True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

[Deleted member 61768]

LOL, State militias are not allowed to keep their firearms in their homes nor to open carry them like in the USA unlike in Switzerland. Best learn American Law!

That state militias require firearms to be kept in an armory is proof that they are well-regulated.

That does not meet "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" now does it!

It does meet the requirement for the home guard to be well-regulated as was the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment.

And as long as it only meets half of the Second Amendment that is all that matters to you right? I was in the only Airborne Infantry National Guard unit in the United States and while we may have been well regulated we were not free to keep and bear our arms so the peoples right as a whole were most definitely infringed upon. Try addressing the whole of the Second Amendment as it was written by the founders. It was written so that the common citizen could have a firearm at hand and be rallied a a "minutes notice" to defend the people. If you bothered to read how and why the "militias" were formed by the founding fathers but that is not your purpose now is it.

I have read the Second Amendment and I believe it was intended for states' militias, not an individual right.
Remember that the states saw the federal government as a threat on liberty similar to the English monarchy was seen then. It was meant to guarantee the safety of states to bear arms and to defend themselves should the federal government become an autocracy.

All I can say is you are wrong according to our founding fathers and the documents they wrote!

 

[danielpalos]

True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country 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." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Well regulated means what our federal Congress prescribes it to mean.

 

[Wyld Kard]

True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns

That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent. A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights. That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS

BECAUSE TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.

The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.

The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.

Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.

 

[frigidweirdo]

True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns

That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent. A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights. That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS

BECAUSE TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.

The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.

The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.

Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.

Yeah, you'd think.

However can you find me one day in US history where all prisoners in US jails and prisons were allowed to keep guns inside prison? Just one day?

I mean, if they made the law, and passed it, you'd think the next day, or a month later, or a year later, they'd be interpreting it pretty much how they intended it. So, which day in US history were prisoners allowed to have guns in prison?

 

[Penelope]

No BB guns are NOT OK, they got some powerful ones out there that can kill and cause seriouse injury just like a regular firearm, they should be banned too.

we are given the freedom to have guns to protect ourselves from criminals and liberals. Do you understand?


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Allº persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution. ()

Noº freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]

Thereº shall be no standing army but in time of actual war.

Printingº presses shall be free, except so far as by commission of private injury cause may be given of private action.

Allº Forfeitures heretofore going to the king, shall go to the state; save only such as the legislature may hereafter abolish.

Theº royal claim to Wrecks, waifs, strays, treasure-trove, royal mines, royal fish, royal birds, are declared to have been usurpations on common right.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0161-000

 

[danielpalos]

True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns

That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent. A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights. That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS

BECAUSE TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.

The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.

The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.

Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

 

[frigidweirdo]

True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns

That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent. A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights. That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS

BECAUSE TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.

The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.

The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.

Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.

 

[Deleted member 61768]

True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns

That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent. A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights. That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS

BECAUSE TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.

The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.

The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.

Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.

The nation's first militia's arms were made up of the arms purchased and individually owned by each and every militia member when the Second Amendment was written that is why the founding fathers wrote that he right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed! The later form of centralized arms and issuing arms to members did not come about until many many years latter. You are trying to force your opinion upon the Second Amendment rather than putting it into the historical context in which it was formed and written. Anyone who is an honest student of history who has read the deliberations and discussions around this subject can understand this. It is those who come at it with an agenda to prove have such a hard time with it!

 

[Eloy]

Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.

That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent. A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights. That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

BECAUSE TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.

The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.

The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.

Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.

The nation's first militia's arms were made up of the arms purchased and individually owned by each and every militia member when the Second Amendment was written that is why the founding fathers wrote that he right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed! The later form of centralized arms and issuing arms to members did not come about until many many years latter. You are trying to force your opinion upon the Second Amendment rather than putting it into the historical context in which it was formed and written. Anyone who is an honest student of history who has read the deliberations and discussions around this subject can understand this. It is those who come at it with an agenda to prove have such a hard time with it!

America id different today.

 

[danielpalos]

True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns

That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent. A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights. That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS

BECAUSE TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.

The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.

The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.

Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.

it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State. it really is, that simple.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.

That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent. A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights. That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

BECAUSE TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.

The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.

The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.

Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.

The nation's first militia's arms were made up of the arms purchased and individually owned by each and every militia member when the Second Amendment was written that is why the founding fathers wrote that he right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed! The later form of centralized arms and issuing arms to members did not come about until many many years latter. You are trying to force your opinion upon the Second Amendment rather than putting it into the historical context in which it was formed and written. Anyone who is an honest student of history who has read the deliberations and discussions around this subject can understand this. It is those who come at it with an agenda to prove have such a hard time with it!

Sort of. However you're not stating things clearly enough.

The reason arms were purchased by militia members wasn't because of the 2A, it was because of the Militia Act of 1792 which essentially forced people to be in the militia and to turn up sufficiently armed. Not much of a problem in those days though.

