CDZ The 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

You simply appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land. That is why I can't take You seriously. It may be a "moral turpitude" to let, "practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy rule over us".

Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be Prescribed by our federal Congress.

It IS, the Gospel Truth, for the Militia of the United States.

You keep telling me I am ignorant on this subject but you don't seem to be able to refute what I am saying, other than to call me ignorant, lol.

It makes no sense whatsoever to grant the entity the 2nd Amendment was written to protect us from the right to regulate us.

Besides the Founding Fathers were very clear on this subject.

Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be Prescribed by our federal Congress.

It IS, the Gospel Truth, for the Militia of the United States.

It is in Article One, Section Eight. You would know that if you were more loyal to a God regarding bearing True Witness instead of merely having the moral turpitude of not having a Good argument, for even a God.

You are repeating yourself.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

Only Because, You keep missing the point. Infidels, protestants, and renegades, do that.

Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be Prescribed by our federal Congress.

It IS, the Gospel Truth, for the Militia of the United States.

It is in Article One, Section Eight. You would know that if you were more loyal to a God regarding bearing True Witness instead of merely having the moral turpitude of not having a Good argument, for even a God.

I'm not missing your point. I am telling you your point is wrong. The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Restricting government oversight was the intention of the Amendment.

all you have is right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is Express, not Implied.

 

[danielpalos]

only in right wing fantasy have you accomplished anything. in the ordinary world, you have nothing but fallacy, and a fallacy of false Cause, as well.

I have accomplished everything.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

lol. a wall of text to show you don't understand the concept?

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not the unorganized militia.

You should try reading it first.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

lol. so what. our Second Amendment is Express.

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not the unorganized militia.

The Second Amendment restricts the government from removing our God given right to defend our-self specifically from the government itself.

It is a States' right.

 

[ding]

You keep telling me I am ignorant on this subject but you don't seem to be able to refute what I am saying, other than to call me ignorant, lol.

It makes no sense whatsoever to grant the entity the 2nd Amendment was written to protect us from the right to regulate us.

Besides the Founding Fathers were very clear on this subject.

Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be Prescribed by our federal Congress.

It IS, the Gospel Truth, for the Militia of the United States.

It is in Article One, Section Eight. You would know that if you were more loyal to a God regarding bearing True Witness instead of merely having the moral turpitude of not having a Good argument, for even a God.

You are repeating yourself.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

Only Because, You keep missing the point. Infidels, protestants, and renegades, do that.

Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be Prescribed by our federal Congress.

It IS, the Gospel Truth, for the Militia of the United States.

It is in Article One, Section Eight. You would know that if you were more loyal to a God regarding bearing True Witness instead of merely having the moral turpitude of not having a Good argument, for even a God.

I'm not missing your point. I am telling you your point is wrong. The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Restricting government oversight was the intention of the Amendment.

all you have is right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is Express, not Implied.

I have personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified it.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment expressly forbids the government from removing our God given right to defend our self from the government.

 

[ding]

I have accomplished everything.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

lol. a wall of text to show you don't understand the concept?

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not the unorganized militia.

You should try reading it first.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

lol. so what. our Second Amendment is Express.

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not the unorganized militia.

The Second Amendment restricts the government from removing our God given right to defend our-self specifically from the government itself.

It is a States' right.

It is a people's right. We don't have group rights. We have individual rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be Prescribed by our federal Congress.

It IS, the Gospel Truth, for the Militia of the United States.

It is in Article One, Section Eight. You would know that if you were more loyal to a God regarding bearing True Witness instead of merely having the moral turpitude of not having a Good argument, for even a God.

You are repeating yourself.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

Only Because, You keep missing the point. Infidels, protestants, and renegades, do that.

Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be Prescribed by our federal Congress.

It IS, the Gospel Truth, for the Militia of the United States.

It is in Article One, Section Eight. You would know that if you were more loyal to a God regarding bearing True Witness instead of merely having the moral turpitude of not having a Good argument, for even a God.

I'm not missing your point. I am telling you your point is wrong. The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Restricting government oversight was the intention of the Amendment.

all you have is right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is Express, not Implied.

I have personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified it.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment expressly forbids the government from removing our God given right to defend our self from the government.

don't understand How words have Meaning, either?

all you have is right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is Express, not Implied.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. a wall of text to show you don't understand the concept?

