2nd Amendment, Scalia and what the Founders meant: Commas, Common Sense and Justice. The question is how to interpret the comma after 'free state.'

[frigidweirdo]

Where's the evidence?

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The evidence that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia is here.

17, 20 Aug. 1789

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

The version of the future 2A that they were talking about on Aug 17th 1789.

It says "no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms"

Mr Gerry (of gerrymandering fame) said:

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Then he said :

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

So, this is what they were talking about. Whether to have a religiously scrupulous clause in the future 2A. Mr Gerry felt that the govt would say "Mormons are religious scrupulous" and they could destroy the militia.

Then Mr Gerry said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

So, he's talking about taking away to the "right to bear arms", and he's using the term "exclude those from militia duty" synonymous (which means it's being used to mean the same thing in case you don't know).

So why would he do this? Because it's pretty clear here that Mr Gerry thinks that "bear arms" means "militia duty".

Then:

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Ah, so they've gone from "compelled to bear arms" and they've changed it to "render military service".

Clearly Mr Jackson also thinks that "bear arms" is "render military service" or "militia duty".

Then:

"Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; "

"called upon for their services" is the same as "bare arms"

It's pretty obvious that the Founding Fathers saw the "right to bear arms" as the right to be in the militia.

 

[westwall]

Oh look, even more embarrassment. You can't provide the data you're claiming to have.

This is how debate works. You either provide your argument, or you don't have an argument. Right now you don't have an argument.

I'm not searching through pages and pages of websites to find one piece of evidence that BACKS UP YOUR ARGUMENT.

I'll do that to find what backs up MY ARGUMENT.

Try being an adult instead of the typical MAGA who NEVER, EVER provides the evidence needed to back up their flimsy arguments.

Do you want to try backing up your argument, or just back and forth with me telling you how to debate and you insulting and telling that you've done your job and looking stupid in the process?

I provided you with a website. If you're too stupid to figure out how to type it into your computer, then YOU are the embarrassed one, clown.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I provided you with a website. If you're too stupid to figure out how to type it into your computer, then YOU are the embarrassed one, clown.

Yep, you provided me with a website.

And I've told you what you're doing wrong.

And you can't do your own work. The post 301 shows you how it's done. Can you read that far?

So, you have no argument because you aren't educated enough to make a proper argument.

Sucks to be you.

 

[westwall]

Yep, you provided me with a website.

And I've told you what you're doing wrong.

And you can't do your own work. The post 301 shows you how it's done. Can you read that far?

So, you have no argument because you aren't educated enough to make a proper argument.

Sucks to be you.

I have done nothing wrong, silly gurl. I have posted reems of evidence.

You post opinion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The evidence that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia is here.

The text of something they did not ratify is not evidence of anything regarding the text they did ratify.
Fail.

It's pretty obvious that the Founding Fathers saw the "right to bear arms" as the right to be in the militia.

No one has the right to be in the militia, so... No.

 

[2aguy]

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The evidence that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia is here.

17, 20 Aug. 1789

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

The version of the future 2A that they were talking about on Aug 17th 1789.

It says "no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms"

Mr Gerry (of gerrymandering fame) said:

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Then he said :

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

So, this is what they were talking about. Whether to have a religiously scrupulous clause in the future 2A. Mr Gerry felt that the govt would say "Mormons are religious scrupulous" and they could destroy the militia.

Then Mr Gerry said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

So, he's talking about taking away to the "right to bear arms", and he's using the term "exclude those from militia duty" synonymous (which means it's being used to mean the same thing in case you don't know).

So why would he do this? Because it's pretty clear here that Mr Gerry thinks that "bear arms" means "militia duty".

Then:

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Ah, so they've gone from "compelled to bear arms" and they've changed it to "render military service".

Clearly Mr Jackson also thinks that "bear arms" is "render military service" or "militia duty".

Then:

"Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; "

"called upon for their services" is the same as "bare arms"

It's pretty obvious that the Founding Fathers saw the "right to bear arms" as the right to be in the militia.

Dumb shit.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," was still in the very quote you cited......you dope.

It did not say to bear arms in a militia, it said, again, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;"

 

[frigidweirdo]

I have done nothing wrong, silly gurl. I have posted reems of evidence.

You post opinion.

You won't even post the piece of evidence you claim to have.

"reems of evidence"???? Really?

If you didn't block your profile I'd be able to show you that you haven't posted any evidence properly for a long time.

But the simple fact that I told you how to present evidence, and you still won't do it, tells me you're the typical poster on here who doesn't want to look at evidence. You just come on here, write what's in your head. You remember something you read at some point in the past, never verified if it's true or not, but you accepted it and now it's a part of who you are.

I found out a long time ago that that's the quickest way to ignorance. You have to actually go out there, look at the stats and facts, make an argument, see what others say about this, the more you can make your argument, the closer you are to the truth.

I doubt MAGA fuckers care about the truth at all.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dumb shit.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," was still in the very quote you cited......you dope.

It did not say to bear arms in a militia, it said, again, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;"

Wow, just wow.

I really don't think I can lower myself to your level. So I'll leave you to wallow in your own poop.

Bye.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The text of something they did not ratify is not evidence of anything regarding the text they did ratify.
Fail.

No one has the right to be in the militia, so... No.

No, it's not a fail.

They were discussing the future Second Amendment and they wrote NUMEROUS TIMES that "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty". You're not even trying with a counter argument, which tells me everything about what you're saying. There's no evidence there, no argument. Just "I don't like what you said, so "fake news ******"". Typical ignorant shit.

So, tell me, if nobody has the right to be in the militia, why did the Dick Act in 1903 make the "unorganized militia".

 

[westwall]

You won't even post the piece of evidence you claim to have.

