CDZ Food for thought: Right to keep and bear arms.

[danielpalos]

nobody takes the right wing seriously about politics.

This suppose to be CDZ. Apparently it's not.

And here we have intellectual midget who "think" this thread is about politics.

Ok. I counter your scenario with a scenario where a Kentucky Colonel starts taking some initiative, and clamors to muster the militia until crime drops to socially acceptable levels.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There must first be consensus among the people as to what in fact constitutes ‘tyranny,’ what are the criteria of ‘tyranny,’ and at what point government might be ‘overthrown’ through armed rebellion – absent consensus as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ the overthrow of government through armed rebellion would be unwarranted, illegal, and un-Constitutional.

Moreover, the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process cannot be circumvented by armed rebellion; and the right of the people to seek relief from government excess and overreach through the political or judicial process cannot be abridged by those hostile to a lawfully and constitutionally elected government without the consent of all the people.

The Second Amendment recognizes the fundamental right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service – not to act as a ‘deterrent’ to crime, not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, and certainly not to act to overthrow a duly elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people because a minority of citizens subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

 

[Ame®icano]

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceives the government to have become 'tyrannical.'

The whole purpose of Bill of Rights is to protect people's individual rights by limiting the government powers. Every single Amendment provides a statement about how power of legislatures and government is limited.

Just as every other Amendment, the 2nd Amendment too is product of the history lesson and it's written specifically to protect people's rights to keep and bear arms, not to hunt deer or protect ourselves from criminals. Of course, owning guns does makes those things easier, but it’s not why the Founders protected gun rights. What they had in minds is the right of revolution.

Before you yell at me that there is no "right of revolution" mentioned in 2nd Amendment, read the Declaration of Independence which states that governments derive their "just powers from the consent of the governed". Not every power, but only "just powers" which the people delegate to a government that is by definition limited to the purposes for which it was established. Declaration than explain that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it".

Tell me, what if government refuses to be altered or abolished? What other choice do you have? Simply put, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to give the people the means to overthrow the government in the event it becomes tyrannical.

Now back to the OP, and the same question you asked me, and "what if" government you don't like, in this case Trump's government, become tyrannical? Did you correctly perceived it, and what can you do about it if you already restricted your constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

 

[danielpalos]

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceives the government to have become 'tyrannical.'

The whole purpose of Bill of Rights is to protect people's individual rights by limiting the government powers. Every single Amendment provides a statement about how power of legislatures and government is limited.

Just as every other Amendment, the 2nd Amendment too is product of the history lesson and it's written specifically to protect people's rights to keep and bear arms, not to hunt deer or protect ourselves from criminals. Of course, owning guns does makes those things easier, but it’s not why the Founders protected gun rights. What they had in minds is the right of revolution.

Before you yell at me that there is no "right of revolution" mentioned in 2nd Amendment, read the Declaration of Independence which states that governments derive their "just powers from the consent of the governed". Not every power, but only "just powers" which the people delegate to a government that is by definition limited to the purposes for which it was established. Declaration than explain that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it".

Tell me, what if government refuses to be altered or abolished? What other choice do you have? Simply put, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to give the people the means to overthrow the government in the event it becomes tyrannical.

Now back to the OP, and the same question you asked me, and "what if" government you don't like, in this case Trump's government, become tyrannical? Did you correctly perceived it, and what can you do about it if you already restricted your constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

only in right wing fantasy would the People "band together to take back government".

In reality, well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[flacaltenn]

Need to discuss the topic of OP without any personal exchanges. Cleaned those exchanges. Stay on the theme of the OP or get ejected.

 

[2aguy]

Now of course modern warfare is different and you aren't exactly going to have a counter to the air force and armor divisions.

Small, but important point of contention here. What did the Taliban use to repel the U.S.S.R. in the '70's, then mount a decisive, though ultimately unsuccessful, resistance to the U.S.A. most recently? Largely small arms, RPGs, and IEDs.

