A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

Being g a veteran doesnt always give you wisdom and understanding of the purpose of the Consitiution.

It is NOT your business what anyone else chooses to own for self protection

 

[9thIDdoc]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

And I went into the army rangers in 1998.


So my words carry the same validity as yours and honestly all I see is just the closed minded hippie who left the service to reject everything about it and spends his days shaking his head and lecturing others about what they want and chose is incorrect while only speaking about very specific and overblown examples with responses that stretch reality quite a bit.

At the end of the day it about hunting, no one says that really except the people arguing against guns. And as a means of defense yes it quite valuable in certain situations. And a simple google will show you countless news stories of a man protecting his family with a gun, someone defending themselves against an attacker, and so on. To pretend people don't on a regular basis use guns to protect their own life or the lives of others is very narrow minded and ignorant of reality.

I'll also give you an example of owning guns does not lead to violence. Switzerland. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, yup. But yet Switzerland also has just about the lowest gun related crime in all of Europe. But, they also lead the pack in Europe for education, public health and employment rates. Guns are not the problem. In America society is the problem and your damn it all attitude and closed mindedness is part of the issue.

If you don't like guns that's fine, you don't have to own them. But you don't get to tell others what they should and shouldn't do. As a soldier (I highly doubt you were) then you understand part of freedom is the ability to chose. Some people chose to own guns, some don't. And that's all their is to it.

Now pull up your socks and act like a man.

It's amazing that you call gun control advocates "closed-minded". 'Gun control advocates' advocate for very limited and reasonable gun regulations. It's anti-gun control advocates that will make no compromise. They want all type of guns to be available to everyone - against all reason and without any valid purpose. They hide behind misinterpretations of the Second Amendment.

If you want to hunt, use a hunting rifle, not a rifle designed for battlefields. Ensure that gun owners are trained in gun safety. Make gun owners liable for damages caused by their guns.

There are lots of reasonable suggestions made by gun control advocates. The anti-gun control advocates want anarchy.

If you want to hunt, use a hunting rifle, not a rifle designed for battlefields.
False premise. You assume weapons are designed for a single purpose when they may be used for many interchangeably. Any weapon used for hunting may also be used in warfare. Most weapons that will kill a deer or a duck are equally effective at killing people.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I'm not telling you how to live your life. I'm telling you that your ability to threaten the lives of other people should be limited

It is. It is limited to defending yourself from predators of the human kind

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“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.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

Here is a thorough discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment.

It clearly shows that the original intent was a collective right, not an individual right:

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf;jsessionid=0265E80E847802EB8BC5A919EC3A0C6A?sequence=1

So, no, you dont.

Apparently you didn't read the article I posted.

The author discusses the original intend in far more detail than I can.

But of course you ignored it and pretend that I didn't answer you challenge.

I read the first couple pages, then scrolled through the rest. All it was talking about was other peoples theories and interpretations. If it has info that actually came from the founders, please post.

In other words, you stopped reading it when you realized that it debunked your views. It's an analysis of precisely what your asking about - by people who have studied the arguments of the founding fathers:

I stopped reading at very mention of an exclusively collective right. That is IMPOSSIBLE and is saying nothing more than the right does not exist. IT'S BULLSHI.

Let's demonstrate how things go when a right is ONLY held collectively, shall we:

You: "The People" have the right to free speech.

Me: So, I have the right to free speech?

You: No, only The People collectively.

Me: But, I am a person. I am part of The People.

You: But you are not all of The People. You alone do not have the right to speak.

Me: Then, who does?

You: The People.

Me: How can The People exercise the right to free speech?

You: ....

Me: ....

You: .....

Me: If The People are denied the right to free speech, can individuals like me sue for the right of The People to exercise free speech?

You: No, you are not The People.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you want to hunt, use a hunting rifle, not a rifle designed for battlefields.

Oh, a hunting rifle NOT designed for battlefields, like this rifle:

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you want to hunt, use a hunting rifle, not a rifle designed for battlefields.

Hey, here is a rifle that looks pretty non-scary. I bet it was not designed for the battlefield and would be great for hunting.

 

[Rigby5]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“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.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

Here is a thorough discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment.

It clearly shows that the original intent was a collective right, not an individual right:

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf;jsessionid=0265E80E847802EB8BC5A919EC3A0C6A?sequence=1

I just got through reading up to page 20 of this opinion piece you claimed was a through discussion of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, and it was NOTHING.
It was a collection of modern references with their own unsubstantiated opinions, including a long attempt to argue against originalism completely.
Not once did I find a single quote from the Founders, Federalists, anti-Federalists, or anyone else from the period.

