The Right To Bear Arms

[Markle]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:

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.

And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State. It really is that simple.

Thanks for posting the full Amendment.

Note that it points out the reason it exists "A Well Regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

I posted instructions for danielpalos to learn about commas, I mistakenly presumed that you would learn from it too. Apparently, neither of you could learn from that one, how about this one?

Are you really so ignorant about punctuation in the English language or are you pretending to be ignorant? How can we tell?

Show us where it says you can use a comma to appeal to ignorance of any terms.

Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation. Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance. Well, whatever floats your boat!

 

[Rigby5]

What is necessary is for individuals to bear arms.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

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.

Incorrect.
A use of the militia for the defense of country or state does not at all imply that is the only use/need for militia.
Militia is also where villages get their posses from as well as individuals in defense from home invasion.

Your problem is the classic, if A then B logic, which you are trying to subvert by saying if not A, then not B, and that is an error.
The need for a federal or state militia is not the ONLY reasons why there was to be no federal infringement on weapons.
Besides A, there is C, D, E, etc.
A well armed and trained population is also necessary for defense of city, village, suburb, home, and each and every individual.

 

[Rigby5]

The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?

Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State. And, you ignore this fact under the common law.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?

The People are the Militia. Only right wingers, never get it.

Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

That makes so sense whatsoever. The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Wrong.
The only source of any legal authority comes from individual rights and the individual right of defense trumps any state or federal need for defense.

Of course criminals to have the right of defense so do have the right to bear arms.
The only reason we can disarm criminals is not because they do not have rights, but that the rights of others who may be threatened by criminals could be given higher priority.

But that is not the case in society.
Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
That is not legally possible.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?

Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State. And, you ignore this fact under the common law.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?

The People are the Militia. Only right wingers, never get it.

Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

/thread

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What is necessary is for individuals to bear arms.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

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.

Incorrect.
A use of the militia for the defense of country or state does not at all imply that is the only use/need for militia.
Militia is also where villages get their posses from as well as individuals in defense from home invasion.

Your problem is the classic, if A then B logic, which you are trying to subvert by saying if not A, then not B, and that is an error.
The need for a federal or state militia is not the ONLY reasons why there was to be no federal infringement on weapons.
Besides A, there is C, D, E, etc.
A well armed and trained population is also necessary for defense of city, village, suburb, home, and each and every individual.

Schooled.

 

[kaz]

Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

That makes so sense whatsoever. The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Wrong.
The only source of any legal authority comes from individual rights and the individual right of defense trumps any state or federal need for defense.

Of course criminals to have the right of defense so do have the right to bear arms.
The only reason we can disarm criminals is not because they do not have rights, but that the rights of others who may be threatened by criminals could be given higher priority.

But that is not the case in society.
Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
That is not legally possible.

Criminals can only have their rights limited with due process, including their right to be armed.

It's not a question of "priority"

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

That makes so sense whatsoever. The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Wrong.
The only source of any legal authority comes from individual rights and the individual right of defense trumps any state or federal need for defense.

Of course criminals to have the right of defense so do have the right to bear arms.
The only reason we can disarm criminals is not because they do not have rights, but that the rights of others who may be threatened by criminals could be given higher priority.

But that is not the case in society.
Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
That is not legally possible.

Criminals can only have their rights limited with due process, including their right to be armed.

It's not a question of "priority"

Criminals who have paid their debt to society should be fully restored.

If a criminal is to be reformed, he must have rights restored. It is completely asinine to demand paroled criminals to conform to society, yet deprive them of the means to protect themselves. More often than not, they are in more need of protection.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The fact that we regulate machine guns (because of their danger to the public) means that we CAN regulate assault weapons as well for the same reason despite their "need" by the militia (which is a fantasy at this point}.

semiautomatics are not assault weapons

 

[hadit]

The fact that we regulate machine guns (because of their danger to the public) means that we CAN regulate assault weapons as well for the same reason despite their "need" by the militia (which is a fantasy at this point}.

semiautomatics are not assault weapons

If they're big and black, they'll be called assault weapons. Anti-gunners are scared of big and black.

 

[kaz]

Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

That makes so sense whatsoever. The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Wrong.
The only source of any legal authority comes from individual rights and the individual right of defense trumps any state or federal need for defense.

Of course criminals to have the right of defense so do have the right to bear arms.
The only reason we can disarm criminals is not because they do not have rights, but that the rights of others who may be threatened by criminals could be given higher priority.

But that is not the case in society.
Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
That is not legally possible.

Criminals can only have their rights limited with due process, including their right to be armed.

It's not a question of "priority"

Criminals who have paid their debt to society should be fully restored.

If a criminal is to be reformed, he must have rights restored. It is completely asinine to demand paroled criminals to conform to society, yet deprive them of the means to protect themselves. More often than not, they are in more need of protection.

If you're saying that's your opinion, that's fine. But there is nothing in the Constitution that says that.

I don't agree with your portraying it that their prison sentence is = repaying their debt to society. If your parents ground you for a week and remove your TV for a month, you can't say you can watch TV in a week because at that point your grounding is over. They are separate punishments.

Personally, I think it depends if I would give them their gun rights back after prison. I wouldn't give a blanket yes or no

 

[Lesh]

semiautomatics are not assault weapons

EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.

