The Right To Bear Arms

[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.

So your just gonna add words?

I have a valid argument. You have nothing but repeal.

 

[danielpalos]

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

How so? Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary for the security of a free State.

 

[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.

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.

Means nothing. The law is, well regulated militia of the People are necessary.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Only some of the People are declared Necessary.

Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.

How so? Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary for the security of a free State.

Means nothing. The law is, well regulated militia of the People are necessary.

I can almost see little danielpalos's eyes glazing over as he tries to find some talking point he can pretend actually relates to the subject he is getting whupped on.

 

[danielpalos]

Only some of the People are declared Necessary.

Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.

I can almost see little danielpalos's glassy stare as he tries to find some talking point that actually relates to the subject he is getting whupped on.

The People who are declared Necessary to the security of a free State, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.

you are either european or canadian, but like most of your party you are not American

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.

you are either european or canadian, but like most of your party you are not American

Just clueless and Causeless, right winger?

 

[Little-Acorn]

The People who are declared Necessary to the security of a free State, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Hey, I think that's exactly what my copy of the 2nd amendment says, too! Word for word!

(looking more closely)

Oh, umm... no, it doesn't.

Better luck next time, kooky little danielpalos.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You have no idea what I think.

No, I have no agenda. I take the issue, I look at the facts and I come to a conclusion.

Yes, I have an agenda in other things.

Go look up on the search next to my name with "proportional representation" and then we'll see who's for more freedom or not.

Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.

As for your agenda being as the Constitution intended. That's bullshit, I know this because I present EVIDENCE that clearly shows how the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted, and you IGNORE IT. Says a lot.

What exactly did I ignore? I’ve posted a shit ton of the writings from the founders about the second amendment/armed population/standing armies/etc, all in context, in this post. As well as a shit ton of historical references to how the 2nd was practiced, what was the militia and why it was important, the philosophy all this is based on...it’s very clear what was intended. Ivy League pro-gun control contstitutional law professors agree that if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd.

A shit ton of stuff that isn't relevant.

I could post Superbowl winning teams for you, and it would have no relevance for this discussion.

As for a "shit ton", I don't remember that much.

You ignore most of the evidence, and then present stuff which I tell you isn't relevant, and then you ignore that too. Oh, great. What a waste of fucking time.

I never saw a lick of evidence from you, you threatened it, but didn’t present. Not to me at least. Only thing I got from you is that you feel like guns exacerbate socioeconomic problems, and I’ve presented evidence that it isn’t at all, and that crimes are going down and down, while guns are going up and up. Your other argument is that our murder rate is higher than it is in Europe or whatever other select country you choose. I presented you with Switzerland, you said it’s not it’s not the same since it isn’t a fair comparison, while you dismiss when I say comparing us to these other countries isn’t a fair comparison either. On top of that, I’ve shown you that in these countries looking at them in a vaccuum (which is the best way to look at them, since they’ve been safer than America even before their strict gun controls/bans) when they have implement gun control their murder rates and gun crime rates skyrocket. Your cherry picking your stats. You only try compare our murder rate to theirs, but ignore everything else.

Well, clearly you don't have your eyes open.

Fine you want evidence.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

If you haven't seen this, then I don't know what you've been looking at.

They were discussing the clause "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

It's clear here that Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" and instead he used the term "militia duty". Why would he talk about giving discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around with you in the street on a normal day?

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

Mr Jackson wanted to change the wording, and change "bear arms" to "render military service".

In fact during the debates the wording of the clause changed several times.


June 8th 1789

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


August 17th 1789

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


August 24th 1789

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

So, clearly here "bear arms" and "render military service" were being used synonymously.

There is no hint in this document that "bear arms" mean "carry arms around"

It's clear here that "bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.

In Sentiments on a Peace Establishment from 1783, George Washington said:

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

"borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of the very "bear". It's clear here that you could be "borne on the Militia Rolls", rather than simply "bear arms" being to carry guns around.

Then he goes and says "bear arms" and then talks about "Military duties".

Why would he say all of this if "bear arms" had the meaning of just carrying guns around with you on a normal day?