The whole idea of a "collective right" is essentially insane.
There is no way any right could ever be "collective".
To think there could be, means a complete lack of understanding what a "right" is.

If you understood what a "right" is, you would know it can't be created or destroyed.
It is an intrinsic to each individual at birth, from our DNA.
That does not mean it is magically protected, but that deep down everyone actually knows it is correct.
Like everyone actually knows rape, slavery, murder, theft, etc., is wrong, if nothing else because they know force is needed and it will be resisted.
The fact force can be used to deny rights to individuals, in no way implies that rights do not exist and are not intrinsic.

So then what could a "collective right" even be, since groups are not at all intrinsic?
When people refer to collective rights, like to have an armed militia to protect a country from invasion, that is just the amalgamation of all the individua rights of self defense. No new right has been created, and there is nothing intrinsic any more than any group of nations, states, cities, tribes, or families can create and join alliances for mutual defense. There collective mutually beneficial groupings may be helpful, but certainly are not inherent or permanent.

Historically it is obvious defense is an individual right. When Jefferson writes about the right of rebellion in the Declaration of Independence, it is only individual inherent rights he is talking about. A government that violates the rights of any one single individual, then must be utterly defeated because it then could it could just as easily harm anyone. The collective concept is just the pragmatic fact there is more strength in unity, but has nothing at all to do with the original fact that human society is based on empathy that is intrinsic to our DNA. When an individual lacks empathy, we consider them pathologically defective. The fact no one should be willing to accept injustice to another, does not mean justice is a collective right because the mechanism is individual. We all individually feel injustice is wrong.

But getting back to the pragmatics, it is obvious defense has to be an individual right. There were essentially no police back then, there were far more threats, and even if there were something like police, they can almost never get there in time to do any good. Since the real life threats are distributed, then so must the defensive arms be distributed as well, for them to be any good.
To collectively defend against invasion is something that rarely happens or is necessary.
To individually defend against rape, murder, theft, wild animals, gangs, pirates, etc., are the most common, often, and realistic threats.
Collective defense is just the sum of individual defense, and is totally and completely dependent upon the strength of individual defense.
For if one tries to artificially create a collective defense not based on strong individual defense, such as with a separate mercenary force, then you have just created a new threat that likely is or will become the greatest threat of all.
So it should NEVER be done.
No mercenary military should ever be allowed.
That is exactly the mistake we made around 1906 and resulted in the evils of things like the Pentagon lying to us about Ho Chi Minh, WMD in Iraq, Assad using chemical weapons, etc.
We made the same mistake by creating mercenary police as well, and now nightly we see police abusing and murdering Blacks, elderly women, children, etc.

Every time you try to collectively solve a problem that is actually an individual one, you only make things worse.

 

[Richard-H]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“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.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

Here is a thorough discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment.

It clearly shows that the original intent was a collective right, not an individual right:

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf;jsessionid=0265E80E847802EB8BC5A919EC3A0C6A?sequence=1

I just got through reading up to page 20 of this opinion piece you claimed was a through discussion of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, and it was NOTHING.
It was a collection of modern references with their own unsubstantiated opinions, including a long attempt to argue against originalism completely.
Not once did I find a single quote from the Founders, Federalists, anti-Federalists, or anyone else from the period.

The whole idea of a "collective right" is essentially insane.
There is no way any right could ever be "collective".
To think there could be, means a complete lack of understanding what a "right" is.

If you understood what a "right" is, you would know it can't be created or destroyed.
It is an intrinsic to each individual at birth, from our DNA.
That does not mean it is magically protected, but that deep down everyone actually knows it is correct.
Like everyone actually knows rape, slavery, murder, theft, etc., is wrong, if nothing else because they know force is needed and it will be resisted.
The fact force can be used to deny rights to individuals, in no way implies that rights do not exist and are not intrinsic.

So then what could a "collective right" even be, since groups are not at all intrinsic?
When people refer to collective rights, like to have an armed militia to protect a country from invasion, that is just the amalgamation of all the individua rights of self defense. No new right has been created, and there is nothing intrinsic any more than any group of nations, states, cities, tribes, or families can create and join alliances for mutual defense. There collective mutually beneficial groupings may be helpful, but certainly are not inherent or permanent.

