Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
Correct?
That is only the last part of the sentence. Why do you think they bothered to preface that statement with the other...?
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.
As a warning to anyone who would try to infringe on the inalienable right to bear arms.
But let me help you.
Do you actually believe the inalienable right to free speech is something the Founders believed they were 'granting', or did they believe it was already granted by God and Nature's God?
No. It does not. You really should read what the amendment says, not what you wish it would say.
The amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
Correct?
<sigh> Yes, it does. But it says more than that. Of course, you know that.
While it is a well founded fact that you have the right to keep arms, there is not a court in the country so out of step with reality as to interpret that to mean you get to keep anything you want. The state has the right to regulate. Not to an outright ban, but to regulate.
Now, I understand that is not what you want it to mean. That is too bad. I will give you the same advice I give to the other side. If you don't like what the amendment says the solution is another amendment. For now, what you have is the 2nd amendment. All of the 2nd amendment, not just the bits you like.
Mrs. Lanza is not part of the male-only militia. The right to bear arms must exist independent of militia regulation unless you believe women don't enjoy the same inalienable rights of men.
WTF are you talking about? The 2nd is not gender specific. Certain specific types of weapons have no law-abiding purpose being stored in the average American home, and the Court has ruled that regulation does not infringe anyone's 2nd amendment rights.
"Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession."
Second Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute
Militia, of course, is indeed gender specific.
You are agreeing with me!
That is only the last part of the sentence. Why do you think they bothered to preface that statement with the other...?
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.
As a warning to anyone who would try to infringe on the inalienable right to bear arms.
But let me help you.
Do you actually believe the inalienable right to free speech is something the Founders believed they were 'granting', or did they believe it was already granted by God and Nature's God?
While the word is very pretty, there is no such thing as an "inalienable" right and there is no mention of such a thing in the Constitution. You will find that in the Declaration of Independence which, while very moving, has no standing in law.
WTF are you talking about? The 2nd is not gender specific. Certain specific types of weapons have no law-abiding purpose being stored in the average American home, and the Court has ruled that regulation does not infringe anyone's 2nd amendment rights.
"Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession."
Second Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute
Militia, of course, is indeed gender specific.
You are agreeing with me!
Other than saying it needs to be well-regulated, the 2nd amendment does not define the gender of "militia". The 2nd specifically addresses the right of "the people". So, no I have no idea why you think I agree with you on that.
Despite however "militia" may have been understood to mean mostly male members in that time period, gender is really beside the point when it comes to the Bill of Rights.
Keep in mind also, the Constitution defines our Government as "by the people, for the people", and our Court adopted a collective rights approach to certain weapons, and determined that our Congress could regulate our weaponry, as deemed necessary to the security of a free state.
The amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
Correct?
<sigh> Yes, it does. But it says more than that. Of course, you know that.
While it is a well founded fact that you have the right to keep arms, there is not a court in the country so out of step with reality as to interpret that to mean you get to keep anything you want. The state has the right to regulate. Not to an outright ban, but to regulate.
Now, I understand that is not what you want it to mean. That is too bad. I will give you the same advice I give to the other side. If you don't like what the amendment says the solution is another amendment. For now, what you have is the 2nd amendment. All of the 2nd amendment, not just the bits you like.
The point I have argued, and won easily upon, is that well regulation of the 'militia' has absolutely nothing to do with the inalienable right to bear arms. Such right exists independent of the need to regulate militia.
The part pertaining to militia in the amendment explains why the inalienable right shall not be INFRINGED UPON, not why the right is being granted. Inalienable rights are not 'granted', afterall.
I understand rights are not 'absolute' and know one cannot shout 'FIRE' in a movie theatre and claim free speech as a defense. I get that.
But don't trot out the nonsense about maintaining a militia as the reason gun ownership is permitted. It isn't. The right to bear arms is inalienable.
<sigh> Yes, it does. But it says more than that. Of course, you know that.
While it is a well founded fact that you have the right to keep arms, there is not a court in the country so out of step with reality as to interpret that to mean you get to keep anything you want. The state has the right to regulate. Not to an outright ban, but to regulate.
Now, I understand that is not what you want it to mean. That is too bad. I will give you the same advice I give to the other side. If you don't like what the amendment says the solution is another amendment. For now, what you have is the 2nd amendment. All of the 2nd amendment, not just the bits you like.
The point I have argued, and won easily upon, is that well regulation of the 'militia' has absolutely nothing to do with the inalienable right to bear arms. Such right exists independent of the need to regulate militia.
The part pertaining to militia in the amendment explains why the inalienable right shall not be INFRINGED UPON, not why the right is being granted. Inalienable rights are not 'granted', afterall.
I understand rights are not 'absolute' and know one cannot shout 'FIRE' in a movie theatre and claim free speech as a defense. I get that.
But don't trot out the nonsense about maintaining a militia as the reason gun ownership is permitted. It isn't. The right to bear arms is inalienable.
You are free to believe you have won if that makes you feel all warm and toasty. However, in our society that is determined by the courts and, in that arena, you are not even in the neighborhood of the winning circle.