Do not kid yourself, there are over 300 million "small arms" weapons in the U.S. today, with millions capable and willing to use them if the need should arise. There are also readily available explosives (tannerite for example) that one can acquire today. If even 1% of Americans (about 3.6 million) resisted the current armed forces in their entirety (1.4 million), the military would have a fight on their hands they are ill equipped to face, unless they are willing to use large weapons (i.e. bombs) which invariably inflict "collateral damage" (though they are far better than they used to be, and getting better). This would only serve to increase the resistance thus swelling the 3.6 million to unknowable numbers, not to mention those in the armed forces that would defect initially, and continually throughout such a campaign. Then factor in the potential response from outside our borders, and you have a powder keg of force that even our military would have an insurmountable task before them.

This is, of course, a worst case scenario. However, it is one worth considering. Also, this is a strong argument, IMHO, to vehemently defend the 2nd. At least what we have now provides us with a fighting chance, should the worst case scenario play out.

One thing the left wingers don't understand........all of the people don't to fight in an insurrection...only 1/3 of the original colonists wanted to separate from Britain....what the 600 million guns allows us to do...is provide guns to the people who would actually do the fighting....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservatives supporting the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment ‘authorizes’ citizens who subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to ‘overthrow’ that government succeed in only exhibiting their stupidity and ignorance of the law.

In their ridiculous efforts to ‘justify’ and ‘defend’ gun ownership, rightists contrive moronic lies and inane fallacies in a failed effort to convince others of the legitimacy of possessing a firearm.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right – such as the individual right to possess a firearm – as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

If conservatives were smart they’d acknowledge the fact that a gun in the home is more likely to kill a household member than an intruder.

If conservatives were smart they’d acknowledge the fact that there is no evidence in support of the idea that the carrying of concealed firearms reduces crime or acts as deterrent to gun crime and violence.

And if conservatives were smart they’d acknowledge the fact that there’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that supports citizens ‘overthrowing’ a lawfully elected government because a minority of citizens perceive that government as ‘tyrannical.’

Citizens have the right to possess guns and carry concealed firearms because the Constitution acknowledges and safeguards that right – no other justification is needed; no other argument needs to be made.

Unfortunately, conservatives aren’t smart.

 

[2aguy]

Conservatives supporting the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment ‘authorizes’ citizens who subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to ‘overthrow’ that government succeed in only exhibiting their stupidity and ignorance of the law.

In their ridiculous efforts to ‘justify’ and ‘defend’ gun ownership, rightists contrive moronic lies and inane fallacies in a failed effort to convince others of the legitimacy of possessing a firearm.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right – such as the individual right to possess a firearm – as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

If conservatives were smart they’d acknowledge the fact that a gun in the home is more likely to kill a household member than an intruder.

If conservatives were smart they’d acknowledge the fact that there is no evidence in support of the idea that the carrying of concealed firearms reduces crime or acts as deterrent to gun crime and violence.

And if conservatives were smart they’d acknowledge the fact that there’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that supports citizens ‘overthrowing’ a lawfully elected government because a minority of citizens perceive that government as ‘tyrannical.’

Citizens have the right to possess guns and carry concealed firearms because the Constitution acknowledges and safeguards that right – no other justification is needed; no other argument needs to be made.

Unfortunately, conservatives aren’t smart.

If conservatives were smart they’d acknowledge the fact that a gun in the home is more likely to kill a household member than an intruder.

That statistic is a lie....it has been shown to be a lie over and over again......the guy who came up with that lie even changed the number.....while still using his flawed research.......

If conservatives were smart they’d acknowledge the fact that there is no evidence in support of the idea that the carrying of concealed firearms reduces crime or acts as deterrent to gun crime and violence.

Wrong...again....

Research that shows concealed carry helps reduce the crime rate...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bartley-Cohen-Economic-Inquiry-1998.pdf


The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

.....we find strong support for the hypothesis that the right-to-carry laws are associated with a decrease in the trend in violent crime rates.....