Then you have the Presser case which says

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Now, if the 2A protected the right to carry guns around, why would then Supreme Court then say that carrying guns around is NOT protected by the 2A? Why then would Heller then back this up?

Then you have ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Also on top of this you have carry and conceal laws in the US. Even after the 2A has applied to the states, no one has challenged carry and conceal laws. If carrying guns is a protected right, then carry and conceal is a protected right which means you don't need carry and conceal permits.

The Fight to Bring Guns Across State Lines: The NRA’s Next Big Push, Explained

"
By requiring states to recognize one another's gun permits, the legislation would dramatically expand where gun owners can bring their weapons."

NRA-ILA | NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate

"
NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate"

And yet the NRA is pushing for carry and conceal permits.

Now, why would the NRA be pushing for "Constitutional Concealed Carry" if it already existed? Beats me, maybe you can tell me. It must either be that the NRA has amnesia or they're just stupid. Which one are you going to choose?


And on the other hand, you have quotes which only support your opinion if you struggle really hard to make them fit.

Wow you missed a lot in your own article. Why was it again they went against a standing army? According to this article?

I'm sorry, what?

You asked for evidence. I presented it. Now you're saying I missed a lot.

What did I miss exactly?

"Why was it again they went against a standing army?" What are you talking about.

"According to this article?" Which article would you be talking about?

 

[danielpalos]

The People who are declared Necessary to the security of a free State, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Hey, I think that's exactly what my copy of the 2nd amendment says, too! Word for word!

(looking more closely)

Oh, umm... no, it doesn't.

Better luck next time, little danielpalos.

It means that. Right wingers merely have lousy reading comprehension.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

How so?

name one other lefty poster besides you who admits they think the second amendment is meant to abolish itself

Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary for the security of a free State.

and without the addition of "the right of the people to bear arms" and "congress shall make no law infringing on the free exercise thereof" you are the only one honest enough to admit you think the second amendment is only there to abolish itself...while silly, it is honestly silly

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Just clueless and Causeless, right winger?

You left out pro-American

 

[frigidweirdo]

Just clueless and Causeless, right winger?

You left out pro-American

Pro-American? Or Pro-Right Wing American?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Pro-American? Or Pro-Right Wing American?

,well lets see how smart and honest your are...I'm a registered democrat, I voted for Obama twice, voted Johnson this past election, with one exception and I voted democrat across the board in 2017, so questioning my "pro American" under those conditions may have validity, but I will let you decide, in fact, based on that info I could hardly blame you for questioning my "pro-American" claims...but trust me, I am pro American even if they sound like that is impossible

 

[westwall]

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.

But all others can be killed. We get it, you want to murder people. You hate the fact that because they are armed you can't. We get it.

 

[sakinago]

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.

Let me guess, the people are the militia. Blah blah well regulated

Nailed it

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Let me guess, the people are the militia. Blah blah well regulated

Nailed it

lol

 

[frigidweirdo]

Pro-American? Or Pro-Right Wing American?

,well lets see how smart and honest your are...I'm a registered democrat, I voted for Obama twice, voted Johnson this past election, with one exception and I voted democrat across the board in 2017, so questioning my "pro American" under those conditions may have validity, but I will let you decide, in fact, based on that info I could hardly blame you for questioning my "pro-American" claims...but trust me, I am pro American even if they sound like that is impossible

And what is pro-American exactly?

Let me guess, it's going to be cherry picking the bits of America you like and ignoring the bits you don't like.

Take, gun crime. A part of American life. If you love America, do you love gun crime? Do you love the 50% divorce rate? Do you love that partisan politics is destroying the nation?

 

[sakinago]

What exactly did I ignore? I’ve posted a shit ton of the writings from the founders about the second amendment/armed population/standing armies/etc, all in context, in this post. As well as a shit ton of historical references to how the 2nd was practiced, what was the militia and why it was important, the philosophy all this is based on...it’s very clear what was intended. Ivy League pro-gun control contstitutional law professors agree that if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd.

A shit ton of stuff that isn't relevant.

I could post Superbowl winning teams for you, and it would have no relevance for this discussion.

