The Right To Bear Arms

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.

And, who told you that bullshit? Source? Cite? Quote?

You are pulling it out of your ass.

I give you quotes and you give me bullshit.



Victory is mine.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well regulated militia are People too.

So?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Doea anyone want to defend daniel in his failure to source his opinions?

 

[hadit]

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Noah Webster must have been a damn fool, that dictionary-making son of a bitch.

The unorganized militia is not declared necessary to the security of a free State.

Dementia is setting in.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Pathetic beyond belief. The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were. Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself. The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.

James Madison -

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Okay then, seeing as I've sourced the Founding Fathers, the US Supreme Court in the 1880s and the 2000s, where's YOUR EVIDENCE?

Pathetic is attacking people with nothing.

what is pathetic is denying the obvious

you should read the CRUIKSHANK CASE-that destroys your nonsense

I should read it? Apparently this is YOUR argument, and your argument isn't to go get the part of Cruikshank that destroys my argument, but to tell me that it does.

Bullshit. If it destroyed my argument, you'd have posted it here.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Again, your argument is an insult.

Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.

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.

you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills

Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.

you have admitted, several times you don't have a law degree, and your use of English is n affected erroneous version which demonstrates your programmer is not a native speaker

Says a person who can't make an argument, can't respond in an adult fashion to an argument and spends most of his time insulting people and boasting about how great he is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The second amendment and the right to self defense are a couple of the most important FOUNDING PRINCIPLES of this country. If you don't like freedom, then there are plenty of other countries that have governments that you can gladly surrender your rights to for a false sense of "safety." If you don't like freedom, then the solution is simple. MOVE.

So, where does it mention self defense in the US Constitution?

/
/----/ How about in the first paragraph: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,>>>>>>>>> provide for the common defense,<<<<<< promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence.

And there is this: The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for people to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.[1]
If a defendant uses defensive force because of a threat of deadly or grievous harm by the other person, or a reasonable perception of such harm, the defendant is said to have a "perfect self-defense" justification.[2] If defendant uses defensive force because of such a perception, and the perception is not reasonable, the defendant may have an "imperfect self-defense" as an excuse.[2]

Any more questions?

Common defense is, by definition, something people do TOGETHER..... self defense is, by definition, something you do ALONE.

But well done on providing evidence that has nothing to do with what I said.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does self defense make you happier?

Actually self defense is in the Constitution. The biggest problem here is that those people who demand that self defense is in the Constitution are the very same people who argue in other topics that if it's not written specifically in the US Constitution, it's not valid (and therefore Supreme Court justices are "making law").

It's in the Constitution in the 10th Amendment.

Funny how you missed that one.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

I didn't say punctuation doesn't matter.

I'm saying in the Second Amendment it doesn't matter. Or more specifically the two commas that may or may not exist.

You can have "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." as ratified by the states or "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." as was going through Congress.

The two extra commas don't change anything in the meaning.

But trying to pretend that this does anything is wrong.

The first half of the Amendment doesn't do anything. It merely says WHY the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms are important.

Now, think about this. The Amendment is about the militia. The Amendment says a militia is important. It doesn't say TV is important, it doesn't say breathing is important, it doesn't say a lot of things. But it does say THE MILITIA.

This is CONTEXT.

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons that the US federal govt cannot take away.
The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.

A militia without guns is not "a well regulated militia", nor is a militia without personnel.

However a militia without individuals walking around in the streets with their guns is the same as it would be if they were walking about with their guns.

 

[danielpalos]

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
— William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

That guy must be wrong.

Well regulated militia are People too.

 

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.

And, who told you that bullshit? Source? Cite? Quote?

You are pulling it out of your ass.

I give you quotes and you give me bullshit.



Victory is mine.

Simply being clueless and Causeless does not mean that you are right.

Read your State Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are People too.

So?

Those People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[turtledude]

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.

Pathetic beyond belief. The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were. Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself. The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.

James Madison -

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Okay then, seeing as I've sourced the Founding Fathers, the US Supreme Court in the 1880s and the 2000s, where's YOUR EVIDENCE?

