2nd Amendment Unapologetic Meaning

[Auld Phart]

Who told you that?

The rule governing the unorganized militia tell me if you see anything about age?

show me the rule, then the description of the unorganized militia

Look it up do your own homework age is not mentioned in the unorganized militia.

I did.

Months ago, when a poster claimed the 'unorganized militia' covered everyone.

it doesn't.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

"(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."

Yes, the unorganized covers everyone who is not connected with the organized militia (National Guard) or the regular military.

ignoring the first paragraph?


"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."

or are you under the delusion members of the unorganized militia consist of males and females from ages 8 to 90?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes. The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).

The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance. Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.

How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?

Nonsense.

The Second Amendment is not being ‘violated’ by the states or Federal government.

All the laws in all the states are in compliance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as are Federal firearm regulatory measures.

The Supreme Court alone determines what firearm regulatory measures violate the Second Amendment, not message board posters.

There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
Opinion of the Court
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

That court's decision is apparently a malicious misinterpretation from a government seeking to dispossess you of the broader right.


The court's ruling:
"""
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ...[weapon] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
"""

The amendment was constructed specifically avoiding making the right to bear arms being predicated on the establishment of a militia, and, yet, the court's interpretation requires exactly that. At the time, canons, bombs, bomb shooting canons, or repeater rifles were, perhaps, the most widely lethal arms, and, the founders envisioned *no* arm that a citizen should be restricted from (thus "shall not be infringed" without reference to type restrictions). Consequently, even from this ruling, this court should have no problem with the right to rocket launchers or automatic machine guns.

And, at the time the amendment was written, there existed weapons which *might* be deemed un-useful in a militia (flails, brass knuckles) - and yet, they were not provided as exceptions to the right to bear arms. Further, concealment of weapons was also possible at the time the amendment was written, and yet, no exception to the right to bear arms specifying against concealment was provided. If it was the intent to restrict the arms in type or manner, this would have been included in the amendment. If it was intended to predicate the right to bear arms on establishing a militia, this would have been how the amendment was written.

In other words, the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms without exception to type or manner.

And, let us consider what it means that the right is not predicated on militias. It means one or both of two things:
1. the founders thought predicating the right on militias would give government the tyrannical power of limiting the right through that predication.
2. there are other reasons besides a militia for the right.

And, in having read much from the founders, it is apparent that both of these things were the reasoning. The belief is that rights are given by God or Nature. And, specifically, the right to bear arms is the right to pose a threat to anyone/anything, (government, criminal, alligator) that would violate you.

And so, it is a right all the way down to needles and brass knuckles and all the way up to - well, that is to be determined, but at least canons that shoot bombs and vessels that carry many of these such canons.

At best, the gun grabbers can argue that the founders did not envision nukes, and thus, it is required in considering nukes that we consider the spirit of the amendment, and that spirit is of people power. And, nukes, arguably, are not a people power weapon. But, tanks are.


Now lets consider the intent of the court's ruling.

I can imagine scenarios where a sawn off shotgun would provide utility to a militia. But, the court is saying they need evidence towards the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and without that evidence, the court can decide to dispossess you of the right for any particular class of arms.

So, clearly, the intent of the ruling is to subject the right to governments' interpretation of what is needed for the efficiency of a government defined militia (for them to judge efficiency requires they also define what the militia is). This is a beautiful case of exactly what the founders were attempting to avoid with the amendment - the infringement of the rights of the people by a government gradually turning to tyranny.

oh but the interpretation would have to follow a couple of things is the firearm in common use and it would have to have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia and provided by the member

It does not appear that you read any of my post about the Miller decision. Why would you reply to my post if you did not read it?

I know all I need to know about U.S. VS Miller
It is what it is those black rifles the left hate so much are the very ones the miller court would agree that has protection under the second amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The rule governing the unorganized militia tell me if you see anything about age?

show me the rule, then the description of the unorganized militia

Look it up do your own homework age is not mentioned in the unorganized militia.

I did.

Months ago, when a poster claimed the 'unorganized militia' covered everyone.

it doesn't.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

"(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."

Yes, the unorganized covers everyone who is not connected with the organized militia (National Guard) or the regular military.

ignoring the first paragraph?


"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."

or are you under the delusion members of the unorganized militia consist of males and females from ages 8 to 90?

Your argument is about the militia
Ignoring the last subsection B2
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[capego]

There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
And yes it matters that's how we get these bull shit rulings from the liberal run courts. When the little things matter you can't lose your rights.

