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

[Pilot1]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Natural rights are possessed because we are Human Beings. With regards to the right to keep, and bear arms, the Federal Constitution guarantees that natural right will not be infringed. The individual states agreed to abide by the Constitution when they became states. Any state law restricting this right is unconstitutional as it is solely up to the Feds via the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Natural rights are possessed because we are Human Beings. With regards to the right to keep, and bear arms, the Federal Constitution guarantees that natural right will not be infringed. The individual states agreed to abide by the Constitution when they became states. Any state law restricting this right is unconstitutional as it is solely up to the Feds via the Constitution.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment; they are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of our free States; it is not the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People.

 

[danielpalos]

If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:

Examples being:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.

None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?

Why indeed. That's the question, isn't it. The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is. On the other hand if the intent is to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.

The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.

The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly. About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias. The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.

Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."

These were not how the document written.

Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS

Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

Huh?

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

 

[there4eyeM]

The only arms to which one may have a 'natural right' are the ones that have hands on the ends of them.

 

[Pop23]

Why indeed. That's the question, isn't it. The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is. On the other hand if the intent is to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.

The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.

The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly. About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias. The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.

Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."

These were not how the document written.

Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS

Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

Huh?

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

 

[WinterBorn]

Projecting much? all the right wing does best, is appeal to ignorance of the law.

The people are the militia. You are, either; well regulated or unorganized. there are no Individual rights, in our Second Article of Amendment.

Not true at all. Yes, the People make up the Militia, however, the arms are privately owned by Natural Right by the People individually. The Constitution only guarantees Government will not infringe upon that Right. Government does NOT grant us these rights.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.

Still spouting this nonsense? The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution do not comne from state constitutions. And state constitutions cannot override the US Constitutions. But any state constitution that violates the US Constitution loses.

Can you cite where our natural rights are, in our federal Constitution? I can cite where they are in State Constitutions.

That is why, it is practically federal doctrine, to question everything about the right wing. Nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional, or otherwise.

Natural rights are available via Due Process, not our Second Article of Amendment. Article Six, applies.

The Bill of Rights is a good place to start.

And if, as you say, our natural rights are only found in state constitutions, why is the US Constitution the standard by which they are either sllowed or not allowed?

And if, as you say, our rights are found only in state constitutions, it takes a far smaller number of people to remove your rights. Of course, since those rights are also in the US Constitution, they cannot actually be removed by a single state.


But please, cite where our natural rights are found in state constitutions. This should be interesting.

 

[WinterBorn]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Natural rights are possessed because we are Human Beings. With regards to the right to keep, and bear arms, the Federal Constitution guarantees that natural right will not be infringed. The individual states agreed to abide by the Constitution when they became states. Any state law restricting this right is unconstitutional as it is solely up to the Feds via the Constitution.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment; they are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of our free States; it is not the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People.

What Due Process in our federal constitution? A constitutional amendment? State constitutions have provisions for amendments too.

 

[danielpalos]

The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.

The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly. About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias. The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.

Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."

These were not how the document written.

Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS

Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

Huh?

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

 

[danielpalos]

Projecting much? all the right wing does best, is appeal to ignorance of the law.

The people are the militia. You are, either; well regulated or unorganized. there are no Individual rights, in our Second Article of Amendment.

Not true at all. Yes, the People make up the Militia, however, the arms are privately owned by Natural Right by the People individually. The Constitution only guarantees Government will not infringe upon that Right. Government does NOT grant us these rights.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.

Still spouting this nonsense? The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution do not comne from state constitutions. And state constitutions cannot override the US Constitutions. But any state constitution that violates the US Constitution loses.

Can you cite where our natural rights are, in our federal Constitution? I can cite where they are in State Constitutions.

That is why, it is practically federal doctrine, to question everything about the right wing. Nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional, or otherwise.

Natural rights are available via Due Process, not our Second Article of Amendment. Article Six, applies.

The Bill of Rights is a good place to start.

And if, as you say, our natural rights are only found in state constitutions, why is the US Constitution the standard by which they are either sllowed or not allowed?

And if, as you say, our rights are found only in state constitutions, it takes a far smaller number of people to remove your rights. Of course, since those rights are also in the US Constitution, they cannot actually be removed by a single state.


But please, cite where our natural rights are found in state constitutions. This should be interesting.

nothing but spam. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

 

[WinterBorn]

Projecting much? all the right wing does best, is appeal to ignorance of the law.

The people are the militia. You are, either; well regulated or unorganized. there are no Individual rights, in our Second Article of Amendment.

