The words "to bear arms" is a military term

[bigrebnc1775]

Post #196 answers your pouting. You made the OP, your evidence (yet once again) contradicts your premise, thus no one has to provide counter evidence. After all this time you still don't get it. That's OK. We will continue to guide you.

Not once in this discussion have you givn factual supported information, I have you lost move along son.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sorry, ma'am, I apologize for that. Tell me, peach, are those tanks fully functional as combat platforms as they are now constituted. I suspect not. Does the law permit them to be retrofitted.

I you can make such an argument with solid support I am going to have to some digging.

Great post, thanks.

I accept your apology. No the Tanks have the breech removed, but a good machinist can make one, it's the ammunition that would be hard to get.
The point is that if your citizens can be armed and our government ever became a dictatorship or a despot came into power we have the right to overthrow that kind of government. I also think that our military would be one the side of the citizens if it ever happened.
This is what the 2nd amendment is about.

The civilians will have no impact worthy of decision making. The national guards, the reserves, and the active military will decide whether to obey tyrannical government. If such a government comes, let's hope the good guys in the NG, Reserves, and the active services will decide to stand up and hand out weapons.

But absolutely nothing supports the concept of you and me possessing heavy weapons platforms. The civilian "tanks" are not that today and are not legal for retrofitting.

If such a government comes, let's hope the good guys in the NG, Reserves, and the active services will decide to stand up and hand out weapons.

Only a fool would give an untrained inexperienced person a gun and tell them to go fight with it. That's what we who are militia members are for, and we'll used our own weapons thank you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Post #196 answers your pouting. You made the OP, your evidence (yet once again) contradicts your premise, thus no one has to provide counter evidence. After all this time you still don't get it. That's OK. We will continue to guide you.

Not once in this discussion have you givn factual supported information, I have you lost move along son.

Your evidence has contradicted your premise. Failed OP. Read #196.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I accept your apology. No the Tanks have the breech removed, but a good machinist can make one, it's the ammunition that would be hard to get.
The point is that if your citizens can be armed and our government ever became a dictatorship or a despot came into power we have the right to overthrow that kind of government. I also think that our military would be one the side of the citizens if it ever happened.
This is what the 2nd amendment is about.

The civilians will have no impact worthy of decision making. The national guards, the reserves, and the active military will decide whether to obey tyrannical government. If such a government comes, let's hope the good guys in the NG, Reserves, and the active services will decide to stand up and hand out weapons.

But absolutely nothing supports the concept of you and me possessing heavy weapons platforms. The civilian "tanks" are not that today and are not legal for retrofitting.

If such a government comes, let's hope the good guys in the NG, Reserves, and the active services will decide to stand up and hand out weapons.

Only a fool would give an untrained inexperienced person a gun and tell them to go fight with it. That's what we who are militia members are for, and we'll used our own weapons thank you.

Tell that to the Libyans. You try that and your neighbors will incarcerate you. You try to govern, they will put you against the wall. What are you guys doing? Hiding under sheets talking complete utter nonsense. Bub,, one of five of you members are probably Homeland and FBI and ATF agents.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The civilians will have no impact worthy of decision making. The national guards, the reserves, and the active military will decide whether to obey tyrannical government. If such a government comes, let's hope the good guys in the NG, Reserves, and the active services will decide to stand up and hand out weapons.

But absolutely nothing supports the concept of you and me possessing heavy weapons platforms. The civilian "tanks" are not that today and are not legal for retrofitting.

If such a government comes, let's hope the good guys in the NG, Reserves, and the active services will decide to stand up and hand out weapons.

Only a fool would give an untrained inexperienced person a gun and tell them to go fight with it. That's what we who are militia members are for, and we'll used our own weapons thank you.

Tell that to the Libyans. You try that and your neighbors will incarcerate you. You try to govern, they will put you against the wall. What are you guys doing? Hiding under sheets talking complete utter nonsense. Bub,, one of five of you members are probably Homeland and FBI and ATF agents.

What exactly are you talking about? All this talk about you knowing about what you are talking about. Once again just gave yourself away. If I try what Jermey? 4 or 5 memebers? We are a whole lot more than 5. You can tell the feds I'll take som with me whenthey come for me. Better yet I'll tell the U.S. Marshall that I go shooting with every month.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Post #196 answers your pouting. You made the OP, your evidence (yet once again) contradicts your premise, thus no one has to provide counter evidence. After all this time you still don't get it. That's OK. We will continue to guide you.

Not once in this discussion have you givn factual supported information, I have you lost move along son.

Your evidence has contradicted your premise. Failed OP. Read #196.

No it hasn't.

Read the summary
The court noted:
"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country." Summary of U.S. v. Emerson

Historically understood, would be to keep and bear arms to bear arms being a military term.

You're done. Case closed you lost don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on your way out.

