Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[danielpalos]

it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary. the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.

No it doesn't, but do blabber on

yes, it does; the right wing has No Thing, but fallacy.

And that is why the founding fathers wrote "and the right to KEEP and BEAR arms by the MILITIA shall not be infringed"?

I know they were short on parchment, but......................

You are short on understanding of what the militia is.

it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary. the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

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.

Thanks again for explaining the part preceding the second comma, then if what you say is true, the part after the second paragraph was simply unnecessary, or would afford the right to "the Militia". Of course, neither is true

lol. should i ask about your chart reading skills as well?

The People are the Militia. the people=the militia. only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

It might be, but the OP did the opposite; deliberately applied the environment of the 18th Century. That is, its own time.

Through the filter of current thinking.

 

[westwall]

What does
"the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"

mean then?

The entire 2nd Amendment, and I quote: "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".

No "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL" there at all.

Indeed, however, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" in Article V makes it very clear that we are dealing with the INDIVIDUAL. Or do you think that person only applies to a bunch of people? You can singularly destroy any one single person, but if there are a bunch of them they suddenly have Rights?

So, we are not talking about the 2nd Amendment anymore?

The Bill of Rights, save for this one

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Deals exclusively with INDIVIDUAL Rights. The Tenth as you can see mentions individual States, but it also specifically names the PEOPLE as a SEPARATE entity from the State which blows the argument that the Bill of Rights is about collective Rights, right out of the water.

Funny how that works.

Our Second Amendment is about States' sovereign rights, not individual rights.

A laughable assertion because if that were true the PEOPLE would already be disarmed and all legal guns would be in the hands of the government.

 

[Pop23]

No it doesn't, but do blabber on

yes, it does; the right wing has No Thing, but fallacy.

And that is why the founding fathers wrote "and the right to KEEP and BEAR arms by the MILITIA shall not be infringed"?

I know they were short on parchment, but......................

You are short on understanding of what the militia is.

it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary. the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

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.

Thanks again for explaining the part preceding the second comma, then if what you say is true, the part after the second paragraph was simply unnecessary, or would afford the right to "the Militia". Of course, neither is true

lol. should i ask about your chart reading skills as well?

The People are the Militia. the people=the militia. only the right wing, never gets it.

Not according to the Second Amendment. It specifically changed Militia in part one to "the People" in part two. It does not read the right to keep and bear arms by the Militia shall not be infringed.

 

[Pop23]

The entire 2nd Amendment, and I quote: "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".

No "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL" there at all.

Indeed, however, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" in Article V makes it very clear that we are dealing with the INDIVIDUAL. Or do you think that person only applies to a bunch of people? You can singularly destroy any one single person, but if there are a bunch of them they suddenly have Rights?

So, we are not talking about the 2nd Amendment anymore?

The Bill of Rights, save for this one

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Deals exclusively with INDIVIDUAL Rights. The Tenth as you can see mentions individual States, but it also specifically names the PEOPLE as a SEPARATE entity from the State which blows the argument that the Bill of Rights is about collective Rights, right out of the water.

Funny how that works.

Our Second Amendment is about States' sovereign rights, not individual rights.

A laughable assertion because if that were true the PEOPLE would already be disarmed and all legal guns would be in the hands of the government.

That only makes sense

 

[danielpalos]

The entire 2nd Amendment, and I quote: "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".

No "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL" there at all.

Indeed, however, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" in Article V makes it very clear that we are dealing with the INDIVIDUAL. Or do you think that person only applies to a bunch of people? You can singularly destroy any one single person, but if there are a bunch of them they suddenly have Rights?

So, we are not talking about the 2nd Amendment anymore?

The Bill of Rights, save for this one

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Deals exclusively with INDIVIDUAL Rights. The Tenth as you can see mentions individual States, but it also specifically names the PEOPLE as a SEPARATE entity from the State which blows the argument that the Bill of Rights is about collective Rights, right out of the water.

Funny how that works.

Our Second Amendment is about States' sovereign rights, not individual rights.

A laughable assertion because if that were true the PEOPLE would already be disarmed and all legal guns would be in the hands of the government.

Our Second Amendment clearly declares what is Necessary to the security of our free States, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it does; the right wing has No Thing, but fallacy.

And that is why the founding fathers wrote "and the right to KEEP and BEAR arms by the MILITIA shall not be infringed"?

I know they were short on parchment, but......................

You are short on understanding of what the militia is.

it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary. the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

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.

Thanks again for explaining the part preceding the second comma, then if what you say is true, the part after the second paragraph was simply unnecessary, or would afford the right to "the Militia". Of course, neither is true

lol. should i ask about your chart reading skills as well?

The People are the Militia. the people=the militia. only the right wing, never gets it.

