Reason for Right to Bear Arms

[beretta304]

"The framers of the second and fourteenth amendments intended to guarantee an individual right to carry firearms and other common hand-carried arms. It is inconceivable that they would have tolerated the suggestion that a free person has no right to bear arms without the permission of a state authority, much less the federal government, or that a person could be imprisoned for doing so. As the Founding Fathers realized, every right has its costs, but the alternatives are often more costly."



What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Analysis of the Right To 'Bear Arms'

 

[PratchettFan]

Who told you this?

Do you honestly believe, that over 200 years ago, the founding fathers intended for you to own every single gun you ever wanted?

They wrote in "the pursuit of happiness" into the Constitution. If someone can afford to build a gun museum and place in it every known gun ever made and he had the cash, he or she could build it. Why speculate on a given?

"Pursuit of happinness" is not in the Constitution. It is in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[SniperFire]

"The framers of the second and fourteenth amendments intended to guarantee an individual right to carry firearms and other common hand-carried arms. It is inconceivable that they would have tolerated the suggestion that a free person has no right to bear arms without the permission of a state authority, much less the federal government, or that a person could be imprisoned for doing so. As the Founding Fathers realized, every right has its costs, but the alternatives are often more costly."



What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Analysis of the Right To 'Bear Arms'

'Militia' only applies to men.

Unless Leftards are arguing that women should not enjoy the rights of men, then the actual right to bear arms has nothing to do with militias and exists independently.


Which of course, it does.

 

[PratchettFan]

"The framers of the second and fourteenth amendments intended to guarantee an individual right to carry firearms and other common hand-carried arms. It is inconceivable that they would have tolerated the suggestion that a free person has no right to bear arms without the permission of a state authority, much less the federal government, or that a person could be imprisoned for doing so. As the Founding Fathers realized, every right has its costs, but the alternatives are often more costly."



What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Analysis of the Right To 'Bear Arms'

'Militia' only applies to men.

Unless Leftards are arguing that women should not enjoy the rights of men, then the actual right to bear arms has nothing to do with militias and exists independently.


Which of course, it does.

No, it does not. But you are certainly free to believe it does.

 

[SniperFire]

"The framers of the second and fourteenth amendments intended to guarantee an individual right to carry firearms and other common hand-carried arms. It is inconceivable that they would have tolerated the suggestion that a free person has no right to bear arms without the permission of a state authority, much less the federal government, or that a person could be imprisoned for doing so. As the Founding Fathers realized, every right has its costs, but the alternatives are often more costly."



What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Analysis of the Right To 'Bear Arms'

'Militia' only applies to men.

Unless Leftards are arguing that women should not enjoy the rights of men, then the actual right to bear arms has nothing to do with militias and exists independently.


Which of course, it does.

No, it does not. But you are certainly free to believe it does.

You can stomp your feet and say 'NUH UHN!', but that isn't a very strong argument.


ROTFL

 

[PratchettFan]

'Militia' only applies to men.

Unless Leftards are arguing that women should not enjoy the rights of men, then the actual right to bear arms has nothing to do with militias and exists independently.


Which of course, it does.

No, it does not. But you are certainly free to believe it does.

You can stomp your feet and say 'NUH UHN!', but that isn't a very strong argument.


ROTFL

The Founding Fathers clearly thought of women as second class citizens, if not outright property. Our society, to its credit, has evolved from that state of ignorance. Though not to the point of total equality. Women are still banned from certain military pursuits. But none of that has any bearing on your argument. The 2nd amendment clearly states the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms but it does not limit that right to any particular sex.

If you are claiming the 2nd amendment does not apply to women, then - by your argument - they have no right to keep and bear arms at all. I disagree with your position, as do the courts. But, as I said, in this country you are free to believe as you like. Isn't freedom grand?

 

[Defiant1]

They didn't intend Americans to own every kind of gun imaginable, that is for sure.

Yes they did. That's why they used the word "arms" not guns.

 

[SniperFire]

No, it does not. But you are certainly free to believe it does.

You can stomp your feet and say 'NUH UHN!', but that isn't a very strong argument.


ROTFL

The Founding Fathers clearly thought of women as second class citizens, if not outright property. Our society, to its credit, has evolved from that state of ignorance. Though not to the point of total equality. Women are still banned from certain military pursuits. But none of that has any bearing on your argument. The 2nd amendment clearly states the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms but it does not limit that right to any particular sex.

If you are claiming the 2nd amendment does not apply to women, then - by your argument - they have no right to keep and bear arms at all. I disagree with your position, as do the courts. But, as I said, in this country you are free to believe as you like. Isn't freedom grand?

Wrong again.

It clearly states why the right to bear arms shall not be INFRINGED.


I mean, read the fucking thing.

 

[PratchettFan]

You can stomp your feet and say 'NUH UHN!', but that isn't a very strong argument.


ROTFL

The Founding Fathers clearly thought of women as second class citizens, if not outright property. Our society, to its credit, has evolved from that state of ignorance. Though not to the point of total equality. Women are still banned from certain military pursuits. But none of that has any bearing on your argument. The 2nd amendment clearly states the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms but it does not limit that right to any particular sex.

If you are claiming the 2nd amendment does not apply to women, then - by your argument - they have no right to keep and bear arms at all. I disagree with your position, as do the courts. But, as I said, in this country you are free to believe as you like. Isn't freedom grand?

Wrong again.

It clearly states why the right to bear arms shall not be INFRINGED.


I mean, read the fucking thing.