Pathetic is attacking people with nothing.

what is pathetic is denying the obvious

you should read the CRUIKSHANK CASE-that destroys your nonsense

I should read it? Apparently this is YOUR argument, and your argument isn't to go get the part of Cruikshank that destroys my argument, but to tell me that it does.

Bullshit. If it destroyed my argument, you'd have posted it here.

1) you don't have a law degree

2) you don' t understand Cruikshank

3) you don't understand the entire foundation for the bill of rights

4) you don't understand the concept of natural rights and/or natural law

5) you don't understand that natural rights are not dependent on government nor membership in a governmentally controlled militia

6) you don' t understand what the founders stated

7) you don't understand that the RKBA also applies to people who are neither subject to the call up or eligible to serve in the militia

 

[turtledude]

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
— William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

That guy must be wrong.

Well regulated militia are People too.

artificial intelligence programs masquerading as posters are not people

 

[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.

you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills

Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.

you have admitted, several times you don't have a law degree, and your use of English is n affected erroneous version which demonstrates your programmer is not a native speaker

Says a person who can't make an argument, can't respond in an adult fashion to an argument and spends most of his time insulting people and boasting about how great he is.

posing posters like you aren't really worthy opponents for people like me. You don't even understand the concept of a pre-existing right

 

[danielpalos]

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
— William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

That guy must be wrong.

Well regulated militia are People too.

artificial intelligence programs masquerading as posters are not people

Nothing but diversión is all the right wing has

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Read your State Constitution.

I did. You want to explain how that makes you right about natural rights and the constitution, dumbass?

You don't know shit.

 

[danielpalos]

Did you read the declaration of rights?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Pathetic beyond belief. The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were. Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself. The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.

James Madison -

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Okay then, seeing as I've sourced the Founding Fathers, the US Supreme Court in the 1880s and the 2000s, where's YOUR EVIDENCE?

Pathetic is attacking people with nothing.

what is pathetic is denying the obvious

you should read the CRUIKSHANK CASE-that destroys your nonsense

I should read it? Apparently this is YOUR argument, and your argument isn't to go get the part of Cruikshank that destroys my argument, but to tell me that it does.

Bullshit. If it destroyed my argument, you'd have posted it here.

1) you don't have a law degree

2) you don' t understand Cruikshank

3) you don't understand the entire foundation for the bill of rights

4) you don't understand the concept of natural rights and/or natural law

5) you don't understand that natural rights are not dependent on government nor membership in a governmentally controlled militia

6) you don' t understand what the founders stated

7) you don't understand that the RKBA also applies to people who are neither subject to the call up or eligible to serve in the militia

1) you don't know whether I have a law degree or not
2) You don't know whether I understand cruikshank or not

Shit dude, this is more bravado from you. No substance but plenty of complete and utter bullshit.

Here's the deal.

I set out my argument using sources to back myself up. You couldn't argue against this
You claim to have an argument but you won't provide the argument, and then say this is me not understanding something
You insult all the time.

The ONLY reason I haven't put your sorry ass on ignore is because I'm having too much fun watching you make a complete spectacle of yourself.

You haven't said ANYTHING of substance in ANY SINGLE POST. Nothing. A lawyer you are not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills

Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.

you have admitted, several times you don't have a law degree, and your use of English is n affected erroneous version which demonstrates your programmer is not a native speaker

Says a person who can't make an argument, can't respond in an adult fashion to an argument and spends most of his time insulting people and boasting about how great he is.

posing posters like you aren't really worthy opponents for people like me. You don't even understand the concept of a pre-existing right

Hahahaha, funny dude.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear frigidweirdo
The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?

Dear frigidweirdo
The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.

Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?

Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?

The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?

To answer the other points.

Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?

In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:

• 1 Connecticut
• 2 Delaware
• 3 Georgia
• 4 Maryland
• 5 Massachusetts
• 6 New Hampshire
• 7 New Jersey
• 8 New York
• 9 North Carolina
• 10 Pennsylvania
• 11 Rhode Island
• 12 South Carolina
• 13 Vermont
• 14 Virginia

That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.


List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.

You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.

Dear frigidweirdo
I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
(a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
(though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)

Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.

So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.

I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
have equal right to defend your interpretation. So good job with that, but it still does not give
you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.

I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.

(A)
10 PENNSYLVANIA
had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population

Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"

Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).

