The words "to bear arms" is a military term

[Sallow]

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?

nope wrong again the militia is not the national guard nor is it the government.

Militias fall under the jurisdiction of the Congress. Additionally..there are no provisions for anyone to attack the government. Indeed the Constitution has provision to suppress revolt and insurrection.

Your analysis is utterly wrong.

 

[zzzz]

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 15

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;

Does the guard allow their members to take those fire arms home with them?

They used to because they used to use these same firearms for hunting and varmits. Using an M16 to hunt a squirrel is a little overkill now days.

An American citizen has a right to own firearms as stated by the amendment, and the states have a right to raise milita. These rights cannot be infringed but can be regulated with limitations. Some gun bans infringe on this right but the right to own a machine gun ... I believe it is legal with the necassary permits. One person here owns several tanks too, but it cannot fire the main cannon.

 

[Ragnar]

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






See link for more.

Heller was a bad decision. I agree with the dissent..

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS—namely, 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 Amendment’s 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 are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest
2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
BREYER, J., dissenting
in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.

It was not only the right call IMO, it was consistent. A "prohibition" of arms for self defense has never stood when challenged to my knowledge. Not to mention it would likely go over worse than the prohibition of alcohol, or much worse. (Yikes)

Weather it's a "bad decision" is debatable of course, but it's not debatable that it's the law of the land.

In any case, even if the second amendment were to be read (incorrectly) as including and referring only to a militia, it can not be read as excluding the individual right. That being the case, the individual right would then still be protected by the tenth amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The National Guard is a militia.

Article I, Section 8; Clause 14 and 15

Does the guard allow their members to take those fire arms home with them?

They used to because they used to use these same firearms for hunting and varmits. Using an M16 to hunt a squirrel is a little overkill now days.

An American citizen has a right to own firearms as stated by the amendment, and the states have a right to raise milita. These rights cannot be infringed but can be regulated with limitations. Some gun bans infringe on this right but the right to own a machine gun ... I believe it is legal with the necassary permits. One person here owns several tanks too, but it cannot fire the main cannon.

And that right also includes military grade weapons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

nope wrong again the militia is not the national guard nor is it the government.

Militias fall under the jurisdiction of the Congress. Additionally..there are no provisions for anyone to attack the government. Indeed the Constitution has provision to suppress revolt and insurrection.

Your analysis is utterly wrong.

The second amendment was to prevent an oppressive government form taking control. End of story not else to add for you or anyone that disagrees.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

nope wrong again the militia is not the national guard nor is it the government.

Your assessment of what a militia is has never been right at any time in our history. Even the Minute Men

Militias were "well regulated"
They had rules on who could join and who had to join
They had set rosters
They had set training schedules
They had established rules and regulations
They were answerable to the state

 

[rightwinger]

nope wrong again the militia is not the national guard nor is it the government.

Militias fall under the jurisdiction of the Congress. Additionally..there are no provisions for anyone to attack the government. Indeed the Constitution has provision to suppress revolt and insurrection.

Your analysis is utterly wrong.

The second amendment was to prevent an oppressive government form taking control. End of story not else to add for you or anyone that disagrees.

time to run away and hide now

 

[rightwinger]

Does the guard allow their members to take those fire arms home with them?

They used to because they used to use these same firearms for hunting and varmits. Using an M16 to hunt a squirrel is a little overkill now days.

An American citizen has a right to own firearms as stated by the amendment, and the states have a right to raise milita. These rights cannot be infringed but can be regulated with limitations. Some gun bans infringe on this right but the right to own a machine gun ... I believe it is legal with the necassary permits. One person here owns several tanks too, but it cannot fire the main cannon.

And that right also includes military grade weapons.

No court in the land has ever agreed with you

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When have we had a knight or king in the United States of America?

What does that have to do with your claim that it has always applied to military service?

When did I mention military service? 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

It is not a military term, and is not talking about military grade weapons, whatever you think those are. Bear means carry, arms means weapons, nothing military in the term at all. If you are going to try to argue that it is a military term you are actually going to argue in support of the anti gun nuts that want to take away your right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms.

What type of arms you can keep is a separate issue, and is not covered in the Constitution. I seriously doubt most people kept a cannon in their home even during the revolution, and I do not want my neighbor to think he has the right to own weapons large enough to take out tanks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Welll....that is the traditional debate between gun rights-ists and gun-moderates as it regards interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Was that right meant to give STATE MILITIAS the right to exist, or was it meant to give CITIZENS the right to bear arms?

The language of the 2nd Amednment really isn't clear enough to know.

But the SCOTUS ruled on this issue a long long time ago, and it ruled in favor of citizens having the right to bear arms.

And let's face it, they are the final arbitors of that debate.

Sure it is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." How can you possibly argue that that is ambiguous? It is true that the need for the militia is used as a reason for the right, but I fail to see that the militia is no longer needed, or that the right is tied to the existence of a militia in the first place.