Historically it is obvious defense is an individual right. When Jefferson writes about the right of rebellion in the Declaration of Independence, it is only individual inherent rights he is talking about. A government that violates the rights of any one single individual, then must be utterly defeated because it then could it could just as easily harm anyone. The collective concept is just the pragmatic fact there is more strength in unity, but has nothing at all to do with the original fact that human society is based on empathy that is intrinsic to our DNA. When an individual lacks empathy, we consider them pathologically defective. The fact no one should be willing to accept injustice to another, does not mean justice is a collective right because the mechanism is individual. We all individually feel injustice is wrong.

But getting back to the pragmatics, it is obvious defense has to be an individual right. There were essentially no police back then, there were far more threats, and even if there were something like police, they can almost never get there in time to do any good. Since the real life threats are distributed, then so must the defensive arms be distributed as well, for them to be any good.
To collectively defend against invasion is something that rarely happens or is necessary.
To individually defend against rape, murder, theft, wild animals, gangs, pirates, etc., are the most common, often, and realistic threats.
Collective defense is just the sum of individual defense, and is totally and completely dependent upon the strength of individual defense.
For if one tries to artificially create a collective defense not based on strong individual defense, such as with a separate mercenary force, then you have just created a new threat that likely is or will become the greatest threat of all.
So it should NEVER be done.
No mercenary military should ever be allowed.
That is exactly the mistake we made around 1906 and resulted in the evils of things like the Pentagon lying to us about Ho Chi Minh, WMD in Iraq, Assad using chemical weapons, etc.
We made the same mistake by creating mercenary police as well, and now nightly we see police abusing and murdering Blacks, elderly women, children, etc.

Every time you try to collectively solve a problem that is actually an individual one, you only make things worse.

Couldn't get beyond page 20? I guess 92 pages is too much for you.

You say:

"It is an intrinsic to each individual at birth, from our DNA."

So we have gun ownership in our DNA? Does that mean people who lived before guns were invented had no DNA?

Unlike the article I posted, the rest of your blathering isn't worth reading.

 

[Utilitarian]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“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.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

Here is a thorough discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment.

It clearly shows that the original intent was a collective right, not an individual right:

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf;jsessionid=0265E80E847802EB8BC5A919EC3A0C6A?sequence=1

The Supreme Court ruled quite differently on this.

If you want to pass an Amendment that supposedly restores the "original intent", you're free to try.

 

[Richard-H]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“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.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

Here is a thorough discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment.

It clearly shows that the original intent was a collective right, not an individual right:

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf;jsessionid=0265E80E847802EB8BC5A919EC3A0C6A?sequence=1

So, no, you dont.

Apparently you didn't read the article I posted.

The author discusses the original intend in far more detail than I can.

But of course you ignored it and pretend that I didn't answer you challenge.

I read the first couple pages, then scrolled through the rest. All it was talking about was other peoples theories and interpretations. If it has info that actually came from the founders, please post.

In other words, you stopped reading it when you realized that it debunked your views. It's an analysis of precisely what your asking about - by people who have studied the arguments of the founding fathers:

I stopped reading at very mention of an exclusively collective right. That is IMPOSSIBLE and is saying nothing more than the right does not exist. IT'S BULLSHI.

Let's demonstrate how things go when a right is ONLY held collectively, shall we:

You: "The People" have the right to free speech.

Me: So, I have the right to free speech?

You: No, only The People collectively.

Me: But, I am a person. I am part of The People.

You: But you are not all of The People. You alone do not have the right to speak.

Me: Then, who does?

You: The People.

Me: How can The People exercise the right to free speech?

You: ....

Me: ....

You: .....

Me: If The People are denied the right to free speech, can individuals like me sue for the right of The People to exercise free speech?

You: No, you are not The People.

You are the king of strawmen!!!!!

 

[Richard-H]

I'm not telling you how to live your life. I'm telling you that your ability to threaten the lives of other people should be limited

It is. It is limited to defending yourself from predators of the human kind

Unfortunately, it's not limited to "defending yourself from predators of the human kind". The AR-15 has the capability of killing many, many people at a very high rate.

Any gun that is limited to "defending yourself from predators of the human kind", is not in question.

 

[Richard-H]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

And I went into the army rangers in 1998.


