Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
People not in a militia or not actively defending the country do not have a "right" to bear arms.
Your conflation of the 2nd amendment is hilarious by the way.
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 253.
(a) The Amendments prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clauses text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 222.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Courts interpretation
of the operative clause. The militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens militia would be preserved. Pp. 2228.
People not in a militia or not actively defending the country do not have a "right" to bear arms.
You're conflation of the 2nd amendment is hilarious by the way.
Which goes back to the question who is the militia? The people are the militia.
The National Guard is the militia
Seems like bigreb is trying to remove arms from citizens who are not associated with a militia. That is the only purpose to "bear arms"
Personally, I think you should be allowed a weapon to protect yourself
You are really really really confused.
I said It's a military term, and is talking about military grade weapons. Which means the people have the right to own military style weapons. You know the kind those black mean looking rifle's
Claiming it is a military term only ties it to the "well regulated militia"
I don't think you want to go there
People not in a militia or not actively defending the country do not have a "right" to bear arms.
You're conflation of the 2nd amendment is hilarious by the way.
Which goes back to the question who is the militia? The people are the militia.
That's correct.
But we now have a professional standing army under federal control. That was never original intent.
Which goes back to the question who is the militia? The people are the militia.
The National Guard is the militia
The why has our "militias" been used to fight in foreign wars like WW2?
Which goes back to the question who is the militia? The people are the militia.
That's correct.
But we now have a professional standing army under federal control. That was never original intent.
the original intent of the second amendment was to protect the rights of the people against an oppressive government.
Which goes back to the question who is the militia? The people are the militia.
The National Guard is the militia
no it is not.
The National Guard is the militia
The why has our "militias" been used to fight in foreign wars like WW2?
Which militias fought WWII?
The National Guard is the militia
no it is not.
Afraid it is.....a Militia is not a bunch of randomly armed civilians
Which goes back to the question who is the militia? The people are the militia.
The National Guard is the militia
The why has our "militias" been used to fight in foreign wars like WW2?
The National Guard is the militia
The why has our "militias" been used to fight in foreign wars like WW2?
Which militias fought WWII?
I believe there was a gramatical error in the printing of the Amendment. The original authors never paid any attention to it because it was assumed that the right own and carry rifles and pistols was a given right in the Amendment.
Amendment II should read as such:
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.
Instead of a comma after state it should have a semicolon. But even with the comma instead of the semi colon the inferance of the sentence implies that a well regulated milita is necassary for the security of the individual states. This harkens back to states rights and the ability of the indivdual states to raise milita to fight Native Americans and other people who invade the state or against inusrrections.
The second part of the sentence concerns each individual citizens right to own and carry rifles, shotguns and pistols. The Amendment gives citizens the right to own and carry these for whatever purpose they choose.
OK then the national guard as directed by the federal government is unconstitutional. We should only have a regular military and the militia comprised of private citizens and no national guard.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
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;
People not in a militia or not actively defending the country do not have a "right" to bear arms.
Your conflation of the 2nd amendment is hilarious by the way.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 253.
(a) The Amendments prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clauses text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 222.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Courts interpretation
of the operative clause. The militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens militia would be preserved. Pp. 2228.
See link for more.
The majoritys conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE STEVENSnamely, that the Second Amendment protectsmilitia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18thcentury citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well.But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendments concern.The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests arewhether they do or do not include an independent interest
2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
BREYER, J., dissenting
in self-defensethe majoritys view cannot be correct unless it can show that the Districts regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.
I believe there was a gramatical error in the printing of the Amendment. The original authors never paid any attention to it because it was assumed that the right own and carry rifles and pistols was a given right in the Amendment.
Amendment II should read as such:
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.
Instead of a comma after state it should have a semicolon. But even with the comma instead of the semi colon the inferance of the sentence implies that a well regulated milita is necassary for the security of the individual states. This harkens back to states rights and the ability of the indivdual states to raise milita to fight Native Americans and other people who invade the state or against inusrrections.
The second part of the sentence concerns each individual citizens right to own and carry rifles, shotguns and pistols. The Amendment gives citizens the right to own and carry these for whatever purpose they choose.