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not the unorganized militia.

You should try reading it first.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

lol. so what. our Second Amendment is Express.

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not the unorganized militia.

The Second Amendment restricts the government from removing our God given right to defend our-self specifically from the government itself.

It is a States' right.

It is a people's right. We don't have group rights. We have individual rights.

I can't take you seriously anymore. You Only appeal to ignorance.

The People and the Militia are plural and collective, not Individual.

 

[ding]

You are repeating yourself.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

Only Because, You keep missing the point. Infidels, protestants, and renegades, do that.

Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be Prescribed by our federal Congress.

It IS, the Gospel Truth, for the Militia of the United States.

It is in Article One, Section Eight. You would know that if you were more loyal to a God regarding bearing True Witness instead of merely having the moral turpitude of not having a Good argument, for even a God.

I'm not missing your point. I am telling you your point is wrong. The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Restricting government oversight was the intention of the Amendment.

all you have is right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is Express, not Implied.

I have personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified it.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment expressly forbids the government from removing our God given right to defend our self from the government.

don't understand How words have Meaning, either?

all you have is right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is Express, not Implied.

Sure I understand words have meanings. The second amendment clearly forbids the government from removing our right to defend our self from the government.

Didn't you read the personal testimony from the Founding Fathers I provided?

 

[ding]

You should try reading it first.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

lol. so what. our Second Amendment is Express.

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not the unorganized militia.

The Second Amendment restricts the government from removing our God given right to defend our-self specifically from the government itself.

It is a States' right.

It is a people's right. We don't have group rights. We have individual rights.

I can't take you seriously anymore. You Only appeal to ignorance.

The People and the Militia are plural and collective, not Individual.

We aren't granted group rights. We are granted individual rights. And the rights we are talking about are natural rights not rights given to us by men. The Bill of Rights prescribes limitations on our government from removing our rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

James Mason Who is the Militia the people, of course,
holy shit you think the government needs a protected right to have a firearm

well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary. First Sergeants know that.

spoken in the terminology from the 18th century in working order as to be expected
Why do you think the government needs a protected right to have firearms?

You Only appeal to Ignorance. First Sergeants know their Orders.

Why do you believe the government needs a second amendment right?

 

[2aguy]

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.

You don't know what you are talking about......in D.C. v Heller they go through every historical and legal aspect of the individual right to self defense going back to England ..... so you are just plain wrong....

 

[danielpalos]

Only Because, You keep missing the point. Infidels, protestants, and renegades, do that.

Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be Prescribed by our federal Congress.

It IS, the Gospel Truth, for the Militia of the United States.

It is in Article One, Section Eight. You would know that if you were more loyal to a God regarding bearing True Witness instead of merely having the moral turpitude of not having a Good argument, for even a God.

I'm not missing your point. I am telling you your point is wrong. The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Restricting government oversight was the intention of the Amendment.

all you have is right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is Express, not Implied.

I have personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified it.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment expressly forbids the government from removing our God given right to defend our self from the government.

don't understand How words have Meaning, either?

all you have is right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is Express, not Implied.

Sure I understand words have meanings. The second amendment clearly forbids the government from removing our right to defend our self from the government.

Didn't you read the personal testimony from the Founding Fathers I provided?

lol. No, I didn't. You didn't understand the express concept or the implication on external, implied contexts.

 

[2aguy]

I believe I made it.

Ah, my favorite word: believe.

Believe means you think something you just made up that doesn't have that much basis in reality.

In this case, it seems to have no basis in reality.

OK...I MADE it.

Fine, and I'm telling you I didn't get it.

So, two choices. Be proud and pretend you made it and everyone can get it, or explain it again so people can get it.

Leo's point is actually quite obvious, if one can put aside bias, and see through the poor choice of wording....

No one ever claimed that the 2nd was not about self defense.

Really? I've claimed it.

The Supreme Court's claimed it.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Now, drilling or parading with arms, would be carrying arms. If carrying arms were protected by the 2A, then drilling and carrying arms would also be protected. They're not.

The NRA also says the this is not the case.

If there's a protection for carrying arms, then there's no need for carry and conceal laws, as it would already be protected.