There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia

Who told you that?

The rule governing the unorganized militia tell me if you see anything about age?

show me the rule, then the description of the unorganized militia

Look it up do your own homework age is not mentioned in the unorganized militia.

I did.

Months ago, when a poster claimed the 'unorganized militia' covered everyone.

it doesn't.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

"(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."

The particulars of how the government defines a militia are irrelevant to the right to bear arms - the right is not predicated on the formation of a militia. Please see my post on the Miller decision.

Further, to constrain the right to a government definition of militia is an example of what Elbridge Gerry was referencing when he said "they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins". And, amusingly, you have a definition that destroys the militia and replaces it with a federal national guard (military).

 

[capego]

Nonsense.

The Second Amendment is not being ‘violated’ by the states or Federal government.

All the laws in all the states are in compliance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as are Federal firearm regulatory measures.

The Supreme Court alone determines what firearm regulatory measures violate the Second Amendment, not message board posters.

There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
Opinion of the Court
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

That court's decision is apparently a malicious misinterpretation from a government seeking to dispossess you of the broader right.


The court's ruling:
"""
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ...[weapon] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
"""

The amendment was constructed specifically avoiding making the right to bear arms being predicated on the establishment of a militia, and, yet, the court's interpretation requires exactly that. At the time, canons, bombs, bomb shooting canons, or repeater rifles were, perhaps, the most widely lethal arms, and, the founders envisioned *no* arm that a citizen should be restricted from (thus "shall not be infringed" without reference to type restrictions). Consequently, even from this ruling, this court should have no problem with the right to rocket launchers or automatic machine guns.

And, at the time the amendment was written, there existed weapons which *might* be deemed un-useful in a militia (flails, brass knuckles) - and yet, they were not provided as exceptions to the right to bear arms. Further, concealment of weapons was also possible at the time the amendment was written, and yet, no exception to the right to bear arms specifying against concealment was provided. If it was the intent to restrict the arms in type or manner, this would have been included in the amendment. If it was intended to predicate the right to bear arms on establishing a militia, this would have been how the amendment was written.

In other words, the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms without exception to type or manner.

And, let us consider what it means that the right is not predicated on militias. It means one or both of two things:
1. the founders thought predicating the right on militias would give government the tyrannical power of limiting the right through that predication.
2. there are other reasons besides a militia for the right.

And, in having read much from the founders, it is apparent that both of these things were the reasoning. The belief is that rights are given by God or Nature. And, specifically, the right to bear arms is the right to pose a threat to anyone/anything, (government, criminal, alligator) that would violate you.

And so, it is a right all the way down to needles and brass knuckles and all the way up to - well, that is to be determined, but at least canons that shoot bombs and vessels that carry many of these such canons.

At best, the gun grabbers can argue that the founders did not envision nukes, and thus, it is required in considering nukes that we consider the spirit of the amendment, and that spirit is of people power. And, nukes, arguably, are not a people power weapon. But, tanks are.


Now lets consider the intent of the court's ruling.

I can imagine scenarios where a sawn off shotgun would provide utility to a militia. But, the court is saying they need evidence towards the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and without that evidence, the court can decide to dispossess you of the right for any particular class of arms.

So, clearly, the intent of the ruling is to subject the right to governments' interpretation of what is needed for the efficiency of a government defined militia (for them to judge efficiency requires they also define what the militia is). This is a beautiful case of exactly what the founders were attempting to avoid with the amendment - the infringement of the rights of the people by a government gradually turning to tyranny.

oh but the interpretation would have to follow a couple of things is the firearm in common use and it would have to have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia and provided by the member

It does not appear that you read any of my post about the Miller decision. Why would you reply to my post if you did not read it?

I know all I need to know about U.S. VS Miller
It is what it is those black rifles the left hate so much are the very ones the miller court would agree that has protection under the second amendment.

Apparently you do not. It was not a beneficial decision for gun owners, but, instead, showed the corruption of the court.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
Opinion of the Court
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

That court's decision is apparently a malicious misinterpretation from a government seeking to dispossess you of the broader right.