So my words carry the same validity as yours and honestly all I see is just the closed minded hippie who left the service to reject everything about it and spends his days shaking his head and lecturing others about what they want and chose is incorrect while only speaking about very specific and overblown examples with responses that stretch reality quite a bit.

At the end of the day it about hunting, no one says that really except the people arguing against guns. And as a means of defense yes it quite valuable in certain situations. And a simple google will show you countless news stories of a man protecting his family with a gun, someone defending themselves against an attacker, and so on. To pretend people don't on a regular basis use guns to protect their own life or the lives of others is very narrow minded and ignorant of reality.

I'll also give you an example of owning guns does not lead to violence. Switzerland. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, yup. But yet Switzerland also has just about the lowest gun related crime in all of Europe. But, they also lead the pack in Europe for education, public health and employment rates. Guns are not the problem. In America society is the problem and your damn it all attitude and closed mindedness is part of the issue.

If you don't like guns that's fine, you don't have to own them. But you don't get to tell others what they should and shouldn't do. As a soldier (I highly doubt you were) then you understand part of freedom is the ability to chose. Some people chose to own guns, some don't. And that's all their is to it.

Now pull up your socks and act like a man.

It's amazing that you call gun control advocates "closed-minded". 'Gun control advocates' advocate for very limited and reasonable gun regulations. It's anti-gun control advocates that will make no compromise. They want all type of guns to be available to everyone - against all reason and without any valid purpose. They hide behind misinterpretations of the Second Amendment.

If you want to hunt, use a hunting rifle, not a rifle designed for battlefields. Ensure that gun owners are trained in gun safety. Make gun owners liable for damages caused by their guns.

There are lots of reasonable suggestions made by gun control advocates. The anti-gun control advocates want anarchy.

If you want to hunt, use a hunting rifle, not a rifle designed for battlefields.
False premise. You assume weapons are designed for a single purpose when they may be used for many interchangeably. Any weapon used for hunting may also be used in warfare. Most weapons that will kill a deer or a duck are equally effective at killing people.

"I can kill you with this post-it pad...and that's a slow painful death"

The limits on gun ownership is for guns that can kill many, many people at a very high rate.

If you need to shoot 8 rounds in 4 seconds to bring down a deer, you shouldn't be hunting...that's not a sport.

Perhaps you should be getting your eyes examined, or practicing a bit more at the range.

 

[Richard-H]

To get back to the root of this discussion.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

If your 'Creator' endows everyone with the right to own a gun, then did people who lived before guns were invented not have unalienable rights?

People are not born with guns, so gun ownership is NOT an unalienable right.

 

[BluesLegend]

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle.

To defend against home invasions, rapists, illegals, thugs and gangs. And it's a defense rifle not an assault rifle we are not charging a machine gun nest.

 

[BluesLegend]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

^^^ got his constitutional law degree mail order. According to the natural rights tradition, which deeply influenced the American founders, individuals had an inalienable right to defend themselves against violence. It was to protect this right, among others, that society and government were formed. Within society, citizens had a right to defend themselves not only against private violence, but also against tyranny and oppression by the government itself. But this right could not be effectively exercised without arms. According to this view, the Second Amendment was intended, at least in part, to enable individuals to exercise their natural right to self-defense.

 

[Old Rocks]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

Well yes, most sane people know exactly what it says. And most of the gun nuts would never make it in a well regulated militia. There have to be limits, for instance, living in an area that planes approach an airport and having twin .50's in your backyard would be excellent for worry. We already limit the kind of people that can own a fully automatic weapon. And one which can fire 30 rounds in under ten seconds is virtually the same as an automatic weapon.

Amendment II​

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

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“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.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

Here is a thorough discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment.

It clearly shows that the original intent was a collective right, not an individual right:

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf;jsessionid=0265E80E847802EB8BC5A919EC3A0C6A?sequence=1

I just got through reading up to page 20 of this opinion piece you claimed was a through discussion of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, and it was NOTHING.
It was a collection of modern references with their own unsubstantiated opinions, including a long attempt to argue against originalism completely.
Not once did I find a single quote from the Founders, Federalists, anti-Federalists, or anyone else from the period.

The whole idea of a "collective right" is essentially insane.
There is no way any right could ever be "collective".
To think there could be, means a complete lack of understanding what a "right" is.

If you understood what a "right" is, you would know it can't be created or destroyed.
It is an intrinsic to each individual at birth, from our DNA.
That does not mean it is magically protected, but that deep down everyone actually knows it is correct.
Like everyone actually knows rape, slavery, murder, theft, etc., is wrong, if nothing else because they know force is needed and it will be resisted.
The fact force can be used to deny rights to individuals, in no way implies that rights do not exist and are not intrinsic.