If you are really having trouble with the logic involved here I point you to the 9th Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because you do not see it there, it does not mean the right does not exit. That is how we have the right to privacy, and all the other rights we have that are not specifically listed in the Constitution. If you support civil rights you should not try to twist words to suit a position just because you like it, because it allows everyone who opposes the positions you hold to point out that the things you like are not listed at all.

Some people are always willing to argue impossible positions, I enjoy it myself. That does not mean that I expect anyone to actually believe those positions, yet some idiots actually do. Free yourself from idiocy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What does that have to do with your claim that it has always applied to military service?

When did I mention military service? 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

It is not a military term, and is not talking about military grade weapons, whatever you think those are. Bear means carry, arms means weapons, nothing military in the term at all. If you are going to try to argue that it is a military term you are actually going to argue in support of the anti gun nuts that want to take away your right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms.

What type of arms you can keep is a separate issue, and is not covered in the Constitution. I seriously doubt most people kept a cannon in their home even during the revolution, and I do not want my neighbor to think he has the right to own weapons large enough to take out tanks.

I suggest you go back to the OP Historically speaking it has always been used as a military term as in military grade weapons. This study is original historical research and analysis prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson
Meaning this link I used has precedence.
Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Especially since it is not a military term, it is a term used to describe owning, and carrying, weapons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They used to because they used to use these same firearms for hunting and varmits. Using an M16 to hunt a squirrel is a little overkill now days.

An American citizen has a right to own firearms as stated by the amendment, and the states have a right to raise milita. These rights cannot be infringed but can be regulated with limitations. Some gun bans infringe on this right but the right to own a machine gun ... I believe it is legal with the necassary permits. One person here owns several tanks too, but it cannot fire the main cannon.

And that right also includes military grade weapons.

No court in the land has ever agreed with you

I suggest you review the link I posted.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

nope wrong again the militia is not the national guard nor is it the government.

Your assessment of what a militia is has never been right at any time in our history. Even the Minute Men

Militias were "well regulated"
They had rules on who could join and who had to join
They had set rosters
They had set training schedules
They had established rules and regulations
They were answerable to the state

And to understand what regulated meant when the second amednment was written you must use their terminolgoy for that word. It meant to put in order in common place or natural state of being.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The National Guard is the militia

no it is not.

Afraid it is.....a Militia is not a bunch of randomly armed civilians

Actually, you are right and wrong at the same time. The reason we still have selective service registration is so that the government can call up the militia if it needs to. The National Guard is the organized militia, and every other able bodied man is part of the unorganized militia.

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Especially since it is not a military term, it is a term used to describe owning, and carrying, weapons.

What part of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed allows the government to dictate what is allowable type of weapon?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

no it is not.

Afraid it is.....a Militia is not a bunch of randomly armed civilians

Actually, you are right and wrong at the same time. The reason we still have selective service registration is so that the government can call up the militia if it needs to. The National Guard is the organized militia, and every other able bodied man is part of the unorganized militia.

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the government is going to use the military against itself when it becomes oppressive?

 

[rightwinger]

nope wrong again the militia is not the national guard nor is it the government.

Your assessment of what a militia is has never been right at any time in our history. Even the Minute Men

Militias were "well regulated"
They had rules on who could join and who had to join
They had set rosters
They had set training schedules
They had established rules and regulations
They were answerable to the state

And to understand what regulated meant when the second amednment was written you must use their terminolgoy for that word. It meant to put in order in common place or natural state of being.

Even when you try to change the meaning of regulated you still lose. To put in order means to control how it is organized and how it operates. Common place means at a regular meeting place. Regulated still means controlled

 

[Sallow]

nope wrong again the militia is not the national guard nor is it the government.

Militias fall under the jurisdiction of the Congress. Additionally..there are no provisions for anyone to attack the government. Indeed the Constitution has provision to suppress revolt and insurrection.

Your analysis is utterly wrong.

The second amendment was to prevent an oppressive government form taking control. End of story not else to add for you or anyone that disagrees.

Erm.

No.

It's a "fantasy" of the right.

There are no provisions in the Constitution to mount an armed assault against the Federal Government.

 

[idb]

Bigrednec...you continuously amaze me at how you can re-interpret the links that you yourself post up.
Once again you have read, at most, a paragraph and then somehow stretched that into a conclusion that the Second Amendment means that it is everyone's right to own and use military style weapons.

If you go straight to the Summary you'll get to the nub of the whole document.

...the "bear arms" expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service, especially in the militia.... the linked words were never used to describe hunting or other non-military use of weapons....in early America...virtually every militia act used the word "keep" or a close synonym to describe the requirement to own or have custody of a weapon and maintain it for military use...

So, my reading of that is that the Second Amendment allowed, or maybe even required, citizens to keep weapons in case they were called up for military service - it conferred no right to use them for any other purpose.