True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

[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.

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".

You need to brush up on Contract law.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Seems to be one of those things people just "know", not from facts, or evidence, but just because they decided it was so.

Again, it's still not legally binding. So.....?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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".

You need to brush up on Contract law.

No, I don't. Every post you write is short, lacking in substance, and yet you try and climb to the higher ground. It's not happening.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

So what if it's a specific term? I asked you to prove your point. You didn't. So I'll take it as your point in wrong.

 

[peach174]

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

They got it right.
You're the one who has it wrong.
Back then the state militias were the people.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Seems to be one of those things people just "know", not from facts, or evidence, but just because they decided it was so.

Again, it's still not legally binding. So.....?

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

If it is specifically enumerated, it is specifically binding.

Any Thing to the contrary, is simply, legal fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

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".

You need to brush up on Contract law.

No, I don't. Every post you write is short, lacking in substance, and yet you try and climb to the higher ground. It's not happening.

just clueless and Causeless; i got it.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

So what if it's a specific term? I asked you to prove your point. You didn't. So I'll take it as your point in wrong.

Contract law depends on specific terms, dear.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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".

You need to brush up on Contract law.

No, I don't. Every post you write is short, lacking in substance, and yet you try and climb to the higher ground. It's not happening.

just clueless and Causeless; i got it.

Look, you've presented nothing, and now you're onto the insults. I think the ignore list is the right place for your crap.

 

[danielpalos]

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".

You need to brush up on Contract law.

No, I don't. Every post you write is short, lacking in substance, and yet you try and climb to the higher ground. It's not happening.

just clueless and Causeless; i got it.

Look, you've presented nothing, and now you're onto the insults. I think the ignore list is the right place for your crap.

just cherry picking your defense of valid arguments And abandoning your intellectual positions as well; how "brave" of you when on the US, national socialist right wing.

 

[Eloy]

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

They got it right.
You're the one who has it wrong.
Back then the state militias were the people.

Tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook Elementary.

 

[danielpalos]

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

They got it right.
You're the one who has it wrong.
Back then the state militias were the people.

Tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook Elementary.

Should we ask the "Colonels General" of the Regiments of that which is enumerated necessary to the security (and domestic Tranquility) of our free, several, and sovereign, United States; for leadership advice?

 

[ding]

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

They got it right.
You're the one who has it wrong.
Back then the state militias were the people.

Tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook Elementary.

Should we ask the "Colonels General" of the Regiments of that which is enumerated necessary to the security (and domestic Tranquility) of our free, several, and sovereign, United States; for leadership advice?

You should do that.

 

[ding]

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.

Yes, the people are the Militia. The right wing just owns more guns.

 

[danielpalos]

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

They got it right.
You're the one who has it wrong.
Back then the state militias were the people.

Tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook Elementary.

Should we ask the "Colonels General" of the Regiments of that which is enumerated necessary to the security (and domestic Tranquility) of our free, several, and sovereign, United States; for leadership advice?

You should do that.

thank you for "seconding that motion".

Dear Colonels General of the Regiments of that which is Proclaimed necessary to the security of our free States, should we ask the Union, for federal Standards?

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.

Yes, the people are the Militia. The right wing just owns more guns.

the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.

 

[peach174]

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.

Yes, the people are the Militia. The right wing just owns more guns.

the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.

It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.

 

[ding]

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.

Yes, the people are the Militia. The right wing just owns more guns.

the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.

It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.

He is right. We the people, you and I and every other law abiding peace loving citizen are the militia. He probably isn't.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.

Yes, the people are the Militia. The right wing just owns more guns.

the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.

It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.

No, it isn't. It is about, what is necessary to the security of a free State.