So then what could a "collective right" even be, since groups are not at all intrinsic?
When people refer to collective rights, like to have an armed militia to protect a country from invasion, that is just the amalgamation of all the individua rights of self defense. No new right has been created, and there is nothing intrinsic any more than any group of nations, states, cities, tribes, or families can create and join alliances for mutual defense. There collective mutually beneficial groupings may be helpful, but certainly are not inherent or permanent.

Historically it is obvious defense is an individual right. When Jefferson writes about the right of rebellion in the Declaration of Independence, it is only individual inherent rights he is talking about. A government that violates the rights of any one single individual, then must be utterly defeated because it then could it could just as easily harm anyone. The collective concept is just the pragmatic fact there is more strength in unity, but has nothing at all to do with the original fact that human society is based on empathy that is intrinsic to our DNA. When an individual lacks empathy, we consider them pathologically defective. The fact no one should be willing to accept injustice to another, does not mean justice is a collective right because the mechanism is individual. We all individually feel injustice is wrong.

But getting back to the pragmatics, it is obvious defense has to be an individual right. There were essentially no police back then, there were far more threats, and even if there were something like police, they can almost never get there in time to do any good. Since the real life threats are distributed, then so must the defensive arms be distributed as well, for them to be any good.
To collectively defend against invasion is something that rarely happens or is necessary.
To individually defend against rape, murder, theft, wild animals, gangs, pirates, etc., are the most common, often, and realistic threats.
Collective defense is just the sum of individual defense, and is totally and completely dependent upon the strength of individual defense.
For if one tries to artificially create a collective defense not based on strong individual defense, such as with a separate mercenary force, then you have just created a new threat that likely is or will become the greatest threat of all.
So it should NEVER be done.
No mercenary military should ever be allowed.
That is exactly the mistake we made around 1906 and resulted in the evils of things like the Pentagon lying to us about Ho Chi Minh, WMD in Iraq, Assad using chemical weapons, etc.
We made the same mistake by creating mercenary police as well, and now nightly we see police abusing and murdering Blacks, elderly women, children, etc.

Every time you try to collectively solve a problem that is actually an individual one, you only make things worse.

Couldn't get beyond page 20? I guess 92 pages is too much for you.

You say:

"It is an intrinsic to each individual at birth, from our DNA."

So we have gun ownership in our DNA? Does that mean people who lived before guns were invented had no DNA?

Unlike the article I posted, the rest of your blathering isn't worth reading.

We have an intrinsic right to self-defense and self-determination. The tools vary and as tools for one get better, they must get better for all or the right to self-defense and self-determination is GONE.

You should consider a different place if you don't want to live free.

 

[Old Rocks]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

^^^ got his constitutional law degree mail order. According to the natural rights tradition, which deeply influenced the American founders, individuals had an inalienable right to defend themselves against violence. It was to protect this right, among others, that society and government were formed. Within society, citizens had a right to defend themselves not only against private violence, but also against tyranny and oppression by the government itself. But this right could not be effectively exercised without arms. According to this view, the Second Amendment was intended, at least in part, to enable individuals to exercise their natural right to self-defense.

Fine. I have a shotgun, several rifles, and handguns. None are weapons of war. So if you think they are not adequate for self defense, just try kicking down my door.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“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.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

Here is a thorough discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment.

It clearly shows that the original intent was a collective right, not an individual right:

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf;jsessionid=0265E80E847802EB8BC5A919EC3A0C6A?sequence=1

So, no, you dont.

Apparently you didn't read the article I posted.

The author discusses the original intend in far more detail than I can.

But of course you ignored it and pretend that I didn't answer you challenge.

I read the first couple pages, then scrolled through the rest. All it was talking about was other peoples theories and interpretations. If it has info that actually came from the founders, please post.

In other words, you stopped reading it when you realized that it debunked your views. It's an analysis of precisely what your asking about - by people who have studied the arguments of the founding fathers:

I stopped reading at very mention of an exclusively collective right. That is IMPOSSIBLE and is saying nothing more than the right does not exist. IT'S BULLSHI.

Let's demonstrate how things go when a right is ONLY held collectively, shall we:

You: "The People" have the right to free speech.

Me: So, I have the right to free speech?

