The Right To Bear Arms

[hadit]

Nice, however when the constitution was written, a militia was more like the Minutemen. Who at the time were considered traitors to the crown. You might want to bear in mind that when the founders (principally Adams) penned the constitution, the actions of the minutemen were fresh in their memory and is precisely why the second amendment came to be in the first place. Knowing some of your country's history helps.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Where does it say that?

Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It doesn't say that. I know you desperately want it to, because you continually say it does, but it just doesn't.

 

[danielpalos]

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.




Want more?

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.

no, it doesn't. The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.

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

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Muster the militia until we have no security problems.

Want more?

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Show me where it says that.

I thought it said "the right of the people" shall not be infringed.

Am I wrong, Repeat?

.

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

That is the wrong interpretation. The Amendment made NO SUCH QUALIFICATION to the right of the people.

Otherwise, they would have said "when keeping and bearing arms for their State." Because they did not include that qualifier, the right of the people, not a group of people, but individuals, not a militia, not only when serving in the militia, but ALL people at any time, shall not be infringed.

You cannot express your interpretation without adding stuff that is decidedly not there.

My interpritation requires no change.

A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people shall to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is because my interpretation is correct and yours is communist wishful thinking.

Why try to lie, spin, and twist the plain language to mean the opposite? Why not just amend the constitution to remove the 2nd completely? Your interpretation has the exact same effect. Just say what you really mean. Quit lying.

.

The first clause claims you are simply wrong. Stop lying.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Again, that is contrary to the plain language of the 2nd. It says the right belongs NOT to the militia, but to the people. And the right belonging to the people, not the militia, shall not be infringed.

Again, you want the 2nd to be meaningless and duplicative of Art 1 sec 8. If you knew anything about law or legal interpretation, you would know that no part will be interpreted to render another part redundant or meaningless.

So, why keep playing this game?

You want to be rid of the 2nd. Admit it. Stop lying.

.

you simply don't understand simple English.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. Organize and muster the militia until that happens. And, start with gun lovers, first.

 

[danielpalos]

If this UNORGANIZED militia fights FOR the USA and defends ALL CITIZENS (including muslims and liberals and democrats) then fine.

But if this UNORGANIZED militia is a right wing paramilitary organization with its OWN agenda and is actively OPPOSED to most of the population and organized to FIGHT subsets of the population then they are NOT "militia".....they are terrorists.

Okay.

Who gets to decide which group is fighting for the people and which group is not?

.

We have a Second Amendment; it is Express not Implied.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Show me where it says that.

I thought it said "the right of the people" shall not be infringed.

Am I wrong, Repeat?

.

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

That is the wrong interpretation. The Amendment made NO SUCH QUALIFICATION to the right of the people.

Otherwise, they would have said "when keeping and bearing arms for their State." Because they did not include that qualifier, the right of the people, not a group of people, but individuals, not a militia, not only when serving in the militia, but ALL people at any time, shall not be infringed.

You cannot express your interpretation without adding stuff that is decidedly not there.

My interpritation requires no change.

A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people shall to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is because my interpretation is correct and yours is communist wishful thinking.

Why try to lie, spin, and twist the plain language to mean the opposite? Why not just amend the constitution to remove the 2nd completely? Your interpretation has the exact same effect. Just say what you really mean. Quit lying.

.

Your ‘interpretation’ is ignorant, ridiculous, irrelevant, and wrong.

Only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Wrong. The Supreme Court has, for the most part, avoided making far reaching rulings on the 2nd like a plague. They have left it where it belongs. It belongs in the States and the States have been making the rulings for the most part. The only time the Supreme Court gets involved is when the State gets to vague on their laws.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Where does it say that?

Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It doesn't say that. I know you desperately want it to, because you continually say it does, but it just doesn't.

lol. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

 

[anynameyouwish]

If this UNORGANIZED militia fights FOR the USA and defends ALL CITIZENS (including muslims and liberals and democrats) then fine.

But if this UNORGANIZED militia is a right wing paramilitary organization with its OWN agenda and is actively OPPOSED to most of the population and organized to FIGHT subsets of the population then they are NOT "militia".....they are terrorists.