As for a "shit ton", I don't remember that much.

You ignore most of the evidence, and then present stuff which I tell you isn't relevant, and then you ignore that too. Oh, great. What a waste of fucking time.

I never saw a lick of evidence from you, you threatened it, but didn’t present. Not to me at least. Only thing I got from you is that you feel like guns exacerbate socioeconomic problems, and I’ve presented evidence that it isn’t at all, and that crimes are going down and down, while guns are going up and up. Your other argument is that our murder rate is higher than it is in Europe or whatever other select country you choose. I presented you with Switzerland, you said it’s not it’s not the same since it isn’t a fair comparison, while you dismiss when I say comparing us to these other countries isn’t a fair comparison either. On top of that, I’ve shown you that in these countries looking at them in a vaccuum (which is the best way to look at them, since they’ve been safer than America even before their strict gun controls/bans) when they have implement gun control their murder rates and gun crime rates skyrocket. Your cherry picking your stats. You only try compare our murder rate to theirs, but ignore everything else.

Well, clearly you don't have your eyes open.

Fine you want evidence.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

If you haven't seen this, then I don't know what you've been looking at.

They were discussing the clause "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

It's clear here that Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" and instead he used the term "militia duty". Why would he talk about giving discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around with you in the street on a normal day?

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

Mr Jackson wanted to change the wording, and change "bear arms" to "render military service".

In fact during the debates the wording of the clause changed several times.


June 8th 1789

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


August 17th 1789

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


August 24th 1789

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

So, clearly here "bear arms" and "render military service" were being used synonymously.

There is no hint in this document that "bear arms" mean "carry arms around"

It's clear here that "bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.

In Sentiments on a Peace Establishment from 1783, George Washington said:

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

"borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of the very "bear". It's clear here that you could be "borne on the Militia Rolls", rather than simply "bear arms" being to carry guns around.

Then he goes and says "bear arms" and then talks about "Military duties".

Why would he say all of this if "bear arms" had the meaning of just carrying guns around with you on a normal day?

Then you have the Presser case which says

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Now, if the 2A protected the right to carry guns around, why would then Supreme Court then say that carrying guns around is NOT protected by the 2A? Why then would Heller then back this up?

Then you have ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Also on top of this you have carry and conceal laws in the US. Even after the 2A has applied to the states, no one has challenged carry and conceal laws. If carrying guns is a protected right, then carry and conceal is a protected right which means you don't need carry and conceal permits.

The Fight to Bring Guns Across State Lines: The NRA’s Next Big Push, Explained

"
By requiring states to recognize one another's gun permits, the legislation would dramatically expand where gun owners can bring their weapons."

NRA-ILA | NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate

"
NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate"

And yet the NRA is pushing for carry and conceal permits.

Now, why would the NRA be pushing for "Constitutional Concealed Carry" if it already existed? Beats me, maybe you can tell me. It must either be that the NRA has amnesia or they're just stupid. Which one are you going to choose?


And on the other hand, you have quotes which only support your opinion if you struggle really hard to make them fit.

Wow you missed a lot in your own article. Why was it again they went against a standing army? According to this article?

I'm sorry, what?

You asked for evidence. I presented it. Now you're saying I missed a lot.

What did I miss exactly?

"Why was it again they went against a standing army?" What are you talking about.

"According to this article?" Which article would you be talking about?

You just repeated what I said in a question.

Yes you provided evidence, evidence that involved discussing the militia, where they were playing around with the idea of including everyone (able bodied men) in the militia, much like Switzerland at the time and today, that our republic is based off of. This was also a discussion before the actual BOR (including the 2nd) was drafted, and since they later defined that any able bodied man was ELIGIBLE for the militia (meaning as well as practiced that it was a choice to join), that whole conversation of “what about the passivist Quaker’s” was made moot, since they decided to go with a volunteer force. In this very same “evidence” you provided, what did they say about standing armies? Try to answer the question instead of repeating it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A shit ton of stuff that isn't relevant.

I could post Superbowl winning teams for you, and it would have no relevance for this discussion.

As for a "shit ton", I don't remember that much.