You: No, only The People collectively.

Me: But, I am a person. I am part of The People.

You: But you are not all of The People. You alone do not have the right to speak.

Me: Then, who does?

You: The People.

Me: How can The People exercise the right to free speech?

You: ....

Me: ....

You: .....

Me: If The People are denied the right to free speech, can individuals like me sue for the right of The People to exercise free speech?

You: No, you are not The People.

You are the king of strawmen!!!!!

You are the king of not knowing what a strawman fallacy is.

I am illustrating for you how a collective right that is independent of an individual right is no right at all.

And you have NO RESPONSE.

 

[Old Rocks]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“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.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

Here is a thorough discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment.

It clearly shows that the original intent was a collective right, not an individual right:

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf;jsessionid=0265E80E847802EB8BC5A919EC3A0C6A?sequence=1

I just got through reading up to page 20 of this opinion piece you claimed was a through discussion of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, and it was NOTHING.
It was a collection of modern references with their own unsubstantiated opinions, including a long attempt to argue against originalism completely.
Not once did I find a single quote from the Founders, Federalists, anti-Federalists, or anyone else from the period.

The whole idea of a "collective right" is essentially insane.
There is no way any right could ever be "collective".
To think there could be, means a complete lack of understanding what a "right" is.

If you understood what a "right" is, you would know it can't be created or destroyed.
It is an intrinsic to each individual at birth, from our DNA.
That does not mean it is magically protected, but that deep down everyone actually knows it is correct.
Like everyone actually knows rape, slavery, murder, theft, etc., is wrong, if nothing else because they know force is needed and it will be resisted.
The fact force can be used to deny rights to individuals, in no way implies that rights do not exist and are not intrinsic.

So then what could a "collective right" even be, since groups are not at all intrinsic?
When people refer to collective rights, like to have an armed militia to protect a country from invasion, that is just the amalgamation of all the individua rights of self defense. No new right has been created, and there is nothing intrinsic any more than any group of nations, states, cities, tribes, or families can create and join alliances for mutual defense. There collective mutually beneficial groupings may be helpful, but certainly are not inherent or permanent.

Historically it is obvious defense is an individual right. When Jefferson writes about the right of rebellion in the Declaration of Independence, it is only individual inherent rights he is talking about. A government that violates the rights of any one single individual, then must be utterly defeated because it then could it could just as easily harm anyone. The collective concept is just the pragmatic fact there is more strength in unity, but has nothing at all to do with the original fact that human society is based on empathy that is intrinsic to our DNA. When an individual lacks empathy, we consider them pathologically defective. The fact no one should be willing to accept injustice to another, does not mean justice is a collective right because the mechanism is individual. We all individually feel injustice is wrong.

But getting back to the pragmatics, it is obvious defense has to be an individual right. There were essentially no police back then, there were far more threats, and even if there were something like police, they can almost never get there in time to do any good. Since the real life threats are distributed, then so must the defensive arms be distributed as well, for them to be any good.
To collectively defend against invasion is something that rarely happens or is necessary.
To individually defend against rape, murder, theft, wild animals, gangs, pirates, etc., are the most common, often, and realistic threats.
Collective defense is just the sum of individual defense, and is totally and completely dependent upon the strength of individual defense.
For if one tries to artificially create a collective defense not based on strong individual defense, such as with a separate mercenary force, then you have just created a new threat that likely is or will become the greatest threat of all.
So it should NEVER be done.
No mercenary military should ever be allowed.
That is exactly the mistake we made around 1906 and resulted in the evils of things like the Pentagon lying to us about Ho Chi Minh, WMD in Iraq, Assad using chemical weapons, etc.
We made the same mistake by creating mercenary police as well, and now nightly we see police abusing and murdering Blacks, elderly women, children, etc.

Every time you try to collectively solve a problem that is actually an individual one, you only make things worse.

Couldn't get beyond page 20? I guess 92 pages is too much for you.

You say:

"It is an intrinsic to each individual at birth, from our DNA."

So we have gun ownership in our DNA? Does that mean people who lived before guns were invented had no DNA?

Unlike the article I posted, the rest of your blathering isn't worth reading.

We have an intrinsic right to self-defense and self-determination. The tools vary and as tools for one get better, they must get better for all or the right to self-defense and self-determination is GONE.

You should consider a different place if you don't want to live free.

So, you are going to take on an attack helicopter with your AR? Good luck with that popgun.