A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."

(B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.

From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.

(C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations

1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
similar to car insurance that is decided by state.

2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.

What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.

I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.

Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.

This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.

Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.

People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.

Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.

111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia

"

• 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
• 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
• 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
• 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
• 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
• 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
• 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
  
  Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.

At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.

You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.

Very good frigidweirdo you have presented the best backing and historical justification
for the interpretation you support which I have seen up to this point.

Again, I still believe you have the right to your interpretation even without any such backing,
but by the nature of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.

In order to protect the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to security and protections of the law,
I find it legally necessary to educate and train all citizens and residents in Constitutional law enforcement and ethics.

Otherwise if people do not have knowledge or experience with the laws and ethics that the public and community agrees to enforce,
that is what causes breaches of the peace, abuses and violations.

So my definition of what is necessary for citizenship IS based on teaching people to be law abiding
and to use that educational, training and conflict resolution process to SCREEN for criminal disorders, illnesses or other incompetence
that would render someone "disabled" or "unable" to comply with laws without additional assistance, guardianship or supervision.

Those are my beliefs which I equally defend my right to exercise and enforce by
the same First and Fourteenth Amendment I would invoke to protect yours.

The difference I have found, is that I am willing to do the work and invest the resources
and set up the system in order to enforce the interpretation I support.

However, I find too many other people NOT willing to pay the cost or consequences of
THEIR interpretations. That is why people argue against gun rights because there is no responsibility for the cost of abuse.
Or against abortion rights or prolife beliefs where the advocates aren't taking responsibility for the costs to enforce those policies.

frigidweirdo are you REALLY willing to shoulder the cost to enforce your interpretation?

I have described what I believe it will take to ensure the right to bear arms is
exercised within a "law abiding" environment that is constitutional where it
is locally elected and enforced.

What about what you are asking, to require people to join militias?

Would you be okay with the proposal to reward districts for reduced
crime rates by the residents working WITH police and military to
offer the SAME training and screening for all citizens/residents seeking to bear arms?

That's not the same as joining a militia to have the same training and screening.
I suggest adding this to the neighborhood or district policies, or giving tax
breaks where communities effectively reduce crime and can invest those
dollars into their schools or programs for daycare, health care or elderly care
as an incentive to promote LAW ABIDING citizenry.

So I would focus on compliance with laws by education, training and job creation,
and not so much on "joining an official militia" unless you count citizen patrols and security training?

I still see it more as citizen based, not as militia run.

The militia, even the "first responders" cannot be the only ones trained
and relied upon for emergency response and criminal activity.

frigidweirdo as recent events in Texas showed, with both widespread
storms and flooding that sent independent teams to do rescue work,
and with the mass shooting that required citizens to intervene since
there were no police, we will always need active citizens IN ADDITION
to any such "militia" or dedicated emergency/first responders.

But if you want to call these a form of "trained militia" then you
and I are just using different terms for the same concept of
having trained citizens to ensure enforcement of laws and safety.

I just don't see everyone agreeing to be REQUIRED to join a militia
group, though I could see people agreeing to uniform neighborhood
ordinances when they are equally involved in the process of making that policy
that represents the residents and owners in that community.
If this takes the form of a "militia" then fine, but if it just means all
community members agree to work with police to go through the
same training to understand and comply with the same procedures,
that doesn't necessarily mean JOINING the police or militia to be enforcing the same
policies and standards for security in that district.

So I would think my interpretation is more inclusive of
yours and others, while yours would exclude people who don't
agree with the condition of joining a militia.

And the interpretation that includes more people's beliefs equally
would seem to me to be more constitutionally consistent
by not discriminating or excluding
but by accommodating and protecting people equally
regardless of their beliefs and interpretations.

I think the first problem here is that you take me for someone who has an interpretation in order to fit an agenda. The closest you're going to get there is that my agenda is the truth.

I didn't decide this to be the truth, I just found out that it WAS THE TRUTH.

If you really want to get to the places where it's not about truth but it's about how you think something would work in the future, then this topic enlarges itself massively. But this topic is about one single thing. I have said plenty of times what I think the biggest problem is in the US, and why the gun issue will never be solved, nor any other problem. The electoral system.