As a warning to anyone who would try to infringe on the inalienable right to bear arms.
But let me help you.
Do you actually believe the inalienable right to free speech is something the Founders believed they were 'granting', or did they believe it was already granted by God and Nature's God?
While the word is very pretty, there is no such thing as an "inalienable" right and there is no mention of such a thing in the Constitution. You will find that in the Declaration of Independence which, while very moving, has no standing in law.
Well, we have been discussing original intent as applied to the 2nd Amendment.
If you don't understand the context, I suggest you study your history.
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment does not presuppose the free state to be 'well-regulated.'
As passed by the Congress
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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.[8]
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
so what part of that doesn't require a well-regulated militia don't you understand?
Read your own post for comprehension, tard.
The militia is well-regulated, not the free state.
The amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
Correct?
That is only the last part of the sentence. Why do you think they bothered to preface that statement with the other...?
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.
As a warning to anyone who would try to infringe on the inalienable right to bear arms.
But let me help you.
Do you actually believe the inalienable right to free speech is something the Founders believed they were 'granting', or did they believe it was already granted by God and Nature's God?
While the word is very pretty, there is no such thing as an "inalienable" right and there is no mention of such a thing in the Constitution. You will find that in the Declaration of Independence which, while very moving, has no standing in law.
Well, we have been discussing original intent as applied to the 2nd Amendment.
If you don't understand the context, I suggest you study your history.
I suggest you study reality. There is no such thing. If you think the right to life is inalienable I suggest you visit a cemetary and if the right to liberty inalienable you visit a prison.
That is only the last part of the sentence. Why do you think they bothered to preface that statement with the other...?
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.
As a warning to anyone who would try to infringe on the inalienable right to bear arms.
But let me help you.
Do you actually believe the inalienable right to free speech is something the Founders believed they were 'granting', or did they believe it was already granted by God and Nature's God?
Neither, it's something they agreed upon. In nature there's no such right and as far as government granting rights, that would only be true if you're saying the FFs created a dictatorship.
It absolutely was....I see your problem now.Militia, of course, is indeed gender specific.
You are agreeing with me!
Other than saying it needs to be well-regulated, the 2nd amendment does not define the gender of "militia". The 2nd specifically addresses the right of "the people". So, no I have no idea why you think I agree with you on that.
Despite however "militia" may have been understood to mean mostly male members in that time period, gender is really beside the point when it comes to the Bill of Rights.
Keep in mind also, the Constitution defines our Government as "by the people, for the people", and our Court adopted a collective rights approach to certain weapons, and determined that our Congress could regulate our weaponry, as deemed necessary to the security of a free state.
That wasn't even intelligible.
Well, we have been discussing original intent as applied to the 2nd Amendment.
If you don't understand the context, I suggest you study your history.
I suggest you study reality. There is no such thing. If you think the right to life is inalienable I suggest you visit a cemetary and if the right to liberty inalienable you visit a prison.
No such thing as original intent?
I recommend you read Glen Beck's rendition of the Federalist Papers ('The Original Argument').
It is written in modern English and I reckon even you could understand it with some effort.
As a warning to anyone who would try to infringe on the inalienable right to bear arms.
But let me help you.
Do you actually believe the inalienable right to free speech is something the Founders believed they were 'granting', or did they believe it was already granted by God and Nature's God?
Neither, it's something they agreed upon. In nature there's no such right and as far as government granting rights, that would only be true if you're saying the FFs created a dictatorship.
There isn't a godless communist who would disagree with you!
You just buried his argument, that the citizen's right to bear arms is to be 'well-regulated' as they are part of the militia.
The militia does not even exist until called up.
Wrong. 10 USC 311
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
As we see, the weaponry of Mrs. Lanza could not be regulated under any argument pertaining to maintenance of a militia.
She is female.
The right to bear arms exists independently.
Militia, of course, is indeed gender specific.
You are agreeing with me!
Other than saying it needs to be well-regulated, the 2nd amendment does not define the gender of "militia". The 2nd specifically addresses the right of "the people". So, no I have no idea why you think I agree with you on that.
Despite however "militia" may have been understood to mean mostly male members in that time period, gender is really beside the point when it comes to the Bill of Rights.
Keep in mind also, the Constitution defines our Government as "by the people, for the people", and our Court adopted a collective rights approach to certain weapons, and determined that our Congress could regulate our weaponry, as deemed necessary to the security of a free state.
That wasn't even intelligible.
It's hard to talk on the phone and write at the same time... I guess I made a mistake assuming you were smart enough to get the points regardless, huh?
Neither, it's something they agreed upon. In nature there's no such right and as far as government granting rights, that would only be true if you're saying the FFs created a dictatorship.
There isn't a godless communist who would disagree with you!
So you're saying the FFs DID create a dictatorship?!?!
Wrong. 10 USC 311
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
As we see, the weaponry of Mrs. Lanza could not be regulated under any argument pertaining to maintenance of a militia.
She is female.
The right to bear arms exists independently.
shut the fuck up donnie
There isn't a godless communist who would disagree with you!
So you're saying the FFs DID create a dictatorship?!?!
They created a defacto theocracy.