Not according to the Second Amendment. It specifically changed Militia in part one to "the People" in part two. It does not read the right to keep and bear arms by the Militia shall not be infringed.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

The People are the Militia.

 

[westwall]

Indeed, however, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" in Article V makes it very clear that we are dealing with the INDIVIDUAL. Or do you think that person only applies to a bunch of people? You can singularly destroy any one single person, but if there are a bunch of them they suddenly have Rights?

So, we are not talking about the 2nd Amendment anymore?

The Bill of Rights, save for this one

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Deals exclusively with INDIVIDUAL Rights. The Tenth as you can see mentions individual States, but it also specifically names the PEOPLE as a SEPARATE entity from the State which blows the argument that the Bill of Rights is about collective Rights, right out of the water.

Funny how that works.

Our Second Amendment is about States' sovereign rights, not individual rights.

A laughable assertion because if that were true the PEOPLE would already be disarmed and all legal guns would be in the hands of the government.

Our Second Amendment clearly declares what is Necessary to the security of our free States, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia.

Based on the fact that your fantasy world doesn't exist, my position is provably true.

 

[Pogo]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

It might be, but the OP did the opposite; deliberately applied the environment of the 18th Century. That is, its own time.

Through the filter of current thinking.

Obviously the poster does not have the option to post his analysis in the 18th Century, now does he?

As I said, which you edited out, your attempted point is dishonest. You directly accused the OP of doing the opposite of what he actually did. Which is also why you cut out the part where I called it dishonest.

 

[there4eyeM]

If the Constitution had been intended to be frozen in its time of origine, the thoughtful founders would have indicated that. Instead, amendments were the very first thing they did to the renewed Federal Constitution. Means of making amendments were included. What are we to make of that?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

It might be, but the OP did the opposite; deliberately applied the environment of the 18th Century. That is, its own time.

Through the filter of current thinking.

Obviously the poster does not have the option to post his analysis in the 18th Century, now does he?

As I said, which you edited out, your attempted point is dishonest. You directly accused the OP of doing the opposite of what he actually did. Which is also why you cut out the part where I called it dishonest.

Because it is your opinion, and as you know, I dispense with your opinions without delay.

 

[Pogo]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

It might be, but the OP did the opposite; deliberately applied the environment of the 18th Century. That is, its own time.

Through the filter of current thinking.

Obviously the poster does not have the option to post his analysis in the 18th Century, now does he?

As I said, which you edited out, your attempted point is dishonest. You directly accused the OP of doing the opposite of what he actually did. Which is also why you cut out the part where I called it dishonest.

Because it is your opinion, and as you know, I dispense with your opinions without delay.

Because I nailed your ass, that's why.
It isn't a matter of "opinion". All I had to do was read your post and compare it to the OP. Which is what you should have done.

 

[Darkwind]

The militia is made up of citizen soldiers. They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.

nothing but diversion? all of those terms are collective and plural.

Collective? You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.

it is self evident. both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.

Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.

In fact, given that the entire document is set and predicated upon ensuring and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual, your statement fails any logic test.

The people is an artful way of saying that each individual enjoys the exact same protections under the law and that each individual's liberty is of concern to everyone.

No, it isn't. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution. The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

You have already degenerated into ad hominen attacks. Do you know why? Because every arguement you have made has been shot down and debunked by those here, and by top scholars around the country.

You have resorted to repeating the same thing over and over and name calling.

I've finished in this thread as you are the only one making these absurd arguments and I don't get into "did too, did not" games.

 

[Darkwind]

And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective. Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population. But collective? How do you make that determination? (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)

The militia and the body politic of the People, along with the security needs of a free State are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?

The militia is made up of citizen soldiers. They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.

I agree when it was before the weapons costs so danged much. You could afford anything the Military could except for artillery. And if you were rich enough, you could afford even an artillery piece or two as well. After 1850, the cost of war went up exponentially. All of a sudden, the Gatlin was introduced, followed closely by the Hotchkin Canon, the Rocket Launchers, Aerial Bombs, Mortars, Howitzers and more. The cost of war outstripped even the richest people. Only Governments could afford those expenditures. It was back to the days where the King was the only one that could afford to outfit his Knights with the proper equipment to wage war. Without even knowing it, the 2nd amendment included something about an Organized Militia where the State would equip it's own Army. The State could afford many of the weapons or war far beyond the individual. What they didn't foresee was the power and the cost of the weapons to even outstrip anything even the State could afford. Now,only the Federals can afford these weapons by pooling all the States Funds together. If a State were to put together an Organized Militia from the weapons you had and the weapons it actually owned it would not be able to stand the first battle with the Federals. The National Guard's Weapons aren't owned by the State, they are owned by the Feds.

Now, where does that leave the first half of the 2nd amendment?

Two issues about this come to mind.

