When the 2nd Amendment was written....

[RetiredGySgt]

What does that have to do with a functioning militia?

It proves the intent was 2-fold a state right to have a militia and personal right for individuals to own possess and have firearms.

 

[progressive hunter]

lololol

So what the people meant when they wrote the Constitution doesn't matter. It only matters what we decide decades or centuries later. I thought conservatives were all about originalism.

what they wrote down in the constitution is what counts,, they talked about a lot if things,,

 

[multivita-man]

you stated they wanted the PRIVATE citizens to arm THEMSELVES retard that is not a collective concept or restriction.

I know you're probably brainwashed on a lifetime of propaganda and incapable of basic comprehension, but I'll try to explain it like you're five.

It's the purpose that matters.

Yes, the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment wanted an army of citizen-soldiers to arm themselves, for the purpose of collective self-defense in a well-regulated militia. That's the reason the 2nd Amendment existed.

What they didn't teach you in NRA Sunday School is that early American law was influenced by Anglo Saxon Common Law, which was brought over from England. In fact the 2nd Amendment right of collective self-defense was, in part, inspired by the English Bill of Rights, which was passed in 1689.

There were also pre-Revolution laws in the Colonies that required eligible or able-bodied men to be armed, but not because they believed gun ownership was an individual right. They had laws requiring able-bodied men to carry firearms to church services because they worried they'd be attacked by Native tribes.

 

[progressive hunter]

I know you're probably brainwashed on a lifetime of propaganda and incapable of basic comprehension, but I'll try to explain it like you're five.

It's the purpose that matters.

Yes, the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment wanted an army of citizen-soldiers to arm themselves, for the purpose of collective self-defense in a well-regulated militia. That's the reason the 2nd Amendment existed.

What they didn't teach you in NRA Sunday School is that early American law was influenced by Anglo Saxon Common Law, which was brought over from England. In fact the 2nd Amendment right of collective self-defense was, in part, inspired by the English Bill of Rights, which was passed in 1689.

There were also pre-Revolution laws in the Colonies that required eligible or able-bodied men to be armed, but not because they believed gun ownership was an individual right. They had laws requiring able-bodied men to carry firearms to church services because they worried they'd be attacked by Native tribes.

its whats written down as law that matters,,

they talked about having a king,, should we be electing kings??

 

[multivita-man]

It proves the intent was 2-fold a state right to have a militia

Yes.

and personal right for individuals to own possess and have firearms.

No.

The right to keep and bear arms was never mentioned as an individual right - not in colonial times, not in the Federalist papers, not in drafting the amendment, not in the amendment debates. The 2nd Amendment was never, ever, ever about individual gun rights.

That is not to say that people had no rights to own and use guns. I think people believed in the right to legally own and use guns for lawful and traditionally-recognized purposes such as hunting or self-defense against trespassers. Nobility even used guns in duels. But that wasn't what the 2nd Amendment was about.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yes.



No.

The right to keep and bear arms was never mentioned as an individual right - not in colonial times, not in the Federalist papers, not in drafting the amendment, not in the amendment debates. The 2nd Amendment was never, ever, ever about individual gun rights.

That is not to say that people had no rights to own and use guns. I think people believed in the right to legally own and use guns for lawful and traditionally-recognized purposes such as hunting or self-defense against trespassers. Nobility even used guns in duels. But that wasn't what the 2nd Amendment was about.

its mentioned right there in the 2nd amendment dumbass,,

 

[progressive hunter]

That is not to say that people had no rights to own and use guns. I think people believed in the right to legally own and use guns for lawful and traditionally-recognized purposes such as hunting or self-defense against trespassers. Nobility even used guns in duels. But that wasn't what the 2nd Amendment was about.

where did you find this in any founding documents??

 

[multivita-man]

its whats written down as law that matters,,

We're debating what the law means, and to understand what the law means, you'd need to understand the original intent. The only way to understand the original intent is to read the records that are available at the time.

I believe that is the proper way to interpret any part of the constitution. For whatever it's worth, this is why I disagreed with liberals who want to remove Trump from the ballot in states like Colorado, Maine, and now Illinois. They, like the NRA cult, take a passage, interpret it literally, and want to claim that a simple passage explains the original intent, which is not accurate.

 

[multivita-man]

its mentioned right there in the 2nd amendment dumbass,,

Unfortunately for you, dipshit, the 2nd Amendment is longer than a single clause, which means that you can't comprehend what you're reading, dumbass.

 

[progressive hunter]

We're debating what the law means, and to understand what the law means, you'd need to understand the original intent. The only way to understand the original intent is to read the records that are available at the time.

I believe that is the proper way to interpret any part of the constitution. For whatever it's worth, this is why I disagreed with liberals who want to remove Trump from the ballot in states like Colorado, Maine, and now Illinois. They, like the NRA cult, take a passage, interpret it literally, and want to claim that a simple passage explains the original intent, which is not accurate.

no you dont,, all you have to do is read it,, its self explanatory,,

what you want to do is bring things in that have no meaning to push a false narrative

 

[progressive hunter]

Unfortunately for you, dipshit, the 2nd Amendment is longer than a single clause, which means that you can't comprehend what you're reading, dumbass.

more like you cant comprehend simple english language,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Unfortunately for you, dipshit, the 2nd Amendment is longer than a single clause, which means that you can't comprehend what you're reading, dumbass.

the first part is "what we need",,
the second part is "why we need it",,
the third part is "how we will get it",,

its self full filling,,

 

[multivita-man]

no you dont,, all you have to do is read it,, its self explanatory,,

If it were self-explanatory there wouldn't have been court cases to decide what it meant.