The court's ruling:
"""
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ...[weapon] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
"""

The amendment was constructed specifically avoiding making the right to bear arms being predicated on the establishment of a militia, and, yet, the court's interpretation requires exactly that. At the time, canons, bombs, bomb shooting canons, or repeater rifles were, perhaps, the most widely lethal arms, and, the founders envisioned *no* arm that a citizen should be restricted from (thus "shall not be infringed" without reference to type restrictions). Consequently, even from this ruling, this court should have no problem with the right to rocket launchers or automatic machine guns.

And, at the time the amendment was written, there existed weapons which *might* be deemed un-useful in a militia (flails, brass knuckles) - and yet, they were not provided as exceptions to the right to bear arms. Further, concealment of weapons was also possible at the time the amendment was written, and yet, no exception to the right to bear arms specifying against concealment was provided. If it was the intent to restrict the arms in type or manner, this would have been included in the amendment. If it was intended to predicate the right to bear arms on establishing a militia, this would have been how the amendment was written.

In other words, the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms without exception to type or manner.

And, let us consider what it means that the right is not predicated on militias. It means one or both of two things:
1. the founders thought predicating the right on militias would give government the tyrannical power of limiting the right through that predication.
2. there are other reasons besides a militia for the right.

And, in having read much from the founders, it is apparent that both of these things were the reasoning. The belief is that rights are given by God or Nature. And, specifically, the right to bear arms is the right to pose a threat to anyone/anything, (government, criminal, alligator) that would violate you.

And so, it is a right all the way down to needles and brass knuckles and all the way up to - well, that is to be determined, but at least canons that shoot bombs and vessels that carry many of these such canons.

At best, the gun grabbers can argue that the founders did not envision nukes, and thus, it is required in considering nukes that we consider the spirit of the amendment, and that spirit is of people power. And, nukes, arguably, are not a people power weapon. But, tanks are.


Now lets consider the intent of the court's ruling.

I can imagine scenarios where a sawn off shotgun would provide utility to a militia. But, the court is saying they need evidence towards the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and without that evidence, the court can decide to dispossess you of the right for any particular class of arms.

So, clearly, the intent of the ruling is to subject the right to governments' interpretation of what is needed for the efficiency of a government defined militia (for them to judge efficiency requires they also define what the militia is). This is a beautiful case of exactly what the founders were attempting to avoid with the amendment - the infringement of the rights of the people by a government gradually turning to tyranny.

oh but the interpretation would have to follow a couple of things is the firearm in common use and it would have to have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia and provided by the member

It does not appear that you read any of my post about the Miller decision. Why would you reply to my post if you did not read it?

I know all I need to know about U.S. VS Miller
It is what it is those black rifles the left hate so much are the very ones the miller court would agree that has protection under the second amendment.

Apparently you do not. It was not a beneficial decision for gun owners, but, instead, showed the corruption of the court.

You don't like the ruling so it's a corrupt court.
To me it's the line in the sand take those weapons and that law becomes unenforceable by means of a second amendment solution.

 

[Auld Phart]

show me the rule, then the description of the unorganized militia

Look it up do your own homework age is not mentioned in the unorganized militia.

I did.

Months ago, when a poster claimed the 'unorganized militia' covered everyone.

it doesn't.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

"(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."

Yes, the unorganized covers everyone who is not connected with the organized militia (National Guard) or the regular military.

ignoring the first paragraph?


"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."

or are you under the delusion members of the unorganized militia consist of males and females from ages 8 to 90?

Your argument is about the militia
Ignoring the last subsection B2
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

the age limit for the Militia still applies.

I don't know which is worse.

your lack of reading comprehension, or your lack of common sense.

Whichever, there is no sense continuing this, from my point of view.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Look it up do your own homework age is not mentioned in the unorganized militia.

I did.

Months ago, when a poster claimed the 'unorganized militia' covered everyone.

it doesn't.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

"(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."

Yes, the unorganized covers everyone who is not connected with the organized militia (National Guard) or the regular military.

ignoring the first paragraph?


"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."

or are you under the delusion members of the unorganized militia consist of males and females from ages 8 to 90?

Your argument is about the militia
Ignoring the last subsection B2
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

the age limit for the Militia still applies.

I don't know which is worse.

your lack of reading comprehension, or your lack of common sense.

Whichever, there is no sense continuing this, from my point of view.

No, it doesn't apply because the two are separate.

 

[Auld Phart]

I did.

Months ago, when a poster claimed the 'unorganized militia' covered everyone.

it doesn't.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

"(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."

Yes, the unorganized covers everyone who is not connected with the organized militia (National Guard) or the regular military.

ignoring the first paragraph?


