What is the meaning of "militia" in the second amendment?

[M14 Shooter]

I don't have an issue with what the court ruled, as given the circumstances, they could not have honestly ruled anything else.

I disagree, they could have ruled that the arrest was a farce, which it was, and that the entire NFA was a farce, which it was, but oh well, can't change history.

Not without the evidence that a short-barrel shotgun was related to the efficacy of the militia.

Oh please, that evidence was available to anyone who cared to look.

The evidence was not presented to the court

Hmm, I wonder why.

I don't.
Miller died before the court heard the case, and so his side did not present any evidence at all, much less that which the court sought.

 

[bendog]

LOL!

 

[westwall]

A well regulated militia, in 1790, would include cannon, horses, muskets, and swords.

Militias were intended to allow frontier communities to fend off Indians, the Spanish, or anyone else who would interfere with manifest destiny.

It was debated whether or not centrally locating the ordinance was wise, and decided against.
The freedom to own arms for personal protection wasn't part of the conversation, because every home had them, by necessity.

The original intent behind the second amendment does not address whether or not Americans today should be able to possess entirely unrestricted military equipment. Nor does it do anything to support the idea that racist redneck crackpots, or street gang members, should be able to conceal or open carry

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.

the amendment never states that.....I seriously doubt it was even considered as everyone carried a weapon of some kind or another ,hunting was a major part of feeding the people so a shootin' iron was basic equipment.

It is implied. Furthermore it is well documented that the Founders realized that firearms in the hands of the citizenry were essential to prevent tyranny.

False .

A well regulated militia, in 1790, would include cannon, horses, muskets, and swords.

Militias were intended to allow frontier communities to fend off Indians, the Spanish, or anyone else who would interfere with manifest destiny.

It was debated whether or not centrally locating the ordinance was wise, and decided against.
The freedom to own arms for personal protection wasn't part of the conversation, because every home had them, by necessity.

The original intent behind the second amendment does not address whether or not Americans today should be able to possess entirely unrestricted military equipment. Nor does it do anything to support the idea that racist redneck crackpots, or street gang members, should be able to conceal or open carry

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.

the amendment never states that.....I seriously doubt it was even considered as everyone carried a weapon of some kind or another ,hunting was a major part of feeding the people so a shootin' iron was basic equipment.

It is implied. Furthermore it is well documented that the Founders realized that firearms in the hands of the citizenry were essential to prevent tyranny.

False .

That the best you got? How about some evidence to support your BS there, junior.

 

[westwall]

A well regulated militia, in 1790, would include cannon, horses, muskets, and swords.

Militias were intended to allow frontier communities to fend off Indians, the Spanish, or anyone else who would interfere with manifest destiny.

It was debated whether or not centrally locating the ordinance was wise, and decided against.
The freedom to own arms for personal protection wasn't part of the conversation, because every home had them, by necessity.

The original intent behind the second amendment does not address whether or not Americans today should be able to possess entirely unrestricted military equipment. Nor does it do anything to support the idea that racist redneck crackpots, or street gang members, should be able to conceal or open carry

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.

the amendment never states that.....I seriously doubt it was even considered as everyone carried a weapon of some kind or another ,hunting was a major part of feeding the people so a shootin' iron was basic equipment.

It is implied. Furthermore it is well documented that the Founders realized that firearms in the hands of the citizenry were essential to prevent tyranny.

Implied? By what, penumbras?

For heavens sake dainty you're even more moronic than usual. Have you never read a fucking book on the founding of this country?


“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

Richard Henry Lee, Anti-Federalist

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” –Federal Farmer, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788


How many hundred more do I need to post to beat it into your inordinately thick skull that the 2nd Amendment is to preserve liberty against a tyrannical government?

 

[daws101]

A well regulated militia, in 1790, would include cannon, horses, muskets, and swords.

Militias were intended to allow frontier communities to fend off Indians, the Spanish, or anyone else who would interfere with manifest destiny.

It was debated whether or not centrally locating the ordinance was wise, and decided against.
The freedom to own arms for personal protection wasn't part of the conversation, because every home had them, by necessity.

The original intent behind the second amendment does not address whether or not Americans today should be able to possess entirely unrestricted military equipment. Nor does it do anything to support the idea that racist redneck crackpots, or street gang members, should be able to conceal or open carry

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.

the amendment never states that.....I seriously doubt it was even considered as everyone carried a weapon of some kind or another ,hunting was a major part of feeding the people so a shootin' iron was basic equipment.

It is implied. Furthermore it is well documented that the Founders realized that firearms in the hands of the citizenry were essential to prevent tyranny.

False .

A well regulated militia, in 1790, would include cannon, horses, muskets, and swords.

Militias were intended to allow frontier communities to fend off Indians, the Spanish, or anyone else who would interfere with manifest destiny.

It was debated whether or not centrally locating the ordinance was wise, and decided against.
The freedom to own arms for personal protection wasn't part of the conversation, because every home had them, by necessity.