Okay.

Who gets to decide which group is fighting for the people and which group is not?

.

That's a very good question.

Obviously any militia that expressly states they are arming themselves to fight "dems, libs, gays, atheists, the government" would be excluded.

If it were up to me I would formulate a plan to engage the services of militia to be utilized as an asset to the government and the people; Have them meet with military/police trainers, train them to be helpful/useful in tasks like; defending our borders from illegal aliens.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that organized militia groups, tasked with patrolling northern or southern borders, would be happy and proud to do it.

 

[hadit]

Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Where does it say that?

Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It doesn't say that. I know you desperately want it to, because you continually say it does, but it just doesn't.

lol. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

Everyone has recourse to the second amendment. The right of the people and so forth.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

you simply don't understand simple English.

...said the illegal Mexican who uses Google Translate to post on USMB.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

The Second Amendment wasn’t incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions until 2010 (see McDonald v. Chicago).

incorporated by way of???? What? Which Amendment?



.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have the right to be armed in your home.

This is a lie of omission.

How you get maintain that right is up to the state down to the city.

This is a lie of deliberate misrepresentation.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The first clause claims you are simply wrong.

What? All it says is that a well regulated militia is necessary. That is all the first clause tells us.

So the founders intended to tell us that something is necessary and that is all they did in the 2A???

WRONG, YOU FUCKING ASS!!!

Because it's necessary, what does the rest of the Amendment do?

It protects the right of the PEOPLE, not the fucking militia!!!! THAT IS PLAIN ENGLISH, AS IT IS WRITTEN!!!!

THERE ARE NO COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, YOU DUMB FUCK!!!

THE MILITIA DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT.

PEOPLE DO.

INDIVIDUALS EXERCISE RIGHTS. GROUPS ONLY EXERCISE RIGHTS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO EXERCISE THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

All you do is repeat shit over and over and over and over and over and never make a fucking point EVER!!!

I am so FUCK SICK of you

SHUT THE FUCK UP and GO BACK TO MEXICO!!!

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This ‘plain language’ nonsense is as tedious as it is ignorant and wrong.

It was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Constitution be subject to interpretation by the courts.

It took a while for Marbury v. Madison to come around, but let's assume you're right.

Does that mean the SCOTUS can/should interpret the language in a way that means something opposite of what the words actually say?

Why even have a constitution if the its clear meaning can be undermined by an all-powerful SCOTUS?

People does not mean people? People means the National Guard?

And, I assume you agree with me that ALL federal gun laws BEFORE 2010 are, and should be deemed, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, correct?

Indeed, Constitutional case law as determined by the courts is vital, as it provides guidance to the people as they enact laws and measures, to ensure those laws and measures do not violate the rights and protected liberties of the people.

Absent Constitutional case law as determined by the courts, sound, responsible governance would be impossible.

I don't disagree with this, but don't tell me the SCOTUS can ignore non-ambiguous language.

That's my BIGGEST problem voting for Democrats. They put people on the Court who believe they have the right to "interpret" the word "up" to mean "down" or "hot" to mean "cold." I don't give a rat fuck about a SCOTUS Justice's political leanings, as long as that Justice interprets the constitution the proper way, giving every word its plain and proper meaning, and not in a way that fits a desired result. (See the ramblings of danielpalos)

.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.

Where does it say that?

Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It doesn't say that. I know you desperately want it to, because you continually say it does, but it just doesn't.

lol. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

Everyone has recourse to the second amendment. The right of the people and so forth.

LOL. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

The North had to win simply Because, only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Not the unorganized militias.

 

[danielpalos]

you simply don't understand simple English.

...said the illegal Mexican who uses Google Translate to post on USMB.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

The Second Amendment wasn’t incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions until 2010 (see McDonald v. Chicago).

incorporated by way of???? What? Which Amendment?

.

Says the right wing Bigot who believes he is Right, simply Because he is on the Right Wing.

 

[danielpalos]

The first clause claims you are simply wrong.