"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."

or are you under the delusion members of the unorganized militia consist of males and females from ages 8 to 90?

Your argument is about the militia
Ignoring the last subsection B2
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

the age limit for the Militia still applies.

I don't know which is worse.

your lack of reading comprehension, or your lack of common sense.

Whichever, there is no sense continuing this, from my point of view.

No, it doesn't apply because the two are separate.

The unorganized militia can consist of males and females between the ages of 8 to 80?

use some common sense.

(even if you have to borrow it)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes, the unorganized covers everyone who is not connected with the organized militia (National Guard) or the regular military.

ignoring the first paragraph?


"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."

or are you under the delusion members of the unorganized militia consist of males and females from ages 8 to 90?

Your argument is about the militia
Ignoring the last subsection B2
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

the age limit for the Militia still applies.

I don't know which is worse.

your lack of reading comprehension, or your lack of common sense.

Whichever, there is no sense continuing this, from my point of view.

No, it doesn't apply because the two are separate.

The unorganized militia can consist of males and females between the ages of 8 to 80?

use some common sense.

(even if you have to borrow it)

It could be, are you age discriminatory?

 

[Auld Phart]

ignoring the first paragraph?


"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."

or are you under the delusion members of the unorganized militia consist of males and females from ages 8 to 90?

Your argument is about the militia
Ignoring the last subsection B2
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

the age limit for the Militia still applies.

I don't know which is worse.

your lack of reading comprehension, or your lack of common sense.

Whichever, there is no sense continuing this, from my point of view.

No, it doesn't apply because the two are separate.

The unorganized militia can consist of males and females between the ages of 8 to 80?

use some common sense.

(even if you have to borrow it)

It could be, are you age discriminatory?

no

but you're certainly proving you're a fool.

and incapable of reading.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.


"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry 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.

What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

Mr Gerry also 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. "

"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.""

it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.

The idea that "bear arms" = "render military service" is absurd. Let's explore the source that you've misinterpreted:

Document 6, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67


"""
"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."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. 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.

....

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.... This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

"""

The constructors were so intent on not violating peoples' rights that the amendment originally had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms", but, Gerry, being rightfully paranoid about governments' misuse, reinterpretation, and misconstruction of law thought that phrase provided the opportunity for government to "invade the rights and liberties of the people". You are literally arguing the inverse of what Gerry 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". And, what better way to destroy the militia than to, as he put it, declare all people religiously disposed not to bear arms and then deprive them of that right, and thus make them incapable of forming a militia.


And, in case you still deny the obvious, let's continue from the source:

"""

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."

"""

You are arguing that Jackson really meant
"No one, religiously scrupulous of military service, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
but actually said, just, I guess, to confuse rational poeple
"No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.".

What an insane perverse interpretation you have.


"""

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

"""

Stone makes it clear there are at least two things being considered - "bearing arms" and something else, presumably "serving in a militia" - making it, once again, clear the two things are different.


This presents the question to me. How could you misconstrue a person who is paranoid of governments' almost impossible interpretation of "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" to mean that those who wrote the 2nd amendment (Elbridge Gerry did not) actually intended a different meaning of "bear arms" (despite having the ability to write the meaning clearly)? And, I venture it is one or a mix of 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.

Absurd? Except that I've shown this is what the Founding Father said. So, you're calling the Founding Fathers absurd.

I can't believe you've just gone and posted half the damn document. What's the point. I provided the source.

Oh, oh, oh, now it's a DIFFERENT MEANING of "bear arms". Are you kidding me?

Wow, then you attack me.

See, I wrote in my first post that people would do everything they could to avoid seeing what is really there.

Attacking me is the obvious one, it's happened so many times. I've never had someone tell me that in:

""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.""

That "bear arms" in the first clause means one thing and "bear arms" in the second clause means something completely different. I'd love to see a bunch of Constitutional scholars read that. They wouldn't stop laughing for ages.

Basically you're making shit up, and your attack on me is just typical bullshit from people who know nothing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, that's nice.

You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.

1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.

Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.

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."

Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?

Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.

As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?

You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.

Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?

You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.

2) You posted about the unorganized militia.

Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.

Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.

So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.

But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.

So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.

Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?

I'm lost.

Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?

So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it.

Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.

The age requirement was for the organized militia, not the unorganized militia

Clearly not. But this is not important here. The unorganized militia exists for a reason.

