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

[WinterBorn]

I didn't say I did not understand the quote. I chastised you for not crediting it, which amounts to plagiarism. But confiscation of profits is not "wartime taxes"

And we are not resorting to capitalism. That is the basis for our economy. But all this is getting farther and farther from the topic.

Capitalism depends on market based metrics, or it is simply, socialism on a national basis as public policy, and that favors the rich and helps the rich, get richer faster.

Yes, capitalism disproportionately helps the rich. But it creates more rich people than any other system. It also allows more self-determined mobility than any other system.

We have laws, for a reason; why only complain when less fortunate illegals, fail to obey our laws?

Once again, you post something with no bearing on the topic or what was posted. "Only complain"? Who is doing that?

And once those "less fortunate" cross the border, they are subject to those laws. They are the laws of this land.

10USC246 is federal law, right wingers. Is your socialism on a national basis, worth it?

There are several things about 10 USC 246 that are unconstitutional. But that is for another topic.

For someone who cries about capitalism, your calling military service (organized or unorganized militia) "socialism is funny. After all, you were the one suggesting the militia be used for construction of infrastructure.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism depends on market based metrics, or it is simply, socialism on a national basis as public policy, and that favors the rich and helps the rich, get richer faster.

Yes, capitalism disproportionately helps the rich. But it creates more rich people than any other system. It also allows more self-determined mobility than any other system.

We have laws, for a reason; why only complain when less fortunate illegals, fail to obey our laws?

Once again, you post something with no bearing on the topic or what was posted. "Only complain"? Who is doing that?

And once those "less fortunate" cross the border, they are subject to those laws. They are the laws of this land.

10USC246 is federal law, right wingers. Is your socialism on a national basis, worth it?

There are several things about 10 USC 246 that are unconstitutional. But that is for another topic.

For someone who cries about capitalism, your calling military service (organized or unorganized militia) "socialism is funny. After all, you were the one suggesting the militia be used for construction of infrastructure.

What is unconstitutional about 10USC246? Our Second Amendment is clear about the socialism required for the security of a free State.

 

[WinterBorn]

And that pertains to the topic how?

no formal act of war by Congress. tax breaks that benefit the rich the most. all discretionary spending on the common Offense and general Warfare, has to go first, before spending on the general welfare.

Still not on the topic.

we have a Second Amendment, and should have, no security problems.

Really? So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?

A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.

There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.

Who is making excuses?

 

[danielpalos]

no formal act of war by Congress. tax breaks that benefit the rich the most. all discretionary spending on the common Offense and general Warfare, has to go first, before spending on the general welfare.

Still not on the topic.

we have a Second Amendment, and should have, no security problems.

Really? So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?

A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.

There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.

Who is making excuses?

You are. Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.

 

[WinterBorn]

Still not on the topic.

we have a Second Amendment, and should have, no security problems.

Really? So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?

A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.

There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.

Who is making excuses?

You are. Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.

Yes, the people are the militia. The 2nd gives the people the right to keep & bear arms. No excuses.

 

[danielpalos]

we have a Second Amendment, and should have, no security problems.

Really? So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?

A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.

There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.

Who is making excuses?

You are. Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.

Yes, the people are the militia. The 2nd gives the people the right to keep & bear arms. No excuses.

It says, well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of the right to keep and bear.

 

[WinterBorn]

Still not on the topic.

we have a Second Amendment, and should have, no security problems.

Really? So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?

A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.

There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.

Who is making excuses?

You are. Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.

We are not making excuses. We are disagreeing with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment as a collective right. It is an individual right.

 

[WinterBorn]

Really? So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?

A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.

There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.

Who is making excuses?

You are. Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.

Yes, the people are the militia. The 2nd gives the people the right to keep & bear arms. No excuses.

It says, well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of the right to keep and bear.

No, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...". You choose to ignore the punctuation.

 

[danielpalos]

we have a Second Amendment, and should have, no security problems.

Really? So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?

A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.

There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.

Who is making excuses?

You are. Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.

We are not making excuses. We are disagreeing with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment as a collective right. It is an individual right.

The People are the Militia. What is not Collective, about that?

 

[danielpalos]

There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.

Who is making excuses?

You are. Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.

Yes, the people are the militia. The 2nd gives the people the right to keep & bear arms. No excuses.

It says, well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of the right to keep and bear.

No, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...". You choose to ignore the punctuation.

The punctuation Changes No Thing, when the People are the Militia. In fact, you could relegate all punctuation to the right wing, and leave them in reserve, and still get the job done.

There is No Thing ambiguous about our supreme law of the land; that is how Good of a job, our Founding Fathers did at the convention with our federal Constitution.

the right wing, simply Enjoys slacking.

 

[there4eyeM]

"People" can infer a singular, as in "people sometime sit in that chair". Obviously, one person sits in a chair at a time.
Saying "the people" is collective in sense, as in "the people want change".
"The right of persons to bear arms" would definitely be individuals. "The right of the people" would be collective.
Personally, I don't understand exactly what your problems are in this thread and have no opinion; this is only contributed as an observation on vocabulary and semantics.
P.S.; wouldn't the right to bear arms limit arms to those that could be born, thus excluding cannons and such?

 

[WinterBorn]

Really? So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?

A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.

There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.

Who is making excuses?

You are. Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.

We are not making excuses. We are disagreeing with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment as a collective right. It is an individual right.

The People are the Militia. What is not Collective, about that?

That the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, not the militia

 

[there4eyeM]

It is certain the writers of the Constitution wanted the population in general to be able to be armed. It is not at all clear they wanted to decide in advance that all and everyone could tramp around with any type of arm available. There is ample room for discernment about quantity and quality as well.

 

[danielpalos]

"People" can infer a singular, as in "people sometime sit in that chair". Obviously, one person sits in a chair at a time.
Saying "the people" is collective in sense, as in "the people want change".
"The right of persons to bear arms" would definitely be individuals. "The right of the people" would be collective.
Personally, I don't understand exactly what your problems are in this thread and have no opinion; this is only contributed as an observation on vocabulary and semantics.
P.S.; wouldn't the right to bear arms limit arms to those that could be born, thus excluding cannons and such?

No, it can't. The People is plural, not singular, especially if we have to quibble.

 

[Pop23]

It is certain the writers of the Constitution wanted the population in general to be able to be armed. It is not at all clear they wanted to decide in advance that all and everyone could tramp around with any type of arm available. There is ample room for discernment about quantity and quality as well.

Can't disagree totally with this. But "the people" obviously relates to "individuals" or it would appear much further down in the amendments and certainly not in the section known as "The Bill of Rights"

 

[danielpalos]

There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.

Who is making excuses?

You are. Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.

We are not making excuses. We are disagreeing with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment as a collective right. It is an individual right.

The People are the Militia. What is not Collective, about that?

That the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, not the militia

The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People, may not be Infringed for State security purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

It is certain the writers of the Constitution wanted the population in general to be able to be armed. It is not at all clear they wanted to decide in advance that all and everyone could tramp around with any type of arm available. There is ample room for discernment about quantity and quality as well.

Our Second Amendment is quite clear as to the security needs of any of our free States; it is most definitely, not, the unorganized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

It is certain the writers of the Constitution wanted the population in general to be able to be armed. It is not at all clear they wanted to decide in advance that all and everyone could tramp around with any type of arm available. There is ample room for discernment about quantity and quality as well.

Can't disagree totally with this. But "the people" obviously relates to "individuals" or it would appear much further down in the amendments and certainly not in the section known as "The Bill of Rights"

No, it doesn't, or it would say that.

 

[Pop23]

It is certain the writers of the Constitution wanted the population in general to be able to be armed. It is not at all clear they wanted to decide in advance that all and everyone could tramp around with any type of arm available. There is ample room for discernment about quantity and quality as well.

Can't disagree totally with this. But "the people" obviously relates to "individuals" or it would appear much further down in the amendments and certainly not in the section known as "The Bill of Rights"

No, it doesn't, or it would say that.

Yes it does, and it says exactly that.

 

[danielpalos]

It is certain the writers of the Constitution wanted the population in general to be able to be armed. It is not at all clear they wanted to decide in advance that all and everyone could tramp around with any type of arm available. There is ample room for discernment about quantity and quality as well.

Can't disagree totally with this. But "the people" obviously relates to "individuals" or it would appear much further down in the amendments and certainly not in the section known as "The Bill of Rights"

No, it doesn't, or it would say that.

Yes it does, and it says exactly that.

No, it doesn't. The People and the Militia are both plural, not individual; especially if we are quibbling.