1. In this country, there are over 200 million guns. That is a formidable army, even for our military. However, that leads to the second point...

2. The military would not obey an order from the civilian government to go to war with the people of the United States. It would be an 'unlawful' order. At best, if it ever came to brass tacks and we had to defend ourselves from our own government, at best, we are looking at the combined law enforcement agencies controlled by the Feds. They are, in their own right, quite a force, but not one that could take the entirety of the US population; or those who are armed and resisting.

1. There are 200 million guns, yes. But not even a fraction of that many households that actually have the guns. Many households with guns have multiple guns.

2. And who are you going to get to lead your Army? Are you aware it's against the law to openly preach about an armed overthrow of the United States of America? It's one thing to do it as an individual but when you do it large scale, that's considered treason and subject to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment. If you continue to do so while incarcerated, you may find yourself living in solitary confinement in Levenworth or one of the Super Max Prisons.

3. Now that you have decided to raise your army, just how are you going to mobilize it. Logistics is a nightmare. Are you going to practice it? Once again, treason gets in the way here.

4. You are assuming that all or most gun owners will take up arms with you. Newsflash: Don't look for anything like that. Most of us Gun Owners think the people running around the woods playing war are a bunch of nutcases and are probably right. If push comes to shove, most are likely to become part of the Organized Militia and get the really good stuff.

5. You forget, the US Military CAN and WILL defend against the enemy(s) of the United States and the Constitution if authorized by the President and Congress in country. If you raise an million man army, and decide to take over parts of the country, you are now an enemy of the State and are no longer considered Citizens by your own admission. The US can raise a few million very quickly by using Active, Reserve, National Guard, State Guard and Organized Militia. The Organized Militia would take a bit longer but the first three could be done in a matter of days. Logistics would take a couple of weeks to get them into place. Meanwhile, you are still trying to get your people mobilized.

It's an impossible pipe nightmare on your part. But if you want to try, be my guest. The Graveyards and Prisons have room to spare for your "Army".

You need to carefully read what I wrote and HOW I wrote it.

The enemies of the United States can be the very government itself if it becomes an oppressive tyranny.

Tell Me something. How did the militia in the late 18th century organize and effectively fight against the strongest military in the world?

I offered My opinion on what I think would happen in the eventuality that the government becomes oppressive. Sorry you disagree.

 

[danielpalos]

So, we are not talking about the 2nd Amendment anymore?

The Bill of Rights, save for this one

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Deals exclusively with INDIVIDUAL Rights. The Tenth as you can see mentions individual States, but it also specifically names the PEOPLE as a SEPARATE entity from the State which blows the argument that the Bill of Rights is about collective Rights, right out of the water.

Funny how that works.

Our Second Amendment is about States' sovereign rights, not individual rights.

A laughable assertion because if that were true the PEOPLE would already be disarmed and all legal guns would be in the hands of the government.

Our Second Amendment clearly declares what is Necessary to the security of our free States, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia.

Based on the fact that your fantasy world doesn't exist, my position is provably true.

lol. You have no actual argument. Our federal Constitution is one of express powers, not implied powers. it really is that simple, right wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but diversion? all of those terms are collective and plural.

Collective? You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.

it is self evident. both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.

Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.

In fact, given that the entire document is set and predicated upon ensuring and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual, your statement fails any logic test.

The people is an artful way of saying that each individual enjoys the exact same protections under the law and that each individual's liberty is of concern to everyone.

No, it isn't. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution. The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

You have already degenerated into ad hominen attacks. Do you know why? Because every arguement you have made has been shot down and debunked by those here, and by top scholars around the country.

You have resorted to repeating the same thing over and over and name calling.

I've finished in this thread as you are the only one making these absurd arguments and I don't get into "did too, did not" games.

lol. the right wing is worse. why no calling them on their spam?

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the Constitution had been intended to be frozen in its time of origine, the thoughtful founders would have indicated that. Instead, amendments were the very first thing they did to the renewed Federal Constitution. Means of making amendments were included. What are we to make of that?

The Framers also intended the courts to determine what the Constitution means, ultimately the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

 

[Pop23]

If the Constitution had been intended to be frozen in its time of origine, the thoughtful founders would have indicated that. Instead, amendments were the very first thing they did to the renewed Federal Constitution. Means of making amendments were included. What are we to make of that?

And they were made extremely hard to accomplish

 

[danielpalos]

There is nothing Ambiguous about our supreme law of the land; Only right wing reading comprehension issues.

 

[Markle]

ur Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Our Second Amendment says the same thing, with or without any punctuation, "on the right wing".

Who could make this up?

I already tried it. The right wing is simply full of fallacy if they believe, punctuation has any influence in the meaning of the terms in our Second Amendment.

You're not serious, you're simply a bored troll.