However your points that Texas shows that people need guns, my point would be that in the UK and most of the Western World, these things don't usually happen, except in the US.

The reality is that in the US you are four times more likely to die with your gun that you are in the UK to die without a gun.

135 police officers died in the line of duty last year in the US, zero died in the UK. All police officers in the US are armed.

You think your interpretation is more inclusive, I think my interpretation is the truth.

Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?

Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?

The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?

To answer the other points.

Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?

In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:

• 1 Connecticut
• 2 Delaware
• 3 Georgia
• 4 Maryland
• 5 Massachusetts
• 6 New Hampshire
• 7 New Jersey
• 8 New York
• 9 North Carolina
• 10 Pennsylvania
• 11 Rhode Island
• 12 South Carolina
• 13 Vermont
• 14 Virginia

That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.


List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.

You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.

Dear frigidweirdo
I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
(a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
(though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)

Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.

So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.

I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
have equal right to defend your interpretation. So good job with that, but it still does not give
you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.

I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.

(A)
10 PENNSYLVANIA
had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population

Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"

Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).

A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."

(B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.

From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.

(C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations

1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
similar to car insurance that is decided by state.

2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.

What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.

I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.

Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.

This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.

Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.

People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.

Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.

111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia

"

• 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
• 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
• 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
• 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
• 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
• 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
• 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
  
  Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.

At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.

You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.

Very good frigidweirdo you have presented the best backing and historical justification
for the interpretation you support which I have seen up to this point.

Again, I still believe you have the right to your interpretation even without any such backing,
but by the nature of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.

In order to protect the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to security and protections of the law,
I find it legally necessary to educate and train all citizens and residents in Constitutional law enforcement and ethics.

Otherwise if people do not have knowledge or experience with the laws and ethics that the public and community agrees to enforce,
that is what causes breaches of the peace, abuses and violations.

So my definition of what is necessary for citizenship IS based on teaching people to be law abiding
and to use that educational, training and conflict resolution process to SCREEN for criminal disorders, illnesses or other incompetence
that would render someone "disabled" or "unable" to comply with laws without additional assistance, guardianship or supervision.

Those are my beliefs which I equally defend my right to exercise and enforce by
the same First and Fourteenth Amendment I would invoke to protect yours.

The difference I have found, is that I am willing to do the work and invest the resources
and set up the system in order to enforce the interpretation I support.

However, I find too many other people NOT willing to pay the cost or consequences of
THEIR interpretations. That is why people argue against gun rights because there is no responsibility for the cost of abuse.
Or against abortion rights or prolife beliefs where the advocates aren't taking responsibility for the costs to enforce those policies.

frigidweirdo are you REALLY willing to shoulder the cost to enforce your interpretation?

I have described what I believe it will take to ensure the right to bear arms is
exercised within a "law abiding" environment that is constitutional where it
is locally elected and enforced.

What about what you are asking, to require people to join militias?

Would you be okay with the proposal to reward districts for reduced
crime rates by the residents working WITH police and military to
offer the SAME training and screening for all citizens/residents seeking to bear arms?

That's not the same as joining a militia to have the same training and screening.
I suggest adding this to the neighborhood or district policies, or giving tax
breaks where communities effectively reduce crime and can invest those
dollars into their schools or programs for daycare, health care or elderly care
as an incentive to promote LAW ABIDING citizenry.

So I would focus on compliance with laws by education, training and job creation,
and not so much on "joining an official militia" unless you count citizen patrols and security training?

I still see it more as citizen based, not as militia run.

The militia, even the "first responders" cannot be the only ones trained
and relied upon for emergency response and criminal activity.

frigidweirdo as recent events in Texas showed, with both widespread
storms and flooding that sent independent teams to do rescue work,
and with the mass shooting that required citizens to intervene since
there were no police, we will always need active citizens IN ADDITION
to any such "militia" or dedicated emergency/first responders.

But if you want to call these a form of "trained militia" then you
and I are just using different terms for the same concept of
having trained citizens to ensure enforcement of laws and safety.

I just don't see everyone agreeing to be REQUIRED to join a militia
group, though I could see people agreeing to uniform neighborhood
ordinances when they are equally involved in the process of making that policy
that represents the residents and owners in that community.
If this takes the form of a "militia" then fine, but if it just means all
community members agree to work with police to go through the
same training to understand and comply with the same procedures,
that doesn't necessarily mean JOINING the police or militia to be enforcing the same
policies and standards for security in that district.

