When the 2nd Amendment was written....

[multivita-man]

the people in the context of we the people,,

if it was militia members it would say that,,

It does say that.

 

[progressive hunter]

It does say that.

no it doesnt,,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

the people in the context of we the people,,
if it was militia members it would say that,,

And it would not say, …the right of the people…shall not be infringed”.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It does say that.

No it does not retard.

 

[multivita-man]

no it doesnt,,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I've already explained how there was no mention of firearms as an individual right when this amendment was introduced in the first congress. Nor was it mentioned in Federalist 29.

The British common law actually had restrictions on carrying firearms that were concealed or in the presence of the King's representatives - the colonists brought that same law with them and used up until the time they began writing their own constitutions upon declaring their independence.

 

[multivita-man]

No it does not retard.

It sure does, dipshit. Read the whole fucking amendment.

 

[progressive hunter]

I've already explained how there was no mention of firearms as an individual right when this amendment was introduced in the first congress. Nor was it mentioned in Federalist 29.

The British common law actually had restrictions on carrying firearms that were concealed or in the presence of the King's representatives - the colonists brought that same law with them and used up until the time they began writing their own constitutions upon declaring their independence.

and we all told you your opinion doesnt apply and gave you facts to back that up,,

 

[progressive hunter]

It sure does, dipshit. Read the whole fucking amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

heres the whole amendment,, so you tell us where it says the right of the militia and not the right of the people??

 

[multivita-man]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

heres the whole amendment,, so you tell us where it says the right of the militia and not the right of the people??

It says the right of the people, in the context of a well regulated militia. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, I want states to have the power they were meant to have, which is to regulate guns so that sexually frustrated white males in need of some zoloft can't just grab whatever semi-automatic rifle is laying around the house and go shoot up a mall or a school.

That's a lie.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It says the right of the people, in the context of a well regulated militia. It's not that hard to understand.

Yet, you don't.

 

[progressive hunter]

It says the right of the people, in the context of a well regulated militia. It's not that hard to understand.

no it doesnt,,

if that were true it would say

"THE RIGHT OF MILITIA MEMBERS" not "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE",,


wouldnt matter anyway since well regulated in this context meant well armed, supplied and trained,,

 

[AZrailwhale]

The people - in the context of militia service.

If the framers wanted to it be limited to militia service, they would have said the militia has the right to keep and bear arms, but instead they said the people did.

 

[multivita-man]

If the framers wanted to it be limited to militia service, they would have said the militia has the right to keep and bear arms, but instead they said the people did.

They didn't write the 2nd Amendment to ban guns, nor did they write it to guarantee the right of private household ownership. As I've repeatedly said, it was neither of those things. They wrote 2A to guarantee that each state would have a regulated militia of citizen-soldiers.

 

[progressive hunter]

They didn't write the 2nd Amendment to ban guns, nor did they write it to guarantee the right of private household ownership. As I've repeatedly said, it was neither of those things. They wrote 2A to guarantee that each state would have a regulated militia of citizen-soldiers.

thats not how they wrote it or meant it,,

they were specific as to who and why,, the people to raise a civilian army if needed,,,

if the people werent properly armed they wouldnt make a good fighting force would they??

 

[progressive hunter]

They didn't write the 2nd Amendment to ban guns, nor did they write it to guarantee the right of private household ownership. As I've repeatedly said, it was neither of those things. They wrote 2A to guarantee that each state would have a regulated militia of citizen-soldiers.

houses are houses and cant own anything,,

the people are who gets to own guns/arms,,

 

[multivita-man]

thats not how they wrote it or meant it,,

they were specific as to who and why,, the people to raise a civilian army if needed,,,

They didn't think "if needed" -- it was needed. That's why they wrote the amendment. Not all states had paid their war debts and those who had were concerned they might not be serious about contributing to the collective defense of the United States.

if the people werent properly armed they wouldnt make a good fighting force would they??

Correct, but where you go wrong is in the assumption that they wanted everyone to have personal firearms. Many states had regulations requiring able-bodied adult males to have firearms and participate in militia training. The first Militia Act (1792) even set minimum requirements for guns and ammo, but again, this is in the context of militia service. All firearms "rights" under the 2nd Amendment pertain to militia service.

I'm not saying that individuals don't have any constitutional right to keep and use firearms, but that's not under the 2nd Amendment. Not originally, anyway. That interpretation of the 2nd Amendment's meaning, though it has been a parallel theory for probably quite a long time, has only been taken seriously by the judiciary since the 2000s. And that is the result of the dual activism of the NRA and the Federalist Society, not true history.

 

[progressive hunter]

They didn't think "if needed" -- it was needed. That's why they wrote the amendment. Not all states had paid their war debts and those who had were concerned they might not be serious about contributing to the collective defense of the United States.



Correct, but where you go wrong is in the assumption that they wanted everyone to have personal firearms. Many states had regulations requiring able-bodied adult males to have firearms and participate in militia training. The first Militia Act (1792) even set minimum requirements for guns and ammo, but again, this is in the context of militia service. All firearms "rights" under the 2nd Amendment pertain to militia service.

I'm not saying that individuals don't have any constitutional right to keep and use firearms, but that's not under the 2nd Amendment. Not originally, anyway. That interpretation of the 2nd Amendment's meaning, though it has been a parallel theory for probably quite a long time, has only been taken seriously by the judiciary since the 2000s. And that is the result of the dual activism of the NRA and the Federalist Society, not true history.

where you go wrong is thats not what they put down as a right,,

you were able to do it in one sentence,, are you saying they couldnt write that same thing in one sentence like you did but instead they wrote what they did and gave that right to the people not members of a militia??

reality is youre just wrong and my guess is you know it just for the reason you know how to turn on a computer,,

it doesnt take much intelligence to read and understand what they meant,,,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

...... the guns at the time were -

Revolutionary War Guns | Facts, Information & History

These revolutionary war guns are the firearms most represented throughout the course of the revolutionary war. Find out more facts & information.

www.revolutionary-war.net

When the first Amendment was ratified, if you in England wanted to communicate anything to anyone in America, you had to write it down, and hand it to a messenger to travel by ship across the ocean, taking well over a month, at best, to get here.

The great men who wrote our Constitution could much more easily have imagined firearms with the capability that modern arms do; than they could have imagined any way that you could send a message from Europe, and have it received within seconds by people all over the world.

 

[JustAGuy1]

The 2nd Amendment was never meant to protect individual gun ownership; it was meant to ensure that each state had a functional militia - for a variety of purposes, ranging from civil defense in cases of insurrections, riots, or attacks from Native tribes, to being called up by Congress and the President to repel foreign invasion.

Not according SCOTUS. Having said that how would you propose to take our guns?