The original intent behind the second amendment does not address whether or not Americans today should be able to possess entirely unrestricted military equipment. Nor does it do anything to support the idea that racist redneck crackpots, or street gang members, should be able to conceal or open carry

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.

the amendment never states that.....I seriously doubt it was even considered as everyone carried a weapon of some kind or another ,hunting was a major part of feeding the people so a shootin' iron was basic equipment.

It is implied. Furthermore it is well documented that the Founders realized that firearms in the hands of the citizenry were essential to prevent tyranny.

False .

That the best you got? How about some evidence to support your BS there, junior.

Lol the evidence for not being in the amendment is not being in the amendment .

 

[daws101]

A well regulated militia, in 1790, would include cannon, horses, muskets, and swords.

Militias were intended to allow frontier communities to fend off Indians, the Spanish, or anyone else who would interfere with manifest destiny.

It was debated whether or not centrally locating the ordinance was wise, and decided against.
The freedom to own arms for personal protection wasn't part of the conversation, because every home had them, by necessity.

The original intent behind the second amendment does not address whether or not Americans today should be able to possess entirely unrestricted military equipment. Nor does it do anything to support the idea that racist redneck crackpots, or street gang members, should be able to conceal or open carry

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.

the amendment never states that.....I seriously doubt it was even considered as everyone carried a weapon of some kind or another ,hunting was a major part of feeding the people so a shootin' iron was basic equipment.

It is implied. Furthermore it is well documented that the Founders realized that firearms in the hands of the citizenry were essential to prevent tyranny.

Implied? By what, penumbras?

For heavens sake dainty you're even more moronic than usual. Have you never read a fucking book on the founding of this country?


“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

Richard Henry Lee, Anti-Federalist

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” –Federal Farmer, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788


How many hundred more do I need to post to beat it into your inordinately thick skull that the 2nd Amendment is to preserve liberty against a tyrannical government?

True, but says nothing about privately held guns.

 

[westwall]

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.

the amendment never states that.....I seriously doubt it was even considered as everyone carried a weapon of some kind or another ,hunting was a major part of feeding the people so a shootin' iron was basic equipment.

It is implied. Furthermore it is well documented that the Founders realized that firearms in the hands of the citizenry were essential to prevent tyranny.

Implied? By what, penumbras?

For heavens sake dainty you're even more moronic than usual. Have you never read a fucking book on the founding of this country?


“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

Richard Henry Lee, Anti-Federalist

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” –Federal Farmer, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788


How many hundred more do I need to post to beat it into your inordinately thick skull that the 2nd Amendment is to preserve liberty against a tyrannical government?

True, but says nothing about privately held guns.

Sooooo, you're blind as well as incredibly stupid I see. That or outright dishonest.... I guess you missed this part...

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

 

[daws101]

the amendment never states that.....I seriously doubt it was even considered as everyone carried a weapon of some kind or another ,hunting was a major part of feeding the people so a shootin' iron was basic equipment.

It is implied. Furthermore it is well documented that the Founders realized that firearms in the hands of the citizenry were essential to prevent tyranny.

Implied? By what, penumbras?

For heavens sake dainty you're even more moronic than usual. Have you never read a fucking book on the founding of this country?


“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

Richard Henry Lee, Anti-Federalist

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” –Federal Farmer, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788


How many hundred more do I need to post to beat it into your inordinately thick skull that the 2nd Amendment is to preserve liberty against a tyrannical government?

True, but says nothing about privately held guns.

Sooooo, you're blind as well as incredibly stupid I see. That or outright dishonest.... I guess you missed this part...

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

that's not in the amendment either it's only 20 some words.
A militia would have any armory would it not.

 

[westwall]

It is implied. Furthermore it is well documented that the Founders realized that firearms in the hands of the citizenry were essential to prevent tyranny.

Implied? By what, penumbras?

For heavens sake dainty you're even more moronic than usual. Have you never read a fucking book on the founding of this country?


“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

Richard Henry Lee, Anti-Federalist

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” –Federal Farmer, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788


How many hundred more do I need to post to beat it into your inordinately thick skull that the 2nd Amendment is to preserve liberty against a tyrannical government?

True, but says nothing about privately held guns.

Sooooo, you're blind as well as incredibly stupid I see. That or outright dishonest.... I guess you missed this part...

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

that's not in the amendment either it's only 20 some words.
A militia would have any armory would it not.

I quoted The Federalist Papers among others. Those quotes define the reasoning behind the 2nd and no, the unorganized militia doesn't have an armory.

 

[LOki]

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.

the amendment never states that.....I seriously doubt it was even considered as everyone carried a weapon of some kind or another ,hunting was a major part of feeding the people so a shootin' iron was basic equipment.

It is implied. Furthermore it is well documented that the Founders realized that firearms in the hands of the citizenry were essential to prevent tyranny.

Implied? By what, penumbras?

For heavens sake dainty you're even more moronic than usual. Have you never read a fucking book on the founding of this country?


“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

Richard Henry Lee, Anti-Federalist

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” –Federal Farmer, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788


How many hundred more do I need to post to beat it into your inordinately thick skull that the 2nd Amendment is to preserve liberty against a tyrannical government?