You ignore most of the evidence, and then present stuff which I tell you isn't relevant, and then you ignore that too. Oh, great. What a waste of fucking time.

I never saw a lick of evidence from you, you threatened it, but didn’t present. Not to me at least. Only thing I got from you is that you feel like guns exacerbate socioeconomic problems, and I’ve presented evidence that it isn’t at all, and that crimes are going down and down, while guns are going up and up. Your other argument is that our murder rate is higher than it is in Europe or whatever other select country you choose. I presented you with Switzerland, you said it’s not it’s not the same since it isn’t a fair comparison, while you dismiss when I say comparing us to these other countries isn’t a fair comparison either. On top of that, I’ve shown you that in these countries looking at them in a vaccuum (which is the best way to look at them, since they’ve been safer than America even before their strict gun controls/bans) when they have implement gun control their murder rates and gun crime rates skyrocket. Your cherry picking your stats. You only try compare our murder rate to theirs, but ignore everything else.

Well, clearly you don't have your eyes open.

Fine you want evidence.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

If you haven't seen this, then I don't know what you've been looking at.

They were discussing the clause "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

It's clear here that Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" and instead he used the term "militia duty". Why would he talk about giving discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around with you in the street on a normal day?

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

Mr Jackson wanted to change the wording, and change "bear arms" to "render military service".

In fact during the debates the wording of the clause changed several times.


June 8th 1789

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


August 17th 1789

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


August 24th 1789

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

So, clearly here "bear arms" and "render military service" were being used synonymously.

There is no hint in this document that "bear arms" mean "carry arms around"

It's clear here that "bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.

In Sentiments on a Peace Establishment from 1783, George Washington said:

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

"borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of the very "bear". It's clear here that you could be "borne on the Militia Rolls", rather than simply "bear arms" being to carry guns around.

Then he goes and says "bear arms" and then talks about "Military duties".

Why would he say all of this if "bear arms" had the meaning of just carrying guns around with you on a normal day?

Then you have the Presser case which says

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Now, if the 2A protected the right to carry guns around, why would then Supreme Court then say that carrying guns around is NOT protected by the 2A? Why then would Heller then back this up?

Then you have ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Also on top of this you have carry and conceal laws in the US. Even after the 2A has applied to the states, no one has challenged carry and conceal laws. If carrying guns is a protected right, then carry and conceal is a protected right which means you don't need carry and conceal permits.

The Fight to Bring Guns Across State Lines: The NRA’s Next Big Push, Explained

"
By requiring states to recognize one another's gun permits, the legislation would dramatically expand where gun owners can bring their weapons."

NRA-ILA | NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate

"
NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate"

And yet the NRA is pushing for carry and conceal permits.

Now, why would the NRA be pushing for "Constitutional Concealed Carry" if it already existed? Beats me, maybe you can tell me. It must either be that the NRA has amnesia or they're just stupid. Which one are you going to choose?


And on the other hand, you have quotes which only support your opinion if you struggle really hard to make them fit.

Wow you missed a lot in your own article. Why was it again they went against a standing army? According to this article?

I'm sorry, what?

You asked for evidence. I presented it. Now you're saying I missed a lot.

What did I miss exactly?

"Why was it again they went against a standing army?" What are you talking about.

"According to this article?" Which article would you be talking about?

You just repeated what I said in a question.

Yes you provided evidence, evidence that involved discussing the militia, where they were playing around with the idea of including everyone (able bodied men) in the militia, much like Switzerland at the time and today, that our republic is based off of. This was also a discussion before the actual BOR (including the 2nd) was drafted, and since they later defined that any able bodied man was ELIGIBLE for the militia (meaning as well as practiced that it was a choice to join), that whole conversation of “what about the passivist Quaker’s” was made moot, since they decided to go with a volunteer force. In this very same “evidence” you provided, what did they say about standing armies? Try to answer the question instead of repeating it.

So, your argument, again, is that the 2A is changed by laws?

You've got to be kidding me. You'd get laughed out of court.

You're telling me that the US Congress CAN CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION without following the procedures in Article 5 of the Constitution? I think not