The Right To Bear Arms

[hadit]

Well regulated militia should not merely troll.

and the right of the people....shall not be infringed.

The People who are well regulated may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That's not what it says and you know it. I've educated you on this, now behave.

 

[hunarcy]

Our Constitution is Express not Implied, right wingers.

Yes.

It expressly says "the right of the people...shall not be infringed."

Here's the plain meaning:
INFRINGE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Why do you not accept the EXPRESS terms of the Constitution?

.

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and those Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

This post proves it is a waste of time to argue with an ignorant troll who has NO background to discuss the issue rationally.

 

[danielpalos]

The People who are well regulated may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The EXPRESS language makes no such qualifier. You have IMPLIED that qualifier.

The Constitution is Express, not Implied.

.

Congress is delegated the Power of calling forth the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Look, Dan. It's not as complicated as you are IMPLYING it to be.

Because States need a well armed and properly functioning army made up of its people (a militia), this new federal government we are establishing will not infringe on the right of people to keep and bear arms.

I have implied NOTHING. I have made no qualifiers. That is CONSISTENT with the language of the 2A.

States need men (18-45) to serve in militias, so the federal government is not going to infringe on ANYONE (The People).

That is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.

You're better off knocking off the nonsense and pushing for an amendment.

gibberish.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia should not merely troll.

and the right of the people....shall not be infringed.

The People who are well regulated may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You have this backwards.
Clearly the concern was that if the people were not well armed and prepared, then a well armed and ready militia would not be available in times of emergency, and we would easily be defeated.
The phrase, "well regulated" means to be practiced and well functioning, as in "well regulated clock" or "regular bowel movements".

So it is infringement that would prevent being well regulated.

You have to know this because it says the "right of the people" to keep and bear arms.
It does not say the government authorized national guard shall not be disarmed.

You confuse natural rights with our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia should not merely troll.

and the right of the people....shall not be infringed.

The People who are well regulated may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That's not what it says and you know it. I've educated you on this, now behave.

i am the federalist, not You.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Constitution is Express not Implied, right wingers.

Yes.

It expressly says "the right of the people...shall not be infringed."

Here's the plain meaning:
INFRINGE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Why do you not accept the EXPRESS terms of the Constitution?

.

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and those Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

This post proves it is a waste of time to argue with an ignorant troll who has NO background to discuss the issue rationally.

Well regulated militia are People too.

 

[52ndStreet]

The second amendment is never going to become outdated. Especially in today's world of terrorists armed with fully automatic AK- 47 assault rifles.!Americans are under attack by terrorists armed with fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles.!! Americans need to repeal the federal ban on fully automatic assault rifles and submachine guns. We should all be concerned when there are politicians that want to infringe upon your right to own a certain type of weapon. An infringement is an infringement. And is illegal. There must be no infringement on the 2nd amendment.We must all have the right to form and maintain a states militia, and to buy what ever weapons that we need to defend ourselves and the Constitution of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

The second amendment is never going to become outdated. Especially in today's world of terrorists armed with fully automatic AK- 47 assault rifles.!Americans are under attack by terrorists armed with fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles.!! Americans need to repeal the federal ban on fully automatic assault rifles and submachine guns. We should all be concerned when there are politicians that want to infringe upon your right to own a certain type of weapon. An infringement is an infringement. And is illegal. There must be no infringement on the 2nd amendment.We must all have the right to form and maintain a states militia, and to buy what ever weapons that we need to defend ourselves and the Constitution of the United States.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Congress is delegated the Power of calling forth the militia.

That is a non-sequitor that does not further your argument.

I don't give a rat fuck what power congress has regarding a militia.

The right of the people...shall not be infringed. That's power Congress does NOT have.

EXPRESSLY...

.

 

[52ndStreet]

We can not allow New World Order Politicians to disarm Americans for a one world government conspiracy to take away everyones weapons in America.!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You confuse natural rights with our Second Amendment.

You confuse (conflate) the 2nd Amendment with Article 1, Section 8.

We cannot assume that the founders intended to simply restated art 2, sec 8 in the 2nd Amendment. That would be an exercise in redundancy and wholly unnecessary. We MUST assume that the founders intended to 2nd Amendment to serve a different purpose, which is EXPRESS and clear from the text--TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE from the Fed Gov.

And the Constitution does protect natural rights, unless you are arguing that it does not protect the freedom of the press, religion, right against unreasonable searches, etc. That would be a stupid argument.

.

 

[danielpalos]

Congress is delegated the Power of calling forth the militia.

That is a non-sequitor that does not further your argument.

I don't give a rat fuck what power congress has regarding a militia.

The right of the people...shall not be infringed. That's power Congress does NOT have.

EXPRESSLY...

.

Well regulated militia are the People, too. Guess which Persons of the People enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

We can not allow New World Order Politicians to disarm Americans for a one world government conspiracy to take away everyones weapons in America.!

only the unorganized militia whines about gun control laws.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

You don't speak English, so you probably are not aware of this, but that sentence is fucking stupid and makes no sense.

It's like me saying:
"We have a written law against murder, and therefore should have no crime"

It's disjointed and retarded.

.

 

[danielpalos]

You confuse natural rights with our Second Amendment.

You confuse (conflate) the 2nd Amendment with Article 1, Section 8.

We cannot assume that the founders intended to simply restated art 2, sec 8 in the 2nd Amendment. That would be an exercise in redundancy and wholly unnecessary. We MUST assume that the founders intended to 2nd Amendment to serve a different purpose, which is EXPRESS and clear from the text--TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE from the Fed Gov.

And the Constitution does protect natural rights, unless you are arguing that it does not protect the freedom of the press, religion, right against unreasonable searches, etc. That would be a stupid argument.

.

Our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. Everyone knows this.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

You don't speak English, so you probably are not aware of this, but that sentence is fucking stupid and makes no sense.

It's like me saying:
"We have a written law against murder, and therefore should have no crime"

It's disjointed and retarded.

.

you have nothing but fallacy, in close support not any form of valid argument.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

only the unorganized militia whines about gun control laws.

The "unorganized militia" doesn't whine about anything. A militia is not a person and cannot whine. That's like saying a corporation whines about something.

Of course the PEOPLE complain about gun control. Ambiguous collectives have no voice.

This is why you are a dumbass, dan. You repeat constantly these bullshit statement because you are incapable of formulating a real argument.

.

 

[danielpalos]

only the unorganized militia whines about gun control laws.

The "unorganized militia" doesn't whine about anything. A militia is not a person and cannot whine. That's like saying a corporation whines about something.

Of course the PEOPLE complain about gun control. Ambiguous collectives have no voice.

This is why you are a dumbass, dan. You repeat constantly these bullshit statement because you are incapable of formulating a real argument.

.

special pleading is not very superior.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well regulated militia are the People, too. Guess which Persons of the People enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

A militia is distinct from people. So, only males between 18-45 years old are people? I know you're stupid, but I didn't think you were THAT stupid.

The PERSONS who enjoy recourse from the 2A are EVERYONE....ALL PEOPLE...

You have failed to prove a collective intent over and over and over. You have failed to explain why the founders used the distinct terms "people" and "militia."

I have explained it. But, you respond with more "we have a second amendment and no security" bullshit.

Here it is again.

Militia was comprised of MEN ONLY. No women or children served in the militia.

So, if the founders intended the right to only apply to service in the militia, they would not have used the distinct term "people" when barring congressional power on the right to arms.

They intended to preserve the right of the PEOPLE, not the militia. That means they intended all people to have the right, not just MEN.

Now, go back to Mexico and learn some English while you wait to enter the country legally, mmmkay pumpkin.

.