The Right To Bear Arms

[sakinago]

The People = The Militia.

Only the right wing never gets it.

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Again why were the founders so scared of a standing army?

Why is the right wing for socialism on a national basis?

In what way did I suggest that? Obviously you lack any valid retort, so you went with a nonsensical one. So I’ll ask again. Why would the founders create an oxymoron, paradox amendment? One that could arm and both disarm its people/militia as they saw fit?

 

[westwall]

Go back and read my post right and in the tenor which it was offered.

And read Federalist numbers 28 and 46 twice while you're there.

You have nothing but diversion.

The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.

You have nothing but lies. The meaning of Well Regulated has been shown to you multiple times. The meaning of the Militia, and who is IN the militia has likewise been shown to you multiple times. You ignore all that has been shown to you before to spread your lies. Lying is all you seem to be capable of doing.

Projecting much?

Well regulated must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States.

It is in Article 1,Section 8.

Well regulated means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER".
verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
1.
to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:
to regulate household expenses.
2.
to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.:
to regulate the temperature.
3.
to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation:
to regulate a watch.
4.
to put in good order:
to regulate the digestion.


the definition of well-regulated

So what. All you have is an appeal to ignorance.

Congress must prescribe wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States.

Once upon a time you could claim ignorance. Now based on your continued choice to ignore well known FACT, we classify you as a lying troll. You have no facts to back up your claim, only the wishful thinking of a bunch of scumbag socialists.

In other words, feel free to take a flying leap.

 

[sakinago]

Go back and read my post right and in the tenor which it was offered.

And read Federalist numbers 28 and 46 twice while you're there.

You have nothing but diversion.

The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.

You have nothing but lies. The meaning of Well Regulated has been shown to you multiple times. The meaning of the Militia, and who is IN the militia has likewise been shown to you multiple times. You ignore all that has been shown to you before to spread your lies. Lying is all you seem to be capable of doing.

Projecting much?

Well regulated must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States.

It is in Article 1,Section 8.

Well regulated means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER".
verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
1.
to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:
to regulate household expenses.
2.
to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.:
to regulate the temperature.
3.
to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation:
to regulate a watch.
4.
to put in good order:
to regulate the digestion.


the definition of well-regulated

So what. All you have is an appeal to ignorance.

Congress must prescribe wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States.

You don’t know what that is, that wasn’t an appeal to ignorance.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The People are the militia. Any questions?

Yeah, the constitution deals with the rights of the people, all of the people, so why try and confuse that by pretending the founders were only referring to some people? do you really think all Americans are dumb enough to fall for that?

 

[danielpalos]

The People = The Militia.

Only the right wing never gets it.

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Again why were the founders so scared of a standing army?

Why is the right wing for socialism on a national basis?

In what way did I suggest that? Obviously you lack any valid retort, so you went with a nonsensical one. So I’ll ask again. Why would the founders create an oxymoron, paradox amendment? One that could arm and both disarm its people/militia as they saw fit?

They didn't. Well regulated militia of the People may not Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

You have nothing but diversion.

The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.

You have nothing but lies. The meaning of Well Regulated has been shown to you multiple times. The meaning of the Militia, and who is IN the militia has likewise been shown to you multiple times. You ignore all that has been shown to you before to spread your lies. Lying is all you seem to be capable of doing.

Projecting much?

Well regulated must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States.

It is in Article 1,Section 8.

Well regulated means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER".
verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
1.
to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:
to regulate household expenses.
2.
to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.:
to regulate the temperature.
3.
to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation:
to regulate a watch.
4.
to put in good order:
to regulate the digestion.


the definition of well-regulated

So what. All you have is an appeal to ignorance.

Congress must prescribe wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States.

Once upon a time you could claim ignorance. Now based on your continued choice to ignore well known FACT, we classify you as a lying troll. You have no facts to back up your claim, only the wishful thinking of a bunch of scumbag socialists.

In other words, feel free to take a flying leap.

In other words, you got nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

You have nothing but diversion.

The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.

You have nothing but lies. The meaning of Well Regulated has been shown to you multiple times. The meaning of the Militia, and who is IN the militia has likewise been shown to you multiple times. You ignore all that has been shown to you before to spread your lies. Lying is all you seem to be capable of doing.

Projecting much?

Well regulated must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States.

It is in Article 1,Section 8.