Secondly you act like there is only one right, the Right to keep and bear arms. There are two rights. The right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. The first is the right to own weapons, the second is the right to be in the militia. This is clear in the records of the Founding Fathers.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Where they said:

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Here it is clear that "militia duty" and "bearing arms" are being used synonymously.

""No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

And here "render military service" is used synonymously with "militia duty" and "bear arms".

I'm not trying to force my opinion. I'm actually stating what the Second Amendment ACTUALLY MEANS. Why? Because I've done the research. The simple fact is that you haven't provided a single document to back yourself up with.


Hey, I'll add another one. The Heller case.

"(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."

My point is that the right to keep arms protects an individuals right to own weapons.
The 2A has the right to keep arms, which is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that the govt cannot take away. This matches what the Supreme Court said. The part about self defense there has nothing to do with the 2A. There is a right to self defense, not from the 2A, however individuals can use whatever weaponry they have, Knives, TVs, guns, when defending themselves.

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

They didn't strike down Presser. Funny that. Do you know Presser? Because Presser said:

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

So, individuals can't do what they like with their guns. They can't just walk the streets. The right to bear arms isn't the right to carry arms, it's the right to be in the militia. And the Heller case affirmed this.

But hey, if you have any evidence to back up your claims, feel free to present it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.

That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent. A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights. That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

BECAUSE TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.

The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.

The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.

Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.

it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State. it really is, that simple.

Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?

They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.

That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent. A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights. That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

BECAUSE TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.

The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.

The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.

Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.

The nation's first militia's arms were made up of the arms purchased and individually owned by each and every militia member when the Second Amendment was written that is why the founding fathers wrote that he right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed! The later form of centralized arms and issuing arms to members did not come about until many many years latter. You are trying to force your opinion upon the Second Amendment rather than putting it into the historical context in which it was formed and written. Anyone who is an honest student of history who has read the deliberations and discussions around this subject can understand this. It is those who come at it with an agenda to prove have such a hard time with it!

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia. it really is, that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.

The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.

The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.

Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.

it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State. it really is, that simple.

Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?

They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.

just lousy reading comprehension? well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State; the unorganized militia is not. it really is, that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.

The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.

The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.

Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.

it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State. it really is, that simple.

Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?

They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.

wedge fries, curly cue fries, or onion rings, are not, specifically, enumerated as Necessary.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.

The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.

The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.

Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.

The nation's first militia's arms were made up of the arms purchased and individually owned by each and every militia member when the Second Amendment was written that is why the founding fathers wrote that he right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed! The later form of centralized arms and issuing arms to members did not come about until many many years latter. You are trying to force your opinion upon the Second Amendment rather than putting it into the historical context in which it was formed and written. Anyone who is an honest student of history who has read the deliberations and discussions around this subject can understand this. It is those who come at it with an agenda to prove have such a hard time with it!

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia. it really is, that simple.

Ans still not legally binding.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.

Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.

it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State. it really is, that simple.

Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?

They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.

just lousy reading comprehension? well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State; the unorganized militia is not. it really is, that simple.

Not at all. I know what it says, and I know how much legal impact it has. You're trying to tell me that "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state" legally binds the federal govt to do something. Okay, you think this, PROVE IT. Show me where the Founding Fathers said this was the case, show me where the Supreme Court said this was the case, show me something, anything. Because I know there is nothing there for you to prove, and I know you'll fail to prove this.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.

Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.

it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State. it really is, that simple.

Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?

They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.

wedge fries, curly cue fries, or onion rings, are not, specifically, enumerated as Necessary.

What's your point? Reading comprehension problems? I said "could have".

 

[danielpalos]

The Second Amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment doesn’t read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.

Shall not be infringed. Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.

The nation's first militia's arms were made up of the arms purchased and individually owned by each and every militia member when the Second Amendment was written that is why the founding fathers wrote that he right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed! The later form of centralized arms and issuing arms to members did not come about until many many years latter. You are trying to force your opinion upon the Second Amendment rather than putting it into the historical context in which it was formed and written. Anyone who is an honest student of history who has read the deliberations and discussions around this subject can understand this. It is those who come at it with an agenda to prove have such a hard time with it!

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia. it really is, that simple.

Ans still not legally binding.

did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, or economics?

If it is specifically enumerated, it is specifically binding.

 

[danielpalos]

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.

it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State. it really is, that simple.

Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?

They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.

just lousy reading comprehension? well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State; the unorganized militia is not. it really is, that simple.

Not at all. I know what it says, and I know how much legal impact it has. You're trying to tell me that "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state" legally binds the federal govt to do something. Okay, you think this, PROVE IT. Show me where the Founding Fathers said this was the case, show me where the Supreme Court said this was the case, show me something, anything. Because I know there is nothing there for you to prove, and I know you'll fail to prove this.

the Term is well regulated; that is the specific Term used. it does not say the unorganized militia is necessary. it really is that simple, except to the right wing.