The Root Reforms and the National Guard

"the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support."

Federal Statutes Annotated

Seems it's 18-45, not 17-45 too.

But seeing as the unorganized militia is just left to rot, as was the intention, it doesn't really matter, does it?

There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
And yes it matters that's how we get these bull shit rulings from the liberal run courts. When the little things matter you can't lose your rights.

So, no age limit for the unorganized militia. Which you've "proven" with ZERO sources.

Actually the reality is that men aged 18-45 were AUTOMATICALLY put into the unorganized militia. This is what we're talking about. Others could fight, so it's not an issue of barring people from militia duty, it's simply a matter of the Dick Act saying men aged 18-45 were automatically in the unorganized militia.

Not that it matters much. It's not the issue here.

There's nothing about losing rights here. Minors have limited rights. Nothing says that woman can't be in the militia. The National Guard has women, but it doesn't have minors.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, that's nice.

You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.

1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.

Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.

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."

Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?

Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.

As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?

You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.

Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?

You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.

2) You posted about the unorganized militia.

Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.

Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.

So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.

But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.

So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.

Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?

I'm lost.

Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?

So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it.

Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.

"So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it."

Well done. You've just posted a quote that I posted.

So, are we agreed that I did not say what you claimed I said?

Are we also in agreement that the term "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty"?

You said
"So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it"
Then you followed up with
"I'm lost.

Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?"
So which is it? should we add everybody to the unorganized militia something they are already part of or did you lie?

This is pointless.

"Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?"

This is what you said. I don't know why you said it.

You like going off on tangents and picking up on the most pointless things and then trying to beat them to death.

We're talking about the meaning of the term "bear arms".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Clearly not. But this is not important here. The unorganized militia exists for a reason.

The Root Reforms and the National Guard

"the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support."

Federal Statutes Annotated

Seems it's 18-45, not 17-45 too.

But seeing as the unorganized militia is just left to rot, as was the intention, it doesn't really matter, does it?

There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
And yes it matters that's how we get these bull shit rulings from the liberal run courts. When the little things matter you can't lose your rights.

There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia

Who told you that?

The rule governing the unorganized militia tell me if you see anything about age?

show me the rule, then the description of the unorganized militia

Look it up do your own homework age is not mentioned in the unorganized militia.

Full text of "The Militia Act of 1903"

"
THE MILITIA ACT OF 1903.

BY LIEUTENANT-COLONEL JAMES PAHKER, U.S.A., ACTING ASSISTANT
ADJUTANT-GENERAL."

"The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia
shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and
forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized
militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia."

The militia shall consist of every abled-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five.

The Root Reforms and the National Guard

"The act, also known as the Dick Act in honor of Dick, repealed the Militia Act of 1792 and divided the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support."

http://legisworks.org/sal/32/stats/STATUTE-32-Pg775.pdf

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House ofRepresentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the militia shall consist Coml PD9itioaof. of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes-the organized militia, to be known as the National National Guard."

 

[frigidweirdo]

The argument for militias for states against the federal government does not negate the general principle of guerilla warfare against tyranny, and, is rather an example of such.
The principle being:
"
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
"

The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.

You are arguing against the federalist papers on a point I only referenced from someone else. Do you not see that quote from the federalist papers or did you not read The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison?

The question comes to me of, why would someone have such selective ignorance in favor of the federal government? I think that is obvious.

I have found that the quotes in the Federalist Papers don't support any right wing meaning of the 2A.

Including the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceived the government to have become tyrannical, contrary to the will of the majority of the people.

Maybe you of the minority should not push for impeachment of a lawfully elected President?

But impeachment is in the Constitution. It's a legal avenue.

 

[capego]

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

Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.


"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry 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.

What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

Mr Gerry also 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. "

"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.""

it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.

The idea that "bear arms" = "render military service" is absurd. Let's explore the source that you've misinterpreted:

Document 6, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67


"""
"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."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. 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.

....

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.... This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

"""

The constructors were so intent on not violating peoples' rights that the amendment originally had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms", but, Gerry, being rightfully paranoid about governments' misuse, reinterpretation, and misconstruction of law thought that phrase provided the opportunity for government to "invade the rights and liberties of the people". You are literally arguing the inverse of what Gerry 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". And, what better way to destroy the militia than to, as he put it, declare all people religiously disposed not to bear arms and then deprive them of that right, and thus make them incapable of forming a militia.