What? All it says is that a well regulated militia is necessary. That is all the first clause tells us.

So the founders intended to tell us that something is necessary and that is all they did in the 2A???

WRONG, YOU FUCKING ASS!!!

Because it's necessary, what does the rest of the Amendment do?

It protects the right of the PEOPLE, not the fucking militia!!!! THAT IS PLAIN ENGLISH, AS IT IS WRITTEN!!!!

THERE ARE NO COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, YOU DUMB FUCK!!!

THE MILITIA DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT.

PEOPLE DO.

INDIVIDUALS EXERCISE RIGHTS. GROUPS ONLY EXERCISE RIGHTS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO EXERCISE THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

All you do is repeat shit over and over and over and over and over and never make a fucking point EVER!!!

I am so FUCK SICK of you

SHUT THE FUCK UP and GO BACK TO MEXICO!!!

.

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.

 

[Lesh]

What the 2A says..."A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary ...

It BEGINS thst Amendment with that phrase. That's not there by "accident".

Gun rights are protected in the Constitution as required by that "Well Regulated Militia" which no longer exists.If you want to claim that an UNorganized militia fits that description (it doesn't) then the DIck Act would be applicable. THAT act does away with the "Well Regulated Militia" and replaces it with the National Guard (which no longer is "self armed") and an "unorganized militia" consisting of ONLY MALES...between the ages of 17 and 45.

At BEST...under a rather tortured understanding of the 2A...it only protects gun rights for those people....and that's debatable since they are NOT "Well Regulated" as described elsewhere in the Constitution (Having rolls, Discipline, Officers, Training...and being used to put DOWN the kinds of insurrections that gun nuts claim the 2A would enable)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.

It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU FUCKING MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!

SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLL!!!

.

 

[danielpalos]

What the 2A says..."A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary ...

It BEGINS thst Amendment with that phrase. That's not there by "accident".

Gun rights are protected in the Constitution as required by that "Well Regulated Militia" which no longer exists.If you want to claim that an UNorganized militia fits that description (it doesn't) then the DIck Act would be applicable. THAT act does away with the "Well Regulated Militia" and replaces it with the National Guard (which no longer is "self armed") and an "unorganized militia" consisting of ONLY MALES...between the ages of 17 and 45.

At BEST...under a rather tortured understanding of the 2A...it only protects gun rights for those people....and that's debatable since they are NOT "Well Regulated" as described elsewhere in the Constitution (Having rolls, Discipline, Officers, Training...and being used to put DOWN the kinds of insurrections that gun nuts claim the 2A would enable)

It still exists for organizational purposes; you are either well regulated and know it, or unorganized.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What the 2A says..."A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary ...

So, all the founders intended to do was declare a militia necessary?

WRONG!!!

Gun rights are protected in the Constitution as required by that "Well Regulated Militia" which no longer exists.

WRONG!!!

If you want to claim that an UNorganized militia fits that description (it doesn't) then the DIck Act would be applicable. THAT act does away with the "Well Regulated Militia" and replaces it with the National Guard (which no longer is "self armed") and an "unorganized militia" consisting of ONLY MALES...between the ages of 17 and 45.

WRONG

The Dick Act does not amend the Constitution. Go back to law school.

At BEST...under a rather tortured understanding of the 2A...it only protects gun rights for those people...

Which people? "The People?"

There no such qualifier in the 2A, nor is there a provision for the meaning and protections of the 2A to suddenly and arbitrarily disappear when some assclown commies think an armed citizenry is no longer needed (wanted).

...and that's debatable since they are NOT "Well Regulated" as described elsewhere in the Constitution (Having rolls, Discipline, Officers, Training...and being used to put DOWN the kinds of insurrections that gun nuts claim the 2A would enable)

BUT, the 2A did not condition the protections of the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE on being "well regulated" (not what you say it means) or being actively enrolled in an organized military force.

Your remedy is to amend and quit lying about your intent.

You want a total ban and do not believe humans have that basic right.

Quit pretending otherwise.

.