"reems of evidence"???? Really?

If you didn't block your profile I'd be able to show you that you haven't posted any evidence properly for a long time.

But the simple fact that I told you how to present evidence, and you still won't do it, tells me you're the typical poster on here who doesn't want to look at evidence. You just come on here, write what's in your head. You remember something you read at some point in the past, never verified if it's true or not, but you accepted it and now it's a part of who you are.

I found out a long time ago that that's the quickest way to ignorance. You have to actually go out there, look at the stats and facts, make an argument, see what others say about this, the more you can make your argument, the closer you are to the truth.

I doubt MAGA fuckers care about the truth at all.

No, that would be you clowns. How many lies of yours have been proven to be lies now?

Answer=most of them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, that would be you clowns. How many lies of yours have been proven to be lies now?

Answer=most of them.

None, because you can't make an argument with evidence.

All that happens is you come on here and shout that you've provided the evidence, when you haven't, and then after a while declare that you're proven someone wrong, when you haven't even started.

It would have been so much easier for you to go find your evidence in that website you provided, than to spend 10 posts attacking me.

But clearly you don't come on here for the truth.

 

[Rumpole]

Matters not.
In terms of jurisprudence, the "orientation" you claim never existed,as proven in post #8 and confirmed in Heller.

Post #8 proves nothing of the sort.

The phrase "the people" identifies who possesses the right. It does not identify the purpose and scope of the right.

The amendment itself tells you the purpose in the first thirteen words: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

You are taking the last half of the sentence and pretending the first half doesn't exist.

That's not constitutional analysis. That's selective reading.

If the framers intended an unlimited free-standing personal right unrelated to militia service, they could have written exactly that.

They didn't.

They wrote a militia amendment.

Outside jurisprudence, opinions do not matter.

If your claim was true, there woudln't have been a ban on handguns in Washington DC in 1975, and thus Heller would never have been a ruling.

In terms of jurisprudence, the analysis you claim never existed, as proven in post #8 and confirmed in Heller.
Outside jurisprudence, opinions do not matter.

See above. You have proven nothing.

 

[Rumpole]

Which can be fully accomplished by truncating the text to:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The necessity you claim, of course, does not exist.

No, because that line does not define scope. when it was written, scope wasn't an issue.

 

[Rumpole]

annoying

it's about all you amount to here

And you amount to what? You're anonymous like everyone else here.

 

[Rumpole]

The 2nd is not, nor ever was, intended for self defense, though that is a nice secondary benefit.

No, the 2nd was written so that the people would have the means necessary to overthrow a corrupt government.

Period.

Horseshit, and proof it is horseshit is the militia clause.

The second amendment was written to gaurantee that the militia members had the right to bear arms, and since that was just about all males from 16 - 46 or thereabouts, this constitutes 'the people'. So, what was the purpose of the militia?

3 basic functions

1. Policing / Public Order
Militias were the primary law‑and‑order force in many colonies and early states.
Before professional police forces existed, militias handled:

Riot control

Suppressing local uprisings

Enforcing certain laws

Responding to emergencies

This part is absolutely correct.

2. Slave Patrols (in the South)
In slaveholding states.
Militias were legally required to:

Conduct slave patrols

Capture runaways

Suppress revolts

This wasn’t universal across all states, but in the South it was a central function of the militia system.
Historians like Carl Bogus, Sally Hadden, and others have documented this extensively.

3. Defense (external threats)
This was the most publicly emphasized purpose.
Militias were expected to defend communities from:

Foreign invasion

Native nations (in frontier regions)

Piracy or coastal threats

This was the “respectable,” widely advertised justification.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, it's not a fail.

You're right -it's an epic fail.

They were discussing the future Second Amendment and they wrote NUMEROUS TIMES that "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty".

Even if your statement weren't an outright lie, fact remains the amendment they ratified has no such specification.

So, tell me, if nobody has the right to be in the militia why did the Dick Act in 1903 make the "unorganized militia".

If you can make your case, you do not need me to answer your questions.
Each state can specify who can and cannot be in its militia, even going so far as to disband it entirely -- thus, there is no right for anyone to be associated with it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

None, because you can't make an argument with evidence.

Oh. The irony.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Post #8 proves nothing of the sort.

Now you're just lying.
You shan't waste any more of my time.

 

[westwall]

Horseshit, and proof it is horseshit is the militia clause.

The second amendment was written to gaurantee that the militia members had the right to bear arms, and since that was just about all males from 16 - 46 or thereabouts, this constitutes 'the people'. So, what was the purpose of the militia?

3 basic functions

1. Policing / Public Order
Militias were the primary law‑and‑order force in many colonies and early states.
Before professional police forces existed, militias handled:

Riot control

Suppressing local uprisings

Enforcing certain laws

Responding to emergencies

This part is absolutely correct.

2. Slave Patrols (in the South)
In slaveholding states.
Militias were legally required to:

Conduct slave patrols

Capture runaways

Suppress revolts

This wasn’t universal across all states, but in the South it was a central function of the militia system.
Historians like Carl Bogus, Sally Hadden, and others have documented this extensively.

3. Defense (external threats)
This was the most publicly emphasized purpose.
Militias were expected to defend communities from:

Foreign invasion

Native nations (in frontier regions)

Piracy or coastal threats

This was the “respectable,” widely advertised justification.

All of those reasons you have stated were secondary to the primary reason for the 2nd amendment, which is the ability to overthrow a corrupt, illegitimate government.

But it's nice of you to show all of those beneficial reasons for gun ownership. Even the slave patrols may make a comeback as we American citizens are forced to rescue sex slaves from the cruel and depraved who are being protected by the government.

 

[westwall]

No, because that line does not define scope. when it was written, scope wasn't an issue.

Nor is it now.