CDZ The 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Our Second Amendment has absolutely Nothing to do with the concept of natural rights, or it would express it in the first clause.

Yes. All of the so-called 'natural rights' evolved from Judeo-Christian theology and the culture wars against pagans, and Greek social philosophy. The 'Enlightenment' atheists and Deists merely tried to steal them as their own, especially Locke's fans. Never mind Aquinas, Augustine, or anybody else.

Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment codifies a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right to self-defense:

…the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment; that is just right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is expressly about the security of a free State.

 

[danielpalos]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And that case law holds that the Second Amendment recognizes a right to self-defense, along with an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

That was the original intent and understanding of the Framers of the Second Amendment.

A simple error. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would Express it in the first clause.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment codifies a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right to self-defense:

…the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment; that is just right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is expressly about the security of a free State.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And that case law holds that the Second Amendment recognizes a right to self-defense, along with an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

That was the original intent and understanding of the Framers of the Second Amendment.

A simple error. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would Express it in the first clause.

Self defense is a natural right

 

[danielpalos]

Found this....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]

Wikipedia of all places!!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.

The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment codifies a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right to self-defense:

…the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment; that is just right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is expressly about the security of a free State.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

A simple error. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would Express it in the first clause.

Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And that case law holds that the Second Amendment recognizes a right to self-defense, along with an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

That was the original intent and understanding of the Framers of the Second Amendment.

A simple error. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would Express it in the first clause.

Self defense is a natural right

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

When questions arise with regard to our Constitution, one need seek no further than The Federalist papers.

Though, the Kentucky Resolutions and the Virginia Resolution are great reads, too.

Madison was probably the most honest and consistent Federalist; most of Jefferson's writings are aimed at whatever political goal he had a the moment, and mostly unreliable as indicators of what he really thought, even though he was the most important in the early years than Madison.

Dolley's Lapdog, Jemmy

Madison was a disturbed little person fantasizing he was a big shot with his vainglorious nation-building. He was so incompetent as President that he almost let the country lose its independence. James Monroe, even though he wasn't Vice-President (another stupid political invention of Madison's, like the rest of his Constitution), stepped in and saved the day after the "Father of the Constitution" had a mental breakdown.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The 2A isn't about personal self defense.

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And that case law holds that the Second Amendment recognizes a right to self-defense, along with an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

That was the original intent and understanding of the Framers of the Second Amendment.

A simple error. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would Express it in the first clause.

Self defense is a natural right

Representation Is a Re-Presentation of Unnatural Tyranny

Then why do all the sheep act like it is given to them by the Constitution? That oligarchic document is not a natural lawgiver.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And that case law holds that the Second Amendment recognizes a right to self-defense, along with an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

That was the original intent and understanding of the Framers of the Second Amendment.

A simple error. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would Express it in the first clause.

Self defense is a natural right

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Again self-defense is a natural right

 

[danielpalos]

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And that case law holds that the Second Amendment recognizes a right to self-defense, along with an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

That was the original intent and understanding of the Framers of the Second Amendment.

A simple error. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would Express it in the first clause.

Self defense is a natural right

Representation Is a Re-Presentation of Unnatural Tyranny

Then why do all the sheep act like it is given to them by the Constitution? That oligarchic document is not a natural lawgiver.

they allege to be capitalists. cronies may be what they are good at.

 

[danielpalos]

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And that case law holds that the Second Amendment recognizes a right to self-defense, along with an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

That was the original intent and understanding of the Framers of the Second Amendment.

A simple error. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would Express it in the first clause.

Self defense is a natural right

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Again self-defense is a natural right

we Are Quibbling, right winger.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And that case law holds that the Second Amendment recognizes a right to self-defense, along with an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

That was the original intent and understanding of the Framers of the Second Amendment.

A simple error. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would Express it in the first clause.

Self defense is a natural right

Representation Is a Re-Presentation of Unnatural Tyranny

Then why do all the sheep act like it is given to them by the Constitution? That oligarchic document is not a natural lawgiver.

I don't know I guess they are too lazy to defend themselves.

 

[ding]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And that case law holds that the Second Amendment recognizes a right to self-defense, along with an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

That was the original intent and understanding of the Framers of the Second Amendment.

A simple error. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would Express it in the first clause.

Self defense is a natural right

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Again self-defense is a natural right

we Are Quibbling, right winger.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Natural rights are not granted by man.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And that case law holds that the Second Amendment recognizes a right to self-defense, along with an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

That was the original intent and understanding of the Framers of the Second Amendment.

A simple error. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would Express it in the first clause.

Self defense is a natural right

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Again self-defense is a natural right

we Are Quibbling, right winger.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

it's a natural right to self-defense.
The second amendment is the means to preserve that right.

 

[ding]

When questions arise with regard to our Constitution, one need seek no further than The Federalist papers.

Though, the Kentucky Resolutions and the Virginia Resolution are great reads, too.

Madison was probably the most honest and consistent Federalist; most of Jefferson's writings are aimed at whatever political goal he had a the moment, and mostly unreliable as indicators of what he really thought, even though he was the most important in the early years than Madison.

Dolley's Lapdog, Jemmy

Madison was a disturbed little person fantasizing he was a big shot with his vainglorious nation-building. He was so incompetent as President that he almost let the country lose its independence. James Monroe, even though he wasn't Vice-President (another stupid political invention of Madison's, like the rest of his Constitution), stepped in and saved the day after the "Father of the Constitution" had a mental breakdown.

That stupid political invention has done more to spread liberty and freedom than any other stupid political invention.

 

[danielpalos]

A simple error. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would Express it in the first clause.

Self defense is a natural right

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Again self-defense is a natural right

we Are Quibbling, right winger.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Natural rights are not granted by man.

Natural rights are Recognized and guaranteed, in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment; Only, clearly expressed, civil rights.

 

[ding]

It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

No it doesn't.

The Second Amendment was made for a specific purpose. Just because it says "arms" doesn't mean it covers every single thing to do with arms ever thought of.

The 2A was designed to protect the militia by giving individuals the right to own weapons, so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to be in the militia so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel.

There was no reason for the Founding Fathers to protect the right to individual self defense as this had nothing to do with the government.

Self defense is actually protected, but not through the Second Amendment.

So Jefferson saw the need for carrying of arms for self defense. That's nice. He probably also saw the need for eating food, or breathing oxygen, or doing exercise, but none of these got protected by the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And that case law holds that the Second Amendment recognizes a right to self-defense, along with an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

That was the original intent and understanding of the Framers of the Second Amendment.

A simple error. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would Express it in the first clause.

Self defense is a natural right

Representation Is a Re-Presentation of Unnatural Tyranny

Then why do all the sheep act like it is given to them by the Constitution? That oligarchic document is not a natural lawgiver.

Because it prescribes a limitation on government of men to try to take it away.

 

[danielpalos]

A simple error. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would Express it in the first clause.

Self defense is a natural right

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Again self-defense is a natural right

we Are Quibbling, right winger.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

it's a natural right to self-defense.
The second amendment is the means to preserve that right.

However in the whole and Entire world, did you come up with that reasoning?

Our Second Amendment clearly Expresses the Intent and Purpose for the second clause, in the first clause. The Militia of the United States Must understand that a First Clause has precedence over a Second Clause.

 

[ding]

Self defense is a natural right

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Again self-defense is a natural right

we Are Quibbling, right winger.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Natural rights are not granted by man.

Natural rights are Recognized and guaranteed, in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment; Only, clearly expressed, civil rights.

All individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away.