And, in case you still deny the obvious, let's continue from the source:

"""

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."

"""

You are arguing that Jackson really meant
"No one, religiously scrupulous of military service, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
but actually said, just, I guess, to confuse rational poeple
"No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.".

What an insane perverse interpretation you have.


"""

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

"""

Stone makes it clear there are at least two things being considered - "bearing arms" and something else, presumably "serving in a militia" - making it, once again, clear the two things are different.


This presents the question to me. How could you misconstrue a person who is paranoid of governments' almost impossible interpretation of "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" to mean that those who wrote the 2nd amendment (Elbridge Gerry did not) actually intended a different meaning of "bear arms" (despite having the ability to write the meaning clearly)? And, I venture it is one or a mix of 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.

Absurd? Except that I've shown this is what the Founding Father said. So, you're calling the Founding Fathers absurd.

I can't believe you've just gone and posted half the damn document. What's the point. I provided the source.

Oh, oh, oh, now it's a DIFFERENT MEANING of "bear arms". Are you kidding me?

Wow, then you attack me.

See, I wrote in my first post that people would do everything they could to avoid seeing what is really there.

Attacking me is the obvious one, it's happened so many times. I've never had someone tell me that in:

""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.""

That "bear arms" in the first clause means one thing and "bear arms" in the second clause means something completely different. I'd love to see a bunch of Constitutional scholars read that. They wouldn't stop laughing for ages.

Basically you're making shit up, and your attack on me is just typical bullshit from people who know nothing.

Not a single refutation by logic of any of my specific points. Please go away, you are apparently being unconstructive.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.


"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry 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.

What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

Mr Gerry also 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. "

"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.""

it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.

The idea that "bear arms" = "render military service" is absurd. Let's explore the source that you've misinterpreted:

Document 6, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67


"""
"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."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. 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.

....

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.... This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

"""

The constructors were so intent on not violating peoples' rights that the amendment originally had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms", but, Gerry, being rightfully paranoid about governments' misuse, reinterpretation, and misconstruction of law thought that phrase provided the opportunity for government to "invade the rights and liberties of the people". You are literally arguing the inverse of what Gerry 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". And, what better way to destroy the militia than to, as he put it, declare all people religiously disposed not to bear arms and then deprive them of that right, and thus make them incapable of forming a militia.


And, in case you still deny the obvious, let's continue from the source:

"""

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."

"""

You are arguing that Jackson really meant
"No one, religiously scrupulous of military service, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
but actually said, just, I guess, to confuse rational poeple
"No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.".

What an insane perverse interpretation you have.


"""

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

"""

Stone makes it clear there are at least two things being considered - "bearing arms" and something else, presumably "serving in a militia" - making it, once again, clear the two things are different.


This presents the question to me. How could you misconstrue a person who is paranoid of governments' almost impossible interpretation of "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" to mean that those who wrote the 2nd amendment (Elbridge Gerry did not) actually intended a different meaning of "bear arms" (despite having the ability to write the meaning clearly)? And, I venture it is one or a mix of 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.

Absurd? Except that I've shown this is what the Founding Father said. So, you're calling the Founding Fathers absurd.

I can't believe you've just gone and posted half the damn document. What's the point. I provided the source.

Oh, oh, oh, now it's a DIFFERENT MEANING of "bear arms". Are you kidding me?

Wow, then you attack me.

See, I wrote in my first post that people would do everything they could to avoid seeing what is really there.

Attacking me is the obvious one, it's happened so many times. I've never had someone tell me that in:

""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.""

That "bear arms" in the first clause means one thing and "bear arms" in the second clause means something completely different. I'd love to see a bunch of Constitutional scholars read that. They wouldn't stop laughing for ages.

Basically you're making shit up, and your attack on me is just typical bullshit from people who know nothing.

Not a single refutation by logic of any of my specific points. Please go away, you are apparently being unconstructive.

What logic?

1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.

Logic?

No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.

I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.

 

[capego]

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

Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.


"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry 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.

What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

Mr Gerry also 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. "

"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.""

it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.

The idea that "bear arms" = "render military service" is absurd. Let's explore the source that you've misinterpreted:

Document 6, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67


"""
"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."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. 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.

....