So I would think my interpretation is more inclusive of
yours and others, while yours would exclude people who don't
agree with the condition of joining a militia.

And the interpretation that includes more people's beliefs equally
would seem to me to be more constitutionally consistent
by not discriminating or excluding
but by accommodating and protecting people equally
regardless of their beliefs and interpretations.

I think the first problem here is that you take me for someone who has an interpretation in order to fit an agenda. The closest you're going to get there is that my agenda is the truth.

I didn't decide this to be the truth, I just found out that it WAS THE TRUTH.

If you really want to get to the places where it's not about truth but it's about how you think something would work in the future, then this topic enlarges itself massively. But this topic is about one single thing. I have said plenty of times what I think the biggest problem is in the US, and why the gun issue will never be solved, nor any other problem. The electoral system.

However your points that Texas shows that people need guns, my point would be that in the UK and most of the Western World, these things don't usually happen, except in the US.

The reality is that in the US you are four times more likely to die with your gun that you are in the UK to die without a gun.

135 police officers died in the line of duty last year in the US, zero died in the UK. All police officers in the US are armed.

You think your interpretation is more inclusive, I think my interpretation is the truth.

To tell you the honest truth, frigidweirdo
I'm sure the founders back then argued this same way, didn't agree either,
and ended up with the law written as it was to accommodate BOTH.
So it BOTH included the right of people individually
FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS RESPECTING THAT WAY
as well as allowed for state militias
FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS BASED ON THAT.

The common factor was the STATES would pass laws
and not the Feds controlling all the access to arms,
because that's what they feared would get corrupted,oppressive and tyrannical
if there wasn't some check against Federal abuse of collective authority.

SEE below:

These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or non-restrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.

As the founders fought the same arguments we have today re Federal vs. State authority, I'm sure they disagreed and argued about who had the right to bear arms
in this same divided context. (I also read into certain state histories with issues over Catholics having equal right to bear arms because of the fear of abuse/violent crime.)

As for the citation on PA, I apologize for not looking up the direct reference previously
so I cited wrong online. (My excuse is my copy of Levy's "Origin of the Bill of Rights" got rescued from the flood and stashed in storage, so I took a shortcut and tried to search for a paraphrase instead of getting the source verbatim, Sorry!)

The CORRECT statement is that PA didn't have a state militia at the time of its STATE constitution which cited the right to bear arms, so clearly the STATE law on the right to bear arms didn't refer to state militia because they didn't have one. Sorry I miscited that.

Here is the corrected explanation:

In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence, the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms — the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia). One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally, Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.

Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

frigidweirdo thank you for at least explaining the history behind your conclusion.
I usually get the explanation that the big fear at the time was the British Crown and forces
taking away weapons from the colonists in order to keep them subordinated.
So the same fear was that if Federal govt required only militia to have weapons
that same scenario could happen of abusing militia to oppress the people.
That's the usual argument in favor of individuals retaining the right to check and defend against that as well!

But since you challenge that, I asked another source
and got yet another explanation I hadn't heard before:
If state militia had the right to take arms against federal govt
then the fight for Southern secession would have been legal.
I kinda get that argument, but still see it as whoever is enforcing
laws is in the right, and whoever is abusing force to violate laws
is what makes it unlawful. In the case of the Civil War there was
right and wrong on both sides: slavery was a violation of natural
laws by which people should have equal protections of rights,
but the federal govt should have respected the sovereign
consent of states and settled the conflict peaceably without force.
The fact both sides resorted to force ends up violating protections on both sides
because they both failed to resolve the conflicts peaceably by democratic process.

So I don't follow that argument
as easily as I do the historical argument
that the Second Amendment was influenced
by colonists having to take up arms to stop
oppression by collective govt, so they didn't want
to concede this right to bear arms to any higher govt that could become corrupted.

You can believe you have the truth
but so do people who cite history to argue the other way.

Again, honestly, I believe this is the same boat
the founders were in who didn't agree either
on federal vs. state authority and the right of the people.