Which is why the courts have held that an outright general ban is unconstitutional. However, the courts have never held that regulating gun ownership or use constitutes an infringement of that right. In fact, the courts have consistently held that it is the proper role of the state to do precisely that and to even institute an outright ban for certain members of the "people". Your beliefs to the contrary, while very nice for you, are irrelevant.

 

[SniperFire]

The Founding Fathers clearly thought of women as second class citizens, if not outright property. Our society, to its credit, has evolved from that state of ignorance. Though not to the point of total equality. Women are still banned from certain military pursuits. But none of that has any bearing on your argument. The 2nd amendment clearly states the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms but it does not limit that right to any particular sex.

If you are claiming the 2nd amendment does not apply to women, then - by your argument - they have no right to keep and bear arms at all. I disagree with your position, as do the courts. But, as I said, in this country you are free to believe as you like. Isn't freedom grand?

Wrong again.

It clearly states why the right to bear arms shall not be INFRINGED.


I mean, read the fucking thing.

Which is why the courts have held that an outright general ban is unconstitutional. However, the courts have never held that regulating gun ownership or use constitutes an infringement of that right. In fact, the courts have consistently held that it is the proper role of the state to do precisely that and to even institute an outright ban for certain members of the "people". Your beliefs to the contrary, while very nice for you, are irrelevant.

Great. You are learning.

Now, please don't lie about what the Second Amendment actually says from here on out.

 

[Sallow]

They didn't intend Americans to own every kind of gun imaginable, that is for sure.

Yes they did. That's why they used the word "arms" not guns.

So the founders intended me to own a thermal nuclear warhead?

You folks are really..really dangerous.

 

[Sallow]

"The framers of the second and fourteenth amendments intended to guarantee an individual right to carry firearms and other common hand-carried arms. It is inconceivable that they would have tolerated the suggestion that a free person has no right to bear arms without the permission of a state authority, much less the federal government, or that a person could be imprisoned for doing so. As the Founding Fathers realized, every right has its costs, but the alternatives are often more costly."



What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Analysis of the Right To 'Bear Arms'

'Militia' only applies to men.

Unless Leftards are arguing that women should not enjoy the rights of men, then the actual right to bear arms has nothing to do with militias and exists independently.


Which of course, it does.

Women didn't have the same rights as men..initially.

 

[SniperFire]

"The framers of the second and fourteenth amendments intended to guarantee an individual right to carry firearms and other common hand-carried arms. It is inconceivable that they would have tolerated the suggestion that a free person has no right to bear arms without the permission of a state authority, much less the federal government, or that a person could be imprisoned for doing so. As the Founding Fathers realized, every right has its costs, but the alternatives are often more costly."



What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Analysis of the Right To 'Bear Arms'

'Militia' only applies to men.

Unless Leftards are arguing that women should not enjoy the rights of men, then the actual right to bear arms has nothing to do with militias and exists independently.


Which of course, it does.

Women didn't have the same rights as men..initially.

The modern definition of militia still excludes women. See Prichard's post.

Does the right to bear arms exist independent of militia requirements, or not?

A simple yes or no would do here.

 

[Defiant1]

They didn't intend Americans to own every kind of gun imaginable, that is for sure.

Yes they did. That's why they used the word "arms" not guns.

So the founders intended me to own a thermal nuclear warhead?

You folks are really..really dangerous.

If that's what it takes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Technology, time, and cultural change invalidates the opinions of the Founders.

Why did America's Founding Fathers institute the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why did America's Founding Fathers institute the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

"In the fall of 1997, the Boston Police Department began a historic move from its former headquarters located at 154 Berkeley Street to its new headquarters located at the corner of Ruggles and Tremont streets in Lower Roxbury. The move marked both a new beginning and the closing of a significant chapter in the history of the Boston Police Department.

"As the oldest police department in the country, the Boston Police Department (BPD) has a rich history and a well-established presence in the Boston community. The initiation of a formal department began in 1838, when the General Court passed a bill allowing the city of Boston to appoint police officers. The department was structured after the model developed by Sir Robert Peele for the London Police force."

Without a police dept., the ability to call 911 and a rural population the Second Amendment made a great deal of sense when ratified in 1791.

 

[PratchettFan]

Wrong again.

It clearly states why the right to bear arms shall not be INFRINGED.


I mean, read the fucking thing.

Which is why the courts have held that an outright general ban is unconstitutional. However, the courts have never held that regulating gun ownership or use constitutes an infringement of that right. In fact, the courts have consistently held that it is the proper role of the state to do precisely that and to even institute an outright ban for certain members of the "people". Your beliefs to the contrary, while very nice for you, are irrelevant.

Great. You are learning.

Now, please don't lie about what the Second Amendment actually says from here on out.

I have lied about nothing and I challenge you to present a single direct quote from me which could even vaguely be called that. However, I do note your agreement that the states have the authority to regulate gun ownership and use. Or was that just you reading only the bits you like and ignoring the rest?

 

[PratchettFan]

'Militia' only applies to men.

Unless Leftards are arguing that women should not enjoy the rights of men, then the actual right to bear arms has nothing to do with militias and exists independently.


Which of course, it does.

Women didn't have the same rights as men..initially.

The modern definition of militia still excludes women. See Prichard's post.

Does the right to bear arms exist independent of militia requirements, or not?

A simple yes or no would do here.

No.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yeah, the right to bear arms is independent of militia membership.

End of that story.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yeah, the right to bear arms is independent of militia membership.

End of that story.

The phrase was not "militia membership". It was "militia requirements". You ended the wrong story.