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.... This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

"""

The constructors were so intent on not violating peoples' rights that the amendment originally had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms", but, Gerry, being rightfully paranoid about governments' misuse, reinterpretation, and misconstruction of law thought that phrase provided the opportunity for government to "invade the rights and liberties of the people". You are literally arguing the inverse of what Gerry 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". And, what better way to destroy the militia than to, as he put it, declare all people religiously disposed not to bear arms and then deprive them of that right, and thus make them incapable of forming a militia.


And, in case you still deny the obvious, let's continue from the source:

"""

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."

"""

You are arguing that Jackson really meant
"No one, religiously scrupulous of military service, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
but actually said, just, I guess, to confuse rational poeple
"No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.".

What an insane perverse interpretation you have.


"""

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

"""

Stone makes it clear there are at least two things being considered - "bearing arms" and something else, presumably "serving in a militia" - making it, once again, clear the two things are different.


This presents the question to me. How could you misconstrue a person who is paranoid of governments' almost impossible interpretation of "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" to mean that those who wrote the 2nd amendment (Elbridge Gerry did not) actually intended a different meaning of "bear arms" (despite having the ability to write the meaning clearly)? And, I venture it is one or a mix of 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.

Absurd? Except that I've shown this is what the Founding Father said. So, you're calling the Founding Fathers absurd.

I can't believe you've just gone and posted half the damn document. What's the point. I provided the source.

Oh, oh, oh, now it's a DIFFERENT MEANING of "bear arms". Are you kidding me?

Wow, then you attack me.

See, I wrote in my first post that people would do everything they could to avoid seeing what is really there.

Attacking me is the obvious one, it's happened so many times. I've never had someone tell me that in:

""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.""

That "bear arms" in the first clause means one thing and "bear arms" in the second clause means something completely different. I'd love to see a bunch of Constitutional scholars read that. They wouldn't stop laughing for ages.

Basically you're making shit up, and your attack on me is just typical bullshit from people who know nothing.

Not a single refutation by logic of any of my specific points. Please go away, you are apparently being unconstructive.

What logic?

1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.

Logic?

No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.

I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.

My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult? I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.

Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason. You are fitting that description presently.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.


"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry 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.

What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

Mr Gerry also 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. "

"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.""

it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.

The idea that "bear arms" = "render military service" is absurd. Let's explore the source that you've misinterpreted:

Document 6, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67


"""
"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."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. 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.

....

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.... This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

"""

The constructors were so intent on not violating peoples' rights that the amendment originally had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms", but, Gerry, being rightfully paranoid about governments' misuse, reinterpretation, and misconstruction of law thought that phrase provided the opportunity for government to "invade the rights and liberties of the people". You are literally arguing the inverse of what Gerry 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". And, what better way to destroy the militia than to, as he put it, declare all people religiously disposed not to bear arms and then deprive them of that right, and thus make them incapable of forming a militia.


And, in case you still deny the obvious, let's continue from the source:

"""

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."

"""

You are arguing that Jackson really meant
"No one, religiously scrupulous of military service, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
but actually said, just, I guess, to confuse rational poeple
"No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.".

What an insane perverse interpretation you have.


"""

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

"""

Stone makes it clear there are at least two things being considered - "bearing arms" and something else, presumably "serving in a militia" - making it, once again, clear the two things are different.


This presents the question to me. How could you misconstrue a person who is paranoid of governments' almost impossible interpretation of "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" to mean that those who wrote the 2nd amendment (Elbridge Gerry did not) actually intended a different meaning of "bear arms" (despite having the ability to write the meaning clearly)? And, I venture it is one or a mix of 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.

Absurd? Except that I've shown this is what the Founding Father said. So, you're calling the Founding Fathers absurd.

I can't believe you've just gone and posted half the damn document. What's the point. I provided the source.

Oh, oh, oh, now it's a DIFFERENT MEANING of "bear arms". Are you kidding me?

Wow, then you attack me.

See, I wrote in my first post that people would do everything they could to avoid seeing what is really there.

Attacking me is the obvious one, it's happened so many times. I've never had someone tell me that in:

""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.""

That "bear arms" in the first clause means one thing and "bear arms" in the second clause means something completely different. I'd love to see a bunch of Constitutional scholars read that. They wouldn't stop laughing for ages.

Basically you're making shit up, and your attack on me is just typical bullshit from people who know nothing.

Not a single refutation by logic of any of my specific points. Please go away, you are apparently being unconstructive.

What logic?

1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.

Logic?

No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.

I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.

My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult? I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.

Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason. You are fitting that description presently.

Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.

Learn.