Well regulated means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER".
verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
1.
to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:
to regulate household expenses.
2.
to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.:
to regulate the temperature.
3.
to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation:
to regulate a watch.
4.
to put in good order:
to regulate the digestion.


the definition of well-regulated

So what. All you have is an appeal to ignorance.

Congress must prescribe wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States.

You don’t know what that is, that wasn’t an appeal to ignorance.

Yes, I do.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The People are the militia. Any questions?

Yeah, I have a question that I am sure no hypocrite can answer, what "makes a well regulated militia" according to our constitution?...I bet you cannot cite the constitution word for word!!!lol

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the militia. Any questions?

Yeah, the constitution deals with the rights of the people, all of the people, so why try and confuse that by pretending the founders were only referring to some people? do you really think all Americans are dumb enough to fall for that?

Only some of the People are declared Necessary.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Only some of the People are declared Necessary.

In communism/totalitarianism sure, thats why our founders granted those rights to everyone, especially the right of individuals to defend themselves with firearms...we all know how the commies feel about that

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Laws prohibiting the open carrying of firearms are also Constitutional.

The Supreme Court refused to grant cert to a Florida case, Norman v. Florida.

 

[sakinago]

The People = The Militia.

Only the right wing never gets it.

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Again why were the founders so scared of a standing army?

Why is the right wing for socialism on a national basis?

In what way did I suggest that? Obviously you lack any valid retort, so you went with a nonsensical one. So I’ll ask again. Why would the founders create an oxymoron, paradox amendment? One that could arm and both disarm its people/militia as they saw fit?

They didn't. Well regulated militia of the People may not Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

So your just gonna add words?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Laws prohibiting the open carrying of firearms are also Constitutional.

Cute...federal laws?...you can pretend you are just citing law because you are out of argument, but eventually the gop is going to force these things right back to the same place that created these problems by the left, the scotus, and is going to do the same thing to you, that it did for you....are you now going to try the tired and useless tactic of asking me what I mean by that, if so I will save you all the trouble, what I mean by that is all right there for you, it is in its simplest terms, if you cannot figure it out in those words I cannot make it any easier for you.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

They didn't. Well regulated militia of the People may not Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I have to give you this, you are the only lefty on this forum honest enough to admit that you believe the second amendment to the constitution is trying to abolish itself

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Laws prohibiting the open carrying of firearms are also Constitutional.

The Supreme Court refused to grant cert to a Florida case, Norman v. Florida.

Cutting your pussy off is also Constitutional.

We can play this game all day.

 

[sakinago]

Laws prohibiting the open carrying of firearms are also Constitutional.

The Supreme Court refused to grant cert to a Florida case, Norman v. Florida.

And the Supreme Court passed DOMA.

 

[westwall]

The People are the militia. Any questions?

Yeah, the constitution deals with the rights of the people, all of the people, so why try and confuse that by pretending the founders were only referring to some people? do you really think all Americans are dumb enough to fall for that?

Only some of the People are declared Necessary.

Yep. That's how progressives are. The rest of the People, those that are deemed unnecessary, are killed off. That's why our Founders made sure that EVERYONE was to be armed. To keep murderous swine, like you, from being able to do your dirty work.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Laws prohibiting the open carrying of firearms are also Constitutional.

Cutting your pussy off is also Constitutional.
We can play this game all day.

You're already one point ahead of c-cliton-jones. Go for it!

 

[Little-Acorn]

They didn't. Well regulated militia of the People may not Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I have to give you this, you are the only lefty on this forum honest enough to admit that you believe the second amendment to the constitution is trying to abolish itself

Little danielpalos has had this shoved down his throat several times already, more than once in this very thread. Apparently he's hoping that enough time has passed since his last drubbing, that people will have forgotten how completely he was refuted, and he can start repeating his fairy tales as though they were true again.

Time to spank him again, I guess.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom....

-------------------------------------------

(sigh)

And the liberals are ONCE AGAIN trying to pretend this has no already been pointed out to them, including in this very thread. Some of the same ones who have had this pointed out to the explicitly, are once again pretending the never heard of it.

Maybe they think enough people have forgotten how the liberals have been proven wrong, and that enough time has passed that they can now start re-stating it as though it had become the truth.

OK, for the 2259th time:


J. Neil Schulman The Unabridged Second Amendment

The Unabridged Second Amendment

by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?

-------------------------------------------------------

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

 

[danielpalos]

Only some of the People are declared Necessary.

In communism/totalitarianism sure, thats why our founders granted those rights to everyone, especially the right of individuals to defend themselves with firearms...we all know how the commies feel about that

Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.