2nd Amendment Unapologetic Meaning

[EGR one]

The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.

Uh huh.

Your argument presupposes that it would be necessary to fight the greatest military in the world, and that the U.S. military would long remain the greatest military in the world. Both scenarios would be unlikely.

 

[Freiheit]

The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.

Uh huh.

The US has not won a war since 1945 and all but one have been guerilla wars.

 

[danielpalos]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

This is merely context. It's stating an objective, not a requirement or a restriction.

It is the legislative Intent and Purpose. No amount of Judicial activism, can change that.

, shall not be infringed.

This makes it quite clear that the only legislative intent is no legislation at all. It is after all the only part of the statement directing any action, and that action is no action.

Our Second Amendment is about, the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.

It's about neither of those. The entire Bill of Rights is merely an addendum reminding the government of things that it cannot do. It's not an inclusive list, and it doesn't grant any rights to the people. The core constitution makes it clear that the people have a right to do all things which do not directly infringe on the rights of another person.

The Bill of Rights is a list of examples of restrictions on the federal government. Nothing more.

The Bill of Rights (including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights)

The Bill of Rights adds nothing to the core constitution. They are merely clarifications and declarations of intent. They do not modify, in any way, the fundamental rights inalienable to the people as prescribed by the constitution itself.

At the time, the anti federalists didn't trust that future governments would interpret the constitution honestly (how wise they were). They wouldn't ratify it without first having these clarifications placed in the document. Since they do not violate or modify the core constitution, they were added to the end as an addendum.

The first clause is Expressed, not Implied.

Words matter; the first clause must mean Something to the second clause.

 

[Jerico]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

This is merely context. It's stating an objective, not a requirement or a restriction.

It is the legislative Intent and Purpose. No amount of Judicial activism, can change that.

, shall not be infringed.

This makes it quite clear that the only legislative intent is no legislation at all. It is after all the only part of the statement directing any action, and that action is no action.

Our Second Amendment is about, the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.

It's about neither of those. The entire Bill of Rights is merely an addendum reminding the government of things that it cannot do. It's not an inclusive list, and it doesn't grant any rights to the people. The core constitution makes it clear that the people have a right to do all things which do not directly infringe on the rights of another person.

The Bill of Rights is a list of examples of restrictions on the federal government. Nothing more.

The Bill of Rights (including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights)

The Bill of Rights adds nothing to the core constitution. They are merely clarifications and declarations of intent. They do not modify, in any way, the fundamental rights inalienable to the people as prescribed by the constitution itself.

At the time, the anti federalists didn't trust that future governments would interpret the constitution honestly (how wise they were). They wouldn't ratify it without first having these clarifications placed in the document. Since they do not violate or modify the core constitution, they were added to the end as an addendum.

The first clause is Expressed, not Implied.

Words matter; the first clause must mean Something to the second clause.

It does mean something. It provides the context. It doesn't, however, define a limitation or a restriction. Again, the structure of the sentence is very important and removes all ambiguity. As written it can be interpreted only one way. The people have a right to form a militia and require equally the right to bare arms in order to do so. Infringement upon this right to assemble militarily is prohibited.

This is precisely the analog to the 1st amendment's right to peacefully assemble.

We have a right to peacefully assemble. To do so, we need the right to speak as well. (1st amendment)

We have a right to also assemble militarily. To do so, we need the right to bare arms as well.(2nd amendment)

This is corroborated by the readings of the constitution itself as well as the supplementary text of the Founding Fathers. They made it clear that should peaceful assembly and speech fail, the people have the right and resources to overthrow the government by force.

 

[danielpalos]

It is the legislative Intent and Purpose. No amount of Judicial activism, can change that.

, shall not be infringed.

This makes it quite clear that the only legislative intent is no legislation at all. It is after all the only part of the statement directing any action, and that action is no action.

Our Second Amendment is about, the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.

It's about neither of those. The entire Bill of Rights is merely an addendum reminding the government of things that it cannot do. It's not an inclusive list, and it doesn't grant any rights to the people. The core constitution makes it clear that the people have a right to do all things which do not directly infringe on the rights of another person.

The Bill of Rights is a list of examples of restrictions on the federal government. Nothing more.

The Bill of Rights (including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights)

The Bill of Rights adds nothing to the core constitution. They are merely clarifications and declarations of intent. They do not modify, in any way, the fundamental rights inalienable to the people as prescribed by the constitution itself.

At the time, the anti federalists didn't trust that future governments would interpret the constitution honestly (how wise they were). They wouldn't ratify it without first having these clarifications placed in the document. Since they do not violate or modify the core constitution, they were added to the end as an addendum.

The first clause is Expressed, not Implied.

Words matter; the first clause must mean Something to the second clause.

It does mean something. It provides the context. It doesn't, however, define a limitation or a restriction. Again, the structure of the sentence is very important and removes all ambiguity. As written it can be interpreted only one way. The people have a right to form a militia and require equally the right to bare arms in order to do so. Infringement upon this right to assemble militarily is prohibited.

This is precisely the analog to the 1st amendment's right to peacefully assemble.

We have a right to peacefully assemble. To do so, we need the right to speak as well. (1st amendment)

We have a right to also assemble militarily. To do so, we need the right to bare arms as well.(2nd amendment)

This is corroborated by the readings of the constitution itself as well as the supplementary text of the Founding Fathers. They made it clear that should peaceful assembly and speech fail, the people have the right and resources to overthrow the government by force.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights; it says so, in the first clause.

The first clause is the End.

The second clause is the Means.

 

[52ndStreet]

We should all have the right to buy fully automatic assault rifles nad submachine guns. States should not decide to ban certain weapons of their choice. We must stop the Democratic infringement of the 2nd amendment.!!

 

[danielpalos]

We should all have the right to buy fully automatic assault rifles nad submachine guns. States should not decide to ban certain weapons of their choice. We must stop the Democratic infringement of the 2nd amendment.!!

Read up on Class 3 Weapons requirements. The right wing are a bunch of drama queens.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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.

• "a free State" = not a tyranny
• "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
• "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.

It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.

Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.

"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.

"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.

"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.




capego.icu

Some of the arms are self restricted no one builds a tank, a long range missile, and many other weapons. The ones that can be build are bombs, posion gas, and e,t,c.