 

[Rigby5]

Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

That makes so sense whatsoever. The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Wrong.
The only source of any legal authority comes from individual rights and the individual right of defense trumps any state or federal need for defense.

Of course criminals to have the right of defense so do have the right to bear arms.
The only reason we can disarm criminals is not because they do not have rights, but that the rights of others who may be threatened by criminals could be given higher priority.

But that is not the case in society.
Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
That is not legally possible.

Criminals can only have their rights limited with due process, including their right to be armed.

It's not a question of "priority"

Due process is not the source of legal authority, but just the means by which we adjudicate when rights conflict.
It is a case of priority because when there is a conflict of rights, like there is when criminals harm others, we do have the authority to prioritize the rights of law abiding citizens over the rights of the criminals who are harming others.
If we could not prioritize laws abiding over law breaking, then we could never incarcerate anyone.
Due process is not what justifies it, but is how it is handled in detailed implementation.

 

[Rigby5]

The fact that we regulate machine guns (because of their danger to the public) means that we CAN regulate assault weapons as well for the same reason despite their "need" by the militia (which is a fantasy at this point}.

It is not clear we can legally restrict machine guns.
It is not clear they are a danger to the public, or that restricting them is not more of a danger.
The fact we do is it not proof it is right, because we do a lot of corrupt things we should not do, like Prohibition, the war on drugs, 3 strikes laws, asset forfeiture, etc.

But "assault weapons" obviously cannot be restricted because they can not be defined and do not really exist.
Nor is there any precedents since the 1994 assault weapons ban did not prevent the sale of any assault weapon.
It just made manufacturers to remove the bayonet lug and flash suppressor from ARs.

Nor is any militia a fantasy ever.
The fact we currently do not need the militia normally, does not mean we won't from a disaster like Katrina, a future war, increased gang activity, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 479370

How are terrorist militias considered "well regulated"? Who "regulates" them? How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"? We know who regulates the military and National Guard.

American militia movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You really are desperate, aren't you? Terrorist militias? Are you serious?

Obviously, like your good friend or sock Lesh, you believed that English grammar in school was a waste of good time. Allow me to help you both. Isn't it great that our Founding Fathers were NOT ignorant about punctuation?

Show us where is says you can use a comma to ignore any clause.

Again, if A then B does not imply if not A, then not B.
That is because although the need for the federal government to be able to call up an armed militia is ONE reason why there can be no federal weapons laws, there may be an infinite number of other reasons why an armed militia is necessary and there then should be no federal weapons laws.

The 2nd amendment did not say all the reasons why there is to be a ban on all federal weapons laws.
And it does not matter how many reasons there are.
The fact is it says there can be no federal weapons laws at all, period.

 

[Markle]

But that is not the case in society.
Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
That is not legally possible.

They (criminals) have the right to apply to have their rights returned. Due process.

 

[Rigby5]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:

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.

And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State. It really is that simple.

And, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is declared protected and shall not be infringed.

It's even more simple.

Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia who keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union.

I disagree.
The right of self defense is vastly superior to the need for the defense of state or country.
The state or country are NOT the source of any authority and can not be the main justification for prohibiting federal gun laws.
Individual rights are supreme, and the only source of any legal authority.
The fact a state and country can aid individual rights also gives these entities some authority, but it is only secondary and borrowed from the main source of authority, which is individual rights.

 

[Rigby5]

semiautomatics are not assault weapons

EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.

Wrong.
Assault weapons are a use where you want maximum rate of fire, so once automatic weapons became available, only automatic weapons have ever been referred to as assault weapons.
That is because they have such a higher rate of fire.
It is wrong now to ever refer to any semi automatic weapon as an assault weapon.

The history is that originally the blunderbuss was the assault weapon of the Revolutionary war period, because it was multi projectile, so the more rapid fire than an ordinary rifle.
By the Civil War, what was used as an assault weapon was a pair of percussion cap revolvers.
In WWI it was the pump shotgun.
In WWII it likely was the M-1 carbine.
By Vietnam, it was the full auto M-16.

Now that there are full auto M-16s/M-4s, you can't go back in time and say that carbines, shotguns, revolvers, or blunderbusses should be illegal.
And since the AR-15 is just a single shot carbine, is can not possibly be restricted in any way.

 

[Markle]

EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.

Which of these weapons are not semi-automatics?

 

[Rigby5]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:

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.

And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State. It really is that simple.

And, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is declared protected and shall not be infringed.

It's even more simple.

Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia who keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union.

By the way, "well regulated" means efficient and proficient.
It does not mean "restricted".
For example, the commerce clause of the Constitution:
{... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; ...}
Does not mean to "restrict".
It means the opposite, to "facilitate" by preventing anyone from restricting it.

 

[danielpalos]

Because all terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.

So, no individual has a right to be secure in his/her/its home from unreasonable searches?

All terms in the 4th Amendment are "collective" and plural.



Your collectivist argument falls to pieces every single time.

Look, if you don't like the 2A, AMEND. Otherwise, deal with it.

Only because You appeal to ignorance of our Constitutional form of federal Government. How typical of the right wing who want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth" simply because they are on the right wing.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (Source: California State Constitution)