True, but says nothing about privately held guns.

Denial of reality.

 

[danielpalos]

Ignoring 10USC311 is a denial of a legal reality.

 

[daws101]

Implied? By what, penumbras?

For heavens sake dainty you're even more moronic than usual. Have you never read a fucking book on the founding of this country?


“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

Richard Henry Lee, Anti-Federalist

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” –Federal Farmer, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788


How many hundred more do I need to post to beat it into your inordinately thick skull that the 2nd Amendment is to preserve liberty against a tyrannical government?

True, but says nothing about privately held guns.

Sooooo, you're blind as well as incredibly stupid I see. That or outright dishonest.... I guess you missed this part...

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

that's not in the amendment either it's only 20 some words.
A militia would have any armory would it not.

I quoted The Federalist Papers among others. Those quotes define the reasoning behind the 2nd and no, the unorganized militia doesn't have an armory.

It would not be a militia if it were not organized but a rabble with guns.
As I said before it's my contention that guns in private hands were not part of the second amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, only gun lovers have a problem with it; everyone else knows rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.

 

[westwall]

For heavens sake dainty you're even more moronic than usual. Have you never read a fucking book on the founding of this country?


“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

Richard Henry Lee, Anti-Federalist

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” –Federal Farmer, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788


How many hundred more do I need to post to beat it into your inordinately thick skull that the 2nd Amendment is to preserve liberty against a tyrannical government?

True, but says nothing about privately held guns.

Sooooo, you're blind as well as incredibly stupid I see. That or outright dishonest.... I guess you missed this part...

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

that's not in the amendment either it's only 20 some words.
A militia would have any armory would it not.

I quoted The Federalist Papers among others. Those quotes define the reasoning behind the 2nd and no, the unorganized militia doesn't have an armory.

It would not be a militia if it were not organized but a rabble with guns.
As I said before it's my contention that guns in private hands were not part of the second amendment.

Showing yet again how little you understand the minds of the Founders, the English language, and common sense.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So can an "unorganized militia" have guns or does the government decide that?

Any unorganized militia must comply with the law of the land or have troops sent to snuff it out

That doesn't answer the question

you actually asked two questions

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1st set of arguments:

A well regulated militia, in 1790, would include cannon, horses, muskets, and swords.

Militias were intended to allow frontier communities to fend off Indians, the Spanish, or anyone else who would interfere with manifest destiny.

It was debated whether or not centrally locating the ordinance was wise, and decided against.
The freedom to own arms for personal protection wasn't part of the conversation, because every home had them, by necessity.

The original intent behind the second amendment does not address whether or not Americans today should be able to possess entirely unrestricted military equipment. Nor does it do anything to support the idea that racist redneck crackpots, or street gang members, should be able to conceal or open carry

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.

2nd set of arguments:

the amendment never states that.....I seriously doubt it was even considered as everyone carried a weapon of some kind or another ,hunting was a major part of feeding the people so a shootin' iron was basic equipment.

It is implied. Furthermore it is well documented that the Founders realized that firearms in the hands of the citizenry were essential to prevent tyranny.

Dante jumps in:

Implied? By what, penumbras?

And here is where it gets interesting:

For heavens sake dainty you're even more moronic than usual. Have you never read a fucking book on the founding of this country?


“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

Richard Henry Lee, Anti-Federalist

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” –Federal Farmer, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788


How many hundred more do I need to post to beat it into your inordinately thick skull that the 2nd Amendment is to preserve liberty against a tyrannical government?

1st set of arguments:
toxicmedia made some very credible and valid points and when he wrote "The freedom to own arms for personal protection wasn't part of the conversation, because every home had them, by necessity." and owning guns in order to fend off Indians would bey any measure be considered 'personal protection'

M14 Shooter was correct when referring to the latest ruling of the Supreme Court. The problem here is one of people not being clear to exactly what they are referring to, what part of a statement, what part of a post.

2nd set of arguments:
daws101 Jumps in to refute M14. But daws' statement is at odds with the latest Supreme Court ruling

westwall jumps in speaking specifically to the 2nd amendment with 'implications' adding to this comments on what the framers thought that are not words found in the text of the 2nd or the Constitution.

Dante enters with implications equaling 'penumbras' maybe what Justice Douglas and others BEFORE him referred to

westwall jumps back in with quotes from anti-Federalists, people who were against ratifying the US Constitution for a variety of reasons. But, it is the arguments of the Federal Farmer and others that forced the Bill of Rights into the Constitution.

Dante's main contention with 'penumbras' is one of judicial decisions and judicial philosophy on the Court. Textualism versus varying forms of Originalism...

"penumbras"

 

[danielpalos]

Dears, there is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311.

 

[LOki]

Ignoring 10USC311 is a denial of a legal reality.

Correct. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[LOki]

Dears, there is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311.

Correct. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

Dears, there is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311.

Correct. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Just my non-Tax burden to keep and bear for having a policy of Truth, in my youth.