 

[Cuyo]

So are you saying that only those connected to the military should be able to bear arms and not private citizens?

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
“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 a military term, and is talking about military grade weapons. Which means the people have the right to own military style weapons. You know the kind those black mean looking rifle's

It's an argument that's been in the hashing out process for 200-some years. We're not going to solve it tonight on USMB.

It's clear that the amendment is written in the scope and intention of applying to militias - Remember the founders never intended there to be a peace-time standing army.

BUT - That's not what it says. It says that a Militia is necessary, and also says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed - Not explicitly stating that it's to apply solely to Militias.

Personally, I think it was intentionally ambiguous like most of the document.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So are you saying that only those connected to the military should be able to bear arms and not private citizens?

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
“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 a military term, and is talking about military grade weapons. Which means the people have the right to own military style weapons. You know the kind those black mean looking rifle's

It's an argument that's been in the hashing out process for 200-some years. We're not going to solve it tonight on USMB.

It's clear that the amendment is written in the scope and intention of applying to militias - Remember the founders never intended there to be a peace-time standing army.

BUT - That's not what it says. It says that a Militia is necessary, and also says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed - Not explicitly stating that it's to apply solely to Militias.

Personally, I think it was intentionally ambiguous like most of the document.

There's only one way to look at this issue which was not from the link

the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

 

[Cuyo]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
“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 a military term, and is talking about military grade weapons. Which means the people have the right to own military style weapons. You know the kind those black mean looking rifle's

It's an argument that's been in the hashing out process for 200-some years. We're not going to solve it tonight on USMB.

It's clear that the amendment is written in the scope and intention of applying to militias - Remember the founders never intended there to be a peace-time standing army.

BUT - That's not what it says. It says that a Militia is necessary, and also says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed - Not explicitly stating that it's to apply solely to Militias.

Personally, I think it was intentionally ambiguous like most of the document.

There's only one way to look at this issue which was not from the link

the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

If there was only one way to look at it, we wouldn't be having the discussion.

 

[idb]

Not once in this discussion have you givn factual supported information, I have you lost move along son.

Your evidence has contradicted your premise. Failed OP. Read #196.

No it hasn't.

Read the summary
The court noted:
"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country." Summary of U.S. v. Emerson

Historically understood, would be to keep and bear arms to bear arms being a military term.

You're done. Case closed you lost don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Ummm...I don't mean to be picky but...I can't find that passage anywhere in your originally cited document.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's an argument that's been in the hashing out process for 200-some years. We're not going to solve it tonight on USMB.

It's clear that the amendment is written in the scope and intention of applying to militias - Remember the founders never intended there to be a peace-time standing army.

BUT - That's not what it says. It says that a Militia is necessary, and also says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed - Not explicitly stating that it's to apply solely to Militias.

Personally, I think it was intentionally ambiguous like most of the document.

There's only one way to look at this issue which was not from the link

the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

If there was only one way to look at it, we wouldn't be having the discussion.

There is only one way and that is the Constitutional way. Not some twisted liberal twiked way. I am fed up with giving more and more this right away. No more, it's time to get back to the roots of the second amendment.

 

[Cuyo]

There's only one way to look at this issue which was not from the link

the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

If there was only one way to look at it, we wouldn't be having the discussion.

There is only one way and that is the Constitutional way. Not some twisted liberal twiked way. I am fed up with giving more and more this right away. No more, it's time to get back to the roots of the second amendment.

The Constitution is ambiguous. It's not my fault - I didn't write the thing.

Like I said, though, I think it was done intentionally. I think they wanted us to be having these debates.

If it was meant to be as clean cut as you aim to make it seem, it would have been written as such, not?

 

[idb]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
“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 a military term, and is talking about military grade weapons. Which means the people have the right to own military style weapons. You know the kind those black mean looking rifle's

It's an argument that's been in the hashing out process for 200-some years. We're not going to solve it tonight on USMB.

It's clear that the amendment is written in the scope and intention of applying to militias - Remember the founders never intended there to be a peace-time standing army.

BUT - That's not what it says. It says that a Militia is necessary, and also says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed - Not explicitly stating that it's to apply solely to Militias.

Personally, I think it was intentionally ambiguous like most of the document.

There's only one way to look at this issue which was not from the link

the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

I'm really interested, though, how Section 8 of the Constitution is reconciled with your last paragraph?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If there was only one way to look at it, we wouldn't be having the discussion.

There is only one way and that is the Constitutional way. Not some twisted liberal twiked way. I am fed up with giving more and more this right away. No more, it's time to get back to the roots of the second amendment.

The Constitution is ambiguous. It's not my fault - I didn't write the thing.

Like I said, though, I think it was done intentionally. I think they wanted us to be having these debates.

If it was meant to be as clean cut as you aim to make it seem, it would have been written as such, not?