OK then the national guard as directed by the federal government is unconstitutional. We should only have a regular military and the militia comprised of private citizens and no national guard.
The National Guard is a militia.
Article I, Section 8; Clause 14 and 15To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
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;
That's correct.
But we now have a professional standing army under federal control. That was never original intent.
the original intent of the second amendment was to protect the rights of the people against an oppressive government.
No it wasn't
Militias were used to fill the void of a standing Army. In fact, in 1812, that was all we had in place to fight the Brittish. Well Regulated militias were formed in each county to protect against indians and foreign attacks.
NOT our own Government
The second amendment was included so that people could keep their own arms in order to belong to "well regulated militias"
The why has our "militias" been used to fight in foreign wars like WW2?
Which militias fought WWII?
Throughout the 19th century the regular Army was small, and the militia provided the majority of the troops during the Mexican-American War, the start of the American Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1903, part of the militia was federalized and renamed the National Guard and organized as a Reserve force for the Army. In World War I, the National Guard made up 40 percent of the U.S. combat divisions in France. In World War II the National Guard made up 19 divisions. One hundred forty thousand Guardsmen were mobilized during the Korean War and over 63,000 for Operation Desert Storm. They have also participated in U.S. peacekeeping operations in Somalia, Haiti, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo as well as for natural disasters, strikes, riots and security for the Olympic Games when they have been in the States.
National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I believe there was a gramatical error in the printing of the Amendment. The original authors never paid any attention to it because it was assumed that the right own and carry rifles and pistols was a given right in the Amendment.
Amendment II should read as such:
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.
Instead of a comma after state it should have a semicolon. But even with the comma instead of the semi colon the inferance of the sentence implies that a well regulated milita is necassary for the security of the individual states. This harkens back to states rights and the ability of the indivdual states to raise milita to fight Native Americans and other people who invade the state or against inusrrections.
The second part of the sentence concerns each individual citizens right to own and carry rifles, shotguns and pistols. The Amendment gives citizens the right to own and carry these for whatever purpose they choose.
OK then the national guard as directed by the federal government is unconstitutional. We should only have a regular military and the militia comprised of private citizens and no national guard.
The National Guard is a militia.
Article I, Section 8; Clause 14 and 15To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
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;
the original intent of the second amendment was to protect the rights of the people against an oppressive government.
No it wasn't
Militias were used to fill the void of a standing Army. In fact, in 1812, that was all we had in place to fight the Brittish. Well Regulated militias were formed in each county to protect against indians and foreign attacks.
NOT our own Government
The second amendment was included so that people could keep their own arms in order to belong to "well regulated militias"
oh yes it was the intent of the second amendment. Tell me why would the federal government need a constitutional right to keep a fire arm? Tell me does anyone in the military allowed to take their weapons home with them?
No it wasn't
Militias were used to fill the void of a standing Army. In fact, in 1812, that was all we had in place to fight the Brittish. Well Regulated militias were formed in each county to protect against indians and foreign attacks.
NOT our own Government
The second amendment was included so that people could keep their own arms in order to belong to "well regulated militias"
oh yes it was the intent of the second amendment. Tell me why would the federal government need a constitutional right to keep a fire arm? Tell me does anyone in the military allowed to take their weapons home with them?
They did back then. You needed a constitutional amendment so that you could round up your local "well regulated militias" to fight off indians or foreign attacks. Every militia man had his own gun
They don't anymore. Does that mean the second amendment is now obsolete?
No it wasn't
Militias were used to fill the void of a standing Army. In fact, in 1812, that was all we had in place to fight the Brittish. Well Regulated militias were formed in each county to protect against indians and foreign attacks.
NOT our own Government
The second amendment was included so that people could keep their own arms in order to belong to "well regulated militias"
oh yes it was the intent of the second amendment. Tell me why would the federal government need a constitutional right to keep a fire arm? Tell me does anyone in the military allowed to take their weapons home with them?
They did back then. You needed a constitutional amendment so that you could round up your local "well regulated militias" to fight off indians or foreign attacks. Every militia man had his own gun
They don't anymore. Does that mean the second amendment is now obsolete?