The NRA’s dream bill could soon become law after quietly moving through Congress

"
NRA bill requiring all states to recognise conceal carry permits set to pass through Congress"

So, why would the NRA support such a thing if there is already a right to carry arms around as one wishes?

Moron..... read D.C. v Heller....where they show you don't know what you are talking about...

 

[danielpalos]

lol. so what. our Second Amendment is Express.

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not the unorganized militia.

The Second Amendment restricts the government from removing our God given right to defend our-self specifically from the government itself.

It is a States' right.

It is a people's right. We don't have group rights. We have individual rights.

I can't take you seriously anymore. You Only appeal to ignorance.

The People and the Militia are plural and collective, not Individual.

We aren't granted group rights. We are granted individual rights. And the rights we are talking about are natural rights not rights given to us by men. The Bill of Rights prescribes limitations on our government from removing our rights.

I know how to read a dictionary, too.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

James Mason Who is the Militia the people, of course,
holy shit you think the government needs a protected right to have a firearm

well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary. First Sergeants know that.

spoken in the terminology from the 18th century in working order as to be expected
Why do you think the government needs a protected right to have firearms?

You Only appeal to Ignorance. First Sergeants know their Orders.

Why do you believe the government needs a second amendment right?

We have a federal form of Government. Every First Sergeant knows this.

 

[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.

You don't know what you are talking about......in D.C. v Heller they go through every historical and legal aspect of the individual right to self defense going back to England ..... so you are just plain wrong....

State's security needs are incompatible with the natural rights, in Every conflict of laws.

 

[2aguy]

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

No, it clearly does not.

That's the Heller majority opinion. A very political piece of writing designed to not be too far from the meaning of the 2A, but pretending to give the right wing what it wants.

I knew a guy who helped on this case. He didn't believe that it gave the right to self defense until he got on this case. They pulled up some stuff from England and used it, while complete ignoring half of what happened in the US. Why? Because that's what they wanted. They wanted to make it about self defense.

No, the 2A NEVER, EVER meant self defense, the right are trying to make it so.

Did you read Heller, you twit..... they cite case law and court rulings gong back to before the foundint, here in the states....whoever you talked to is an idiot with an agenda against the 2nd Amenemdment....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Page 19.....

A pre exisitng right

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16
------------------------

Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

----

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d)


The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f)


None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.

 

[Picaro]

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.

Natural rights come from theology and philosophy, period. They aren't 'natural' in the sense atheists mean 'natural'; Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about 'rights'. Rights are enforced by civil authorities, not animals and trees.

 

[ding]

I'm not missing your point. I am telling you your point is wrong. The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Restricting government oversight was the intention of the Amendment.

all you have is right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is Express, not Implied.

I have personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified it.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment expressly forbids the government from removing our God given right to defend our self from the government.

don't understand How words have Meaning, either?

all you have is right wing propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is Express, not Implied.

Sure I understand words have meanings. The second amendment clearly forbids the government from removing our right to defend our self from the government.

Didn't you read the personal testimony from the Founding Fathers I provided?

lol. No, I didn't. You didn't understand the express concept or the implication on external, implied contexts.

I understand that if you didn't read the personal testimony of the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment then you are ignorant on what they believed.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment expressly precludes the government from removing our natural right to defend our self from the government.

I understand that no other part of the Constitution or any other amendment can supersede any other part of the Constitution or the amendments.

I understand the only way to alter an amendment is through the process prescribed by the constitution.

I understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check upon a standing army.

I understand that the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

And I understand that restricting government oversight was the intention of the Amendment.

Can you tell me what I got wrong and how it is wrong?

 

[2aguy]

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.

No, it was NEVER, EVER the original intent of the Framers. It's the DESIRE of the right.

Find me one piece of evidence from before 1950 that says the 2A gives a right to individual self defense. I bet you can't.

Hey.... you should really read Heller before you post again.....

From D.C. v Heller ...

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8

It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”

 

[ding]

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.

Natural rights come from theology and philosophy, period. They aren't 'natural' in the sense atheists mean 'natural'; Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about 'rights'. Rights are enforced by civil authorities, not animals and trees.

Natural Rights - Constitutional Rights Foundation

It doesn't matter what they believe natural rights are. It has been well defined and understood by the framers of the Constitution.