Not true at all. Yes, the People make up the Militia, however, the arms are privately owned by Natural Right by the People individually. The Constitution only guarantees Government will not infringe upon that Right. Government does NOT grant us these rights.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.

Still spouting this nonsense? The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution do not comne from state constitutions. And state constitutions cannot override the US Constitutions. But any state constitution that violates the US Constitution loses.

Can you cite where our natural rights are, in our federal Constitution? I can cite where they are in State Constitutions.

That is why, it is practically federal doctrine, to question everything about the right wing. Nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional, or otherwise.

Natural rights are available via Due Process, not our Second Article of Amendment. Article Six, applies.

Also, are you claiming that all 50 states have identical constitutions? Or do some Americans have more natural rights than other Americans?

 

[WinterBorn]

Not true at all. Yes, the People make up the Militia, however, the arms are privately owned by Natural Right by the People individually. The Constitution only guarantees Government will not infringe upon that Right. Government does NOT grant us these rights.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.

Still spouting this nonsense? The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution do not comne from state constitutions. And state constitutions cannot override the US Constitutions. But any state constitution that violates the US Constitution loses.

Can you cite where our natural rights are, in our federal Constitution? I can cite where they are in State Constitutions.

That is why, it is practically federal doctrine, to question everything about the right wing. Nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional, or otherwise.

Natural rights are available via Due Process, not our Second Article of Amendment. Article Six, applies.

The Bill of Rights is a good place to start.

And if, as you say, our natural rights are only found in state constitutions, why is the US Constitution the standard by which they are either sllowed or not allowed?

And if, as you say, our rights are found only in state constitutions, it takes a far smaller number of people to remove your rights. Of course, since those rights are also in the US Constitution, they cannot actually be removed by a single state.


But please, cite where our natural rights are found in state constitutions. This should be interesting.

nothing but spam. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

You stated "I can cite where they are in State Constitutions". So please do so.

 

[WinterBorn]

Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."

These were not how the document written.

Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS

Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

Huh?

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

The militia is made of of the people. But all of the people are not necessarily militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.

Still spouting this nonsense? The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution do not comne from state constitutions. And state constitutions cannot override the US Constitutions. But any state constitution that violates the US Constitution loses.

Can you cite where our natural rights are, in our federal Constitution? I can cite where they are in State Constitutions.

That is why, it is practically federal doctrine, to question everything about the right wing. Nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional, or otherwise.

Natural rights are available via Due Process, not our Second Article of Amendment. Article Six, applies.

The Bill of Rights is a good place to start.

And if, as you say, our natural rights are only found in state constitutions, why is the US Constitution the standard by which they are either sllowed or not allowed?

And if, as you say, our rights are found only in state constitutions, it takes a far smaller number of people to remove your rights. Of course, since those rights are also in the US Constitution, they cannot actually be removed by a single state.


But please, cite where our natural rights are found in state constitutions. This should be interesting.

nothing but spam. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

You stated "I can cite where they are in State Constitutions". So please do so.

Only the story telling right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, by telling stories; instead of applying, "plain reason and legal axioms."

Article I, Georgia Constitution - Ballotpedia

 

[danielpalos]

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

Huh?

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

The militia is made of of the people. But all of the people are not necessarily militia.

Your point? Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Pop23]

Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."

These were not how the document written.

Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS

Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

Huh?

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Simple, right?

 

[danielpalos]

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

Huh?

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Simple, right?

The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.

 

[Pop23]

Huh?

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Simple, right?

The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.

You'll have to talk to someone else about natural rights, I'm talking about the English language, something you seem to struggle with.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

where does the right wing come up with this, propaganda?

The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and many other sources. Where does the right come up with every lie to take away people's rights?

Wags Wearing Wigs

Free people should establish their own rights; they should not be slaves to the anti-democratic elite of Eighteenth Century America. So this whole discussion begs the question by assuming that we get our rights from the Constitution just because the ruling class tells us we do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

where does the right wing come up with this, propaganda?

The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and many other sources. Where does the right come up with every lie to take away people's rights?

Wags Wearing Wigs

Free people should establish their own rights; they should not be slaves to the anti-democratic elite of Eighteenth Century America. So this whole discussion begs the question by assuming that we get our rights from the Constitution just because the ruling class tells us we do.

Our rights are inalienable, they can neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, they are subject to restrictions by government.

The Constitution's case law instructs lawmakers as to what laws they may enact, and what laws they may not enact, which would be laws repugnant to the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Simple, right?

The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.

You'll have to talk to someone else about natural rights, I'm talking about the English language, something you seem to struggle with.

Clueless and Causeless? Most of the right wing, is.