It was quite clear written within the words of he second amendment.
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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's an argument that's been in the hashing out process for 200-some years. We're not going to solve it tonight on USMB.

It's clear that the amendment is written in the scope and intention of applying to militias - Remember the founders never intended there to be a peace-time standing army.

BUT - That's not what it says. It says that a Militia is necessary, and also says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed - Not explicitly stating that it's to apply solely to Militias.

Personally, I think it was intentionally ambiguous like most of the document.

There's only one way to look at this issue which was not from the link

the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

I'm really interested, though, how Section 8 of the Constitution is reconciled with your last paragraph?

Thats exactly right, why do you think that the cesars kept it's armies out of rome.

 

[mudwhistle]

First let’s look at the Second Amendment
“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.”


Historically speaking it has always been used as a military term as in military grade weapons. This study is original historical research and analysis prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson
Figurative v. Literal Usage
"Figurative" and "literal" grammatical and rhetorical terms need some explanation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, which bases its definitions on historical usage since the 12th century and provides historical examples for the major variations in usage, a literal meaning is one in which is "free from figures of speech, exaggeration, or allusion;" that is, one that is used in its literal sense. For example, to "carry arms" in its literal sense means to transport or convey weapons from one place to another. On the other hand, a figurative meaning is one "based on, or involving the use of, figures [of speech] or metaphors; metaphorical, not literal. For example, to "deliver up arms" was a figurative expression for disarming a defeated enemy, often on the field of battle, but only in the broadest sense is the concept of delivering or transferring weapons from the custody of the defeated forces to that of the victors of significance to the meaning of the overall expression.
Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...

Back in those days a good musket that can bring down a deer was all they had.

They needed everyone to be armed just in case of emergencies.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

First let’s look at the Second Amendment
“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.”


Historically speaking it has always been used as a military term as in military grade weapons. This study is original historical research and analysis prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson
Figurative v. Literal Usage
"Figurative" and "literal" grammatical and rhetorical terms need some explanation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, which bases its definitions on historical usage since the 12th century and provides historical examples for the major variations in usage, a literal meaning is one in which is "free from figures of speech, exaggeration, or allusion;" that is, one that is used in its literal sense. For example, to "carry arms" in its literal sense means to transport or convey weapons from one place to another. On the other hand, a figurative meaning is one "based on, or involving the use of, figures [of speech] or metaphors; metaphorical, not literal. For example, to "deliver up arms" was a figurative expression for disarming a defeated enemy, often on the field of battle, but only in the broadest sense is the concept of delivering or transferring weapons from the custody of the defeated forces to that of the victors of significance to the meaning of the overall expression.
Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...

Back in those days a good musket that can bring down a deer was all they had.

They needed everyone to be armed just in case of emergencies.

True but they also knew that with a centralized power could also bring tyrany. Thats why they did not want a standing army.

 

[Cuyo]

There is only one way and that is the Constitutional way. Not some twisted liberal twiked way. I am fed up with giving more and more this right away. No more, it's time to get back to the roots of the second amendment.

The Constitution is ambiguous. It's not my fault - I didn't write the thing.

Like I said, though, I think it was done intentionally. I think they wanted us to be having these debates.

If it was meant to be as clean cut as you aim to make it seem, it would have been written as such, not?

It was quite clear written within the words of he second amendment.
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.

Yes, it's written entirely in the context of maintaining Militias... Yet it doesn't explicitly say it applies only to Militias.

THAT's the debate. Re-emphasizing your argument in the debate, does not end the debate.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Constitution is ambiguous. It's not my fault - I didn't write the thing.

Like I said, though, I think it was done intentionally. I think they wanted us to be having these debates.

If it was meant to be as clean cut as you aim to make it seem, it would have been written as such, not?

It was quite clear written within the words of he second amendment.
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.

Yes, it's written entirely in the context of maintaining Militias... Yet it doesn't explicitly say it applies only to Militias.

THAT's the debate. Re-emphasizing your argument in the debate, does not end the debate.

And just who is the militia?
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people

George Mason is the father of the bill of rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only a fool would give an untrained inexperienced person a gun and tell them to go fight with it. That's what we who are militia members are for, and we'll used our own weapons thank you.

Tell that to the Libyans. You try that and your neighbors will incarcerate you. You try to govern, they will put you against the wall. What are you guys doing? Hiding under sheets talking complete utter nonsense. Bub,, one of five of you members are probably Homeland and FBI and ATF agents.

What exactly are you talking about? All this talk about you knowing about what you are talking about. Once again just gave yourself away. If I try what Jermey? 4 or 5 memebers? We are a whole lot more than 5. You can tell the feds I'll take som with me whenthey come for me. Better yet I'll tell the U.S. Marshall that I go shooting with every month.

Read what I wrote: probably one of five of you are government infiltrators. Stop issue threats against LEO. You know better, Jason.