Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[danielpalos]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

That is Your story bro. Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.

Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.

Yours is the nice story Bro.

The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

If it’s clearly stated, then it is by the people’s right to keep and bear stems.

Thanks.

Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.

 

[Pop23]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.

Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.

 

[Pop23]

Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.

Yours is the nice story Bro.

The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

If it’s clearly stated, then it is by the people’s right to keep and bear stems.

Thanks.

Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.

If you care to make an argument, do so in such a way that is understandable. That's simply gibberish.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

That is the opinion of Scalia, and I don't recall he was there when the 2nd A. was written. In fact he went on and on in Heller to justify his political opinion and could only convince four others.

 

[WinterBorn]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

Let's clarify things, shall we?

According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
"Definition of amend
transitive verb
1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (something, such as a text)

• amended the manuscript

2 a : to change or modify (something) for the better : improve

• amend the situation

b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition

• amend a constitution"

This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document. This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution. And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.

 

[WinterBorn]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about our form of Government, either.

We don't have a unitary form of federal government like State governments do.

And, we have a doctrine of separation of powers. Only the right wing, loves to make a federal Case out of Every Thing.

Nobody care who you take seriously. Make your point with pacts, not vague attempts at insults.

The fact is, the US Constitution is the law of the land. No state constitution can overrule it. We have been through this before, Danny-boy.

 

[Pop23]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about our form of Government, either.

We don't have a unitary form of federal government like State governments do.

And, we have a doctrine of separation of powers. Only the right wing, loves to make a federal Case out of Every Thing.

Nobody care who you take seriously. Make your point with pacts, not vague attempts at insults.

The fact is, the US Constitution is the law of the land. No state constitution can overrule it. We have been through this before, Danny-boy.

They take the Freedom of speech to mean they must speak. In reality It also means you can keep your mouth shut as well.

They would be best served to think about that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

Let's clarify things, shall we?

According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
"Definition of amend
transitive verb
1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (something, such as a text)

• amended the manuscript

2 a : to change or modify (something) for the better : improve

• amend the situation

b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition

• amend a constitution"

This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document. This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution. And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.

And yet, the 2nd A. is the most imperceptive Amendment of all. It's syntax is baffling to all those who do not hold to the two extreme positions.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

 

[westwall]

Using your logic, the article should read:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.

Anything beyond the period would not be necessary.

OR:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed

Yet, neither is true, and it’s placement in the articles that give INDIVIDUAL rights make the actual wording of:

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

Completely understandable, that, it is the individuals the right.

PERIOD.

That is Your story bro. Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.

Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.

Yours is the nice story Bro.

The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

 

[Pop23]

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

Let's clarify things, shall we?

According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
"Definition of amend
transitive verb
1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (something, such as a text)

• amended the manuscript

2 a : to change or modify (something) for the better : improve

• amend the situation

b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition

• amend a constitution"

This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document. This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution. And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.

And yet, the 2nd A. is the most imperceptive Amendment of all. It's syntax is baffling to all those who do not hold to the two extreme positions.

Only when taken out of context and forgetting where it is placed within the document itself.

It is contained in the section of the Constitution that outlines what rights the INDIVIDUAL has that are SUPERIOR to those of the GOVERNMENT.

The second is pretty clear in context that:

We know that, to preserve our Freedom we must organize and maintain a Militia (Military), but we also know from our own History, that these organized Militia's can be used against their own citizens (the Revolutionary War having just been fought), so we reserve the rights to "the people" to arm themselves against such an event ever happening again.

Quite simple, and in context of it's position within the document, makes complete sense.

 

[westwall]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

Dude, you are babbling. The Bill of Rights is an essential part of the COTUS. How you can claim that the Bill of Rights, which is the FOUNDATION of our legal system...has no legal standing is beyond me. That is such a warped interpretation of the COTUS as to be beyond belief.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

You're wrong, but I'd appreciate some clarity and would like to see examples of your reasoning.

Postscript: In one sense you are correct, sort of: The Bill of Rights was built on the Magna Carta and the moral imperative expressed during the age of enlightenment.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

Let's clarify things, shall we?

According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
"Definition of amend
transitive verb
1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (something, such as a text)

• amended the manuscript

2 a : to change or modify (something) for the better : improve

• amend the situation

b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition

• amend a constitution"

This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document. This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution. And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.

How many people on here have a complete lack of basic knowledge about the Constitution? That they think the Bill or Rights has no power, or less power than any other part is just laughable.

 

[Pop23]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

And you do like to quibble. Remember Daryl, it was you that said that the document is nothing more than words on a piece of paper. So, what exactly CAN BE DISCUSSED?

 

[westwall]

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

Let's clarify things, shall we?

According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
"Definition of amend
transitive verb
1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (something, such as a text)

• amended the manuscript

2 a : to change or modify (something) for the better : improve

• amend the situation

b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition

• amend a constitution"

This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document. This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution. And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.

And yet, the 2nd A. is the most imperceptive Amendment of all. It's syntax is baffling to all those who do not hold to the two extreme positions.

Its syntax is simple to understand except to those who wish to ignore the original language as it was used back when it was written, and those who have a political impetus to see the 2nd removed. The Amendment is as clear as day to anyone with a 3rd grade level English background.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Where does it say in the constitution that the militia is bound to the government?

The People have the right ti raise a militia without government authorization.

It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms so they may raise a militia to guarantee the security of a free state.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

How on Earth is the Constitution based on the Bill of Rights?

You can quibble with "symantics" all day, but until you understand some simple basic stuff, you're always going to be talking about "symantics", whatever the fuck that is.

People like you really should not be allowed to vote if you can't even understand simple basic facts about the US political system.

Let me guess, you voted for Trump.

 

[Pop23]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

Without the Bill of Rights, our Government would have likely failed by now.