The Right To Bear Arms

[turtledude]

how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity

lol. it is in our Second Amendment. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

/-------/ "Only well regulated militia" Please point out the word ONLY in the 2nd Amendment and I'll turn in my gun at the next buy back program.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Our Constitution is one of limited and express powers.

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, nowhere is it claimed, the unorganized militia is as necessary.

/----/ Who is calling for an unorganized militia? And I still don't see the word ONLY anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless.

I don't see any mention of the unorganized militia as being necessary to the security of a free State, only well regulated militia.

that's because you are clueless and brainless. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a guarantee of a natural individual right

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed, as a result.

 

[Cellblock2429]

If guns were banned, only criminals and the government would have guns. Would that make you libs sleep better?

/----/ Yes it would

 

[danielpalos]

lol. it is in our Second Amendment. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

/-------/ "Only well regulated militia" Please point out the word ONLY in the 2nd Amendment and I'll turn in my gun at the next buy back program.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Our Constitution is one of limited and express powers.

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, nowhere is it claimed, the unorganized militia is as necessary.

/----/ Who is calling for an unorganized militia? And I still don't see the word ONLY anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless.

I don't see any mention of the unorganized militia as being necessary to the security of a free State, only well regulated militia.

that's because you are clueless and brainless. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a guarantee of a natural individual right

You are confusing natural rights with militia service, well regulated.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available, via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing but fallacy, is all the right wing has. How moral is that.

 

[ChrisL]

lol. it is in our Second Amendment. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

/-------/ "Only well regulated militia" Please point out the word ONLY in the 2nd Amendment and I'll turn in my gun at the next buy back program.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Our Constitution is one of limited and express powers.

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, nowhere is it claimed, the unorganized militia is as necessary.

/----/ Who is calling for an unorganized militia? And I still don't see the word ONLY anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless.

I don't see any mention of the unorganized militia as being necessary to the security of a free State, only well regulated militia.

that's because you are clueless and brainless. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a guarantee of a natural individual right

Stop picking on the mentally challenged. It is better to ignore him. He doesn't even know what he is saying. We know it doesn't say anything about a well organized militia. I have already proven that the founders consider the militia all the people/citizens of the United States. The ones who don't understand this already are mentally challenged, and that is why they will continue to lose and lose bigly.

 

[danielpalos]

Thank y'all for ceding the point and the argument; by not being able to, "stand your argumentative ground".

 

[ChrisL]

The Bill of Rights is a document that strictly limits the federal government's reach. EVERYTHING contained within it is about limitations on government power. The founders made it quite clear that they believed every citizen of the United States had a natural right to self defense, defense of their property and their land, and also their nation against tyranny using the most sophisticated weapons available so that government could never become tyrannical. The first step towards tyranny is to disarm the populace.

 

[hunarcy]

I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".

That is a lie. You are simply a Troll. You and your simple cohorts.

bear arms
DEFINITION

1. carry firearms.
   • wear or display a coat of arms.

I lie? Come off it.

Bear means LOTS of things.

bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

1) carry
2) support
3) endure
4) give birth to
5) turn and proceed in a specific direction

Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?

Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.

How do we know the difference? Context.

1) ‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
4) ‘she bore six daughters’
5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’

Now under your logic this is what happens

1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
3) she carried the pain stoically
4) she carried six daughters
5) carry left and follow the old road

The reality is that it's not the case, is it?

The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"

Sorry, but you're wrong.

You missed punctuation in school, didn't you? Quite a few other classes in English too.

I'm sorry, what the fuck?

You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?

Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all.

Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.

The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".

No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.

No matter how much you deny it, punctuation matters and the emphasis is not on the dependent clause, it is on the independent clause and while have been academians in the past that have tried to torture the Amendment to say what you wish it would say, the right belongs to THE PEOPLE and it shall not be infringed.

 

[hunarcy]

Thank y'all for ceding the point and the argument; by not being able to, "stand your argumentative ground".

No one ceded the point. They recognized the futility of arguing with a mindless troll. Your dogged repeating of your made up "points" did not make them right. Bye.

 

[danielpalos]

The Bill of Rights is a document that strictly limits the federal government's reach. EVERYTHING contained within it is about limitations on government power. The founders made it quite clear that they believed every citizen of the United States had a natural right to self defense, defense of their property and their land, and also their nation against tyranny using the most sophisticated weapons available so that government could never become tyrannical. The first step towards tyranny is to disarm the populace.

Yes, our Second Amendment is limited to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Thank y'all for ceding the point and the argument; by not being able to, "stand your argumentative ground".

No one ceded the point. They recognized the futility of arguing with a mindless troll. Your dogged repeating of your made up "points" did not make them right. Bye.

In other words, you are just clueless and Cause less.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed

You are incorrect. Again.

when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;

My right does not require state or union.

defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment

You are incorrect. Again.

Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary

The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.

Limited and express powers, dears. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Exactly. Glad you sobered up enough to admit you were wrong.

It says, well regulated militia are necessary for the security of a free State not the unorganized militia.

Yes, the right of the people.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

The people have the right.
In a militia, not in a militia, well regulated, unregulated, poorly regulated or overregulated, the people have the right.

States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.

So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.

It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.

It is the right of the People

Exactly! Are you in rehab?

The People=The Militia; why are You, not in rehab.

You were making sense. Briefly.
I thought you were off the drugs.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Daniel,

If I understand your argument correctly, the right shall not be infringed if we belong to a well-regulated militia. By "shall not be infringed" the founders meant no restrictions on any arms.

So, if we form a militia here in North Texas, and we become well-regulated, do we get machine guns, bazookas, grenade launchers, claymores, etc.?

 

[danielpalos]

Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary

The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.

Limited and express powers, dears. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Exactly. Glad you sobered up enough to admit you were wrong.

It says, well regulated militia are necessary for the security of a free State not the unorganized militia.

Yes, the right of the people.

The right of well regulated militia not the unorganized militia of the People.

 

[danielpalos]

States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.

So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.

It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.

It is the right of the People

Exactly! Are you in rehab?

The People=The Militia; why are You, not in rehab.

You were making sense. Briefly.
I thought you were off the drugs.

Lol, You are the one with nothing but fallacy instead of a valid argument.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel,

If I understand your argument correctly, the right shall not be infringed if we belong to a well-regulated militia. By "shall not be infringed" the founders meant no restrictions on any arms.

So, if we form a militia here in North Texas, and we become well-regulated, do we get machine guns, bazookas, grenade launchers, claymores, etc.?

It Only applies literally to well regulated militia of the People not the unorganized militia of the People.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary

The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.

Limited and express powers, dears. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Exactly. Glad you sobered up enough to admit you were wrong.

It says, well regulated militia are necessary for the security of a free State not the unorganized militia.

Yes, the right of the people.

The right of well regulated militia not the unorganized militia of the People.

Nope. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say right of the militia.
Nor does it mention restricting the right of the people to those in any militia.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.

It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.

It is the right of the People

Exactly! Are you in rehab?

The People=The Militia; why are You, not in rehab.

You were making sense. Briefly.
I thought you were off the drugs.

Lol, You are the one with nothing but fallacy instead of a valid argument.

And you're on drugs.