Actually, come to think of it, before 2008, there was really only one Supreme Court case that ever truly made a judgment regarding the 2nd Amendment's relationship to personal firearms, and that was the United States v Miller case of 1939.

It wasn't until 2008 that the Courts suggested that the 2nd Amendment protected personal firearms ownership for anything other than militia service. My position, in case you haven't figured it out, is that the Court replaced originalism with strict textualism.

Ironically, three of the justices who were around to decide that case (Heller) on the basis of textualism, now appear likely to use originalism to argue that Trump should remain on the ballot in all 50 states.

 

[progressive hunter]

If it were self-explanatory there wouldn't have been court cases to decide what it meant.

Actually, come to think of it, before 2008, there was really only one Supreme Court case that ever truly made a judgment regarding the 2nd Amendment's relationship to personal firearms, and that was the United States v Miller case of 1939.

It wasn't until 2008 that the Courts suggested that the 2nd Amendment protected personal firearms ownership for anything other than militia service. My position, in case you haven't figured it out, is that the Court replaced originalism with strict textualism.

Ironically, three of the justices who were around to decide that case (Heller) on the basis of textualism, now appear likely to use originalism to argue that Trump should remain on the ballot in all 50 states.

we didnt have people questioning it for 150 yrs until progressives started attacking it,,

its written in simple english and only dumbass's or dishonest people would question it,,

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We're debating what the law means, and to understand what the law means, you'd need to understand the original intent. The only way to understand the original intent is to read the records that are available at the time.

I believe that is the proper way to interpret any part of the constitution. For whatever it's worth, this is why I disagreed with liberals who want to remove Trump from the ballot in states like Colorado, Maine, and now Illinois. They, like the NRA cult, take a passage, interpret it literally, and want to claim that a simple passage explains the original intent, which is not accurate.

all one need do is look to what was common among the colonies and colonists to understand what they meant. IT WAS COMMON for private ownership in fact it was encouraged to provide a defense. Claiming they wanted a militia of the people armed by the people but didnt mean private ownership is beyond stupid it is so ignorant they didnt feel a need to spell it out other than to state the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If it were self-explanatory there wouldn't have been court cases to decide what it meant.

Actually, come to think of it, before 2008, there was really only one Supreme Court case that ever truly made a judgment regarding the 2nd Amendment's relationship to personal firearms, and that was the United States v Miller case of 1939.

It wasn't until 2008 that the Courts suggested that the 2nd Amendment protected personal firearms ownership for anything other than militia service. My position, in case you haven't figured it out, is that the Court replaced originalism with strict textualism.

Ironically, three of the justices who were around to decide that case (Heller) on the basis of textualism, now appear likely to use originalism to argue that Trump should remain on the ballot in all 50 states.

and miller stated a weapon must be in use or of use to the military to be protected.

 

[multivita-man]

we didnt have people questioning it for 150 yrs until progressives started attacking it,,

its written in simple english and only dumbass's or dishonest people would question it,,

It didn't need to be questioned - because it was understood what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was. The people, which does include individuals, have the right to keep and bear arms, but as it relates to militia service.

The people are a group of individuals, true. It is also true that if the people collectively have a right, then the individual members of the group must also have a share of that right. But it's the purpose of the 2nd Amendment that makes it different from the 1st Amendment, or the 4th, or other civil liberty amendments. The purpose is more defined in the 2nd Amendment. That is a cold, hard fact.

 

[progressive hunter]

It didn't need to be questioned - because it was understood what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was. The people, which does include individuals, have the right to keep and bear arms, but as it relates to militia service.

The people are a group of individuals, true. It is also true that if the people collectively have a right, then the individual members of the group must also have a share of that right. But it's the purpose of the 2nd Amendment that makes it different from the 1st Amendment, or the 4th, or other civil liberty amendments. The purpose is more defined in the 2nd Amendment. That is a cold, hard fact.

if thats the case why doesnt the 2nd A say that??


we are the people,,

thats you and me and everyone else,, as individuals not as a group,,

if its such a cold hard fact,, how is it only you think that??

 

[westwall]

Facts is hard to swallow.

Buuuuut you present no facts...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It didn't need to be questioned - because it was understood what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was. The people, which does include individuals, have the right to keep and bear arms, but as it relates to militia service.

The people are a group of individuals, true. It is also true that if the people collectively have a right, then the individual members of the group must also have a share of that right. But it's the purpose of the 2nd Amendment that makes it different from the 1st Amendment, or the 4th, or other civil liberty amendments. The purpose is more defined in the 2nd Amendment. That is a cold, hard fact.

wrong people had the right as private citizens to own and possess firearms without a need to be in a militia. The amendment is clear as a bell the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the Government and not because they were in a militia. EVERY single amendment in the bill of rights thaat states a right for the people is understood by law to mean an INDIVIDUAL right, but you would have us believe this one just is different. An English expert on language stated that the clause about the militia was not a controlling clause but rather an example of what the controlling clause might include.