumes ALL people have rights that cannot be taken away, and they can only be infringed upon, is it?
Your “theory” requires/implies that human rights are not to be touched by government. No matter what. And there’s nothing a citizen can do to change that.
Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.DUE PROCESS.
Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.DUE PROCESS.
And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.
The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.
The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.
Bear arms can be dangerous when attached to a bear ... betta get a gun to defend yourselfBy Peter Weber
That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.
"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
The People are the militia.
You are either well regulated or not.
No one is unconnected with the militia.
The second amendment is actually the basic human right to self defense.
No, it's not.
I'm losing my patience.
The pretzel shapes you keep twisting yourself into, to try to pretend there are exceptions to the 2nd amendment's command that govt cannot infringe the RKBA, are becoming ever more twisted and weird. Is that where you get your screen name?Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.DUE PROCESS.
And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.
The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.
The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.
Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something.
Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process.
Due Process Clause - Wikipedia
"Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."
Then they would not have included the phrase the people. The well regulated line is a qualifier to the following line, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
The People are the militia.
You are either well regulated or not.
No one is unconnected with the militia.
So that’s to be read as “A well regulated militia, being necassary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged. Ginsburg gets it, why don’t you?Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
The People are the militia.
You are either well regulated or not.
No one is unconnected with the militia.