Paper........CCW does not increase police deaths...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mustard-JLE-Polic-Deaths-Gun-Control.pdf

This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed

========

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf


Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

However, for all three crime categories the levels in years 2 and 3 after adoption of a right-to-carry law are significantly below the levels in the years before the adoption of the law, which suggests that there is generally a deterrent effect and that it takes about 1 year for this effect to emerge.

=======

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness*




Carlisle E. Moody
College of William and Mary
Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.
====
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Helland-Tabarrok-Placebo-Laws.pdf
Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”∗ Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok

We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported.
-----
Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.
===========
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf


Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43

===============

This one shows the benefits, in the billions of CCW laws...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year. The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

=============

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault. This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.

=======

States with lower guns = higher murder....and assault weapon ban pointless..

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).





Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..


Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review

 

[Ame®icano]

Conservatives supporting the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment ‘authorizes’ citizens who subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to ‘overthrow’ that government succeed in only exhibiting their stupidity and ignorance of the law.

In their ridiculous efforts to ‘justify’ and ‘defend’ gun ownership, rightists contrive moronic lies and inane fallacies in a failed effort to convince others of the legitimacy of possessing a firearm.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right – such as the individual right to possess a firearm – as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

If conservatives were smart they’d acknowledge the fact that a gun in the home is more likely to kill a household member than an intruder.

If conservatives were smart they’d acknowledge the fact that there is no evidence in support of the idea that the carrying of concealed firearms reduces crime or acts as deterrent to gun crime and violence.

And if conservatives were smart they’d acknowledge the fact that there’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that supports citizens ‘overthrowing’ a lawfully elected government because a minority of citizens perceive that government as ‘tyrannical.’

Citizens have the right to possess guns and carry concealed firearms because the Constitution acknowledges and safeguards that right – no other justification is needed; no other argument needs to be made.

Unfortunately, conservatives aren’t smart.

You lefties are incapable of saying "you're wrong, and here is why". What you do instead is, you set the goal and would do anything, including lies, cheats, insults, attacks, etc. in order to make it happen. It did worked for you for some time, but those people that you call stupid finally saw you for what you really are.

Saying something is a "fact", like you did above, doesn't make it a fact because "you said so", but backing it up with the data that support the said fact. And since you haven't provided any data, you double down by saying, "if you were smart, you would believe this bullshit I am about to write is a fact".

You lefties are acting like you have monopoly on "facts" and deciding what "smart" is. Don't you see how stupid that is?

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

Muster the unorganized militia and regulate them well, until crime drops.

Let's start with gun lovers, first.

 

[Ame®icano]

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

Muster the unorganized militia and regulate them well, until crime drops.

Let's start with gun lovers, first.

The OP is not about well regulated militia, dunce.

You already said it before and your post was deleted because it was off topic.

Stop spamming the thread.

 

[Auld Phart]

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

Muster the unorganized militia and regulate them well, until crime drops.

Let's start with gun lovers, first.

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

read the rest of the Amendment, not just the part you like.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"

The right was given to the people, not the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

Muster the unorganized militia and regulate them well, until crime drops.

Let's start with gun lovers, first.

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

read the rest of the Amendment, not just the part you like.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"

The right was given to the people, not the militia.

the People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People, are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. The unorganized militia is nowhere enumerated, necessary.

 

[Auld Phart]

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

Muster the unorganized militia and regulate them well, until crime drops.

Let's start with gun lovers, first.

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

read the rest of the Amendment, not just the part you like.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"

The right was given to the people, not the militia.

the People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People, are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. The unorganized militia is nowhere enumerated, necessary.

Didn't even read my post, did you?

they didn't give the right to the militia, they gave it to the people.

Militia, at the time, consisted of able bodied men between the ages of 16-45.

it excluded women of all ages, boys under the age of 16, and over the age of 45, and those physically infirm.

Which is why they gave the right to the people.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

Muster the unorganized militia and regulate them well, until crime drops.

Let's start with gun lovers, first.

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

read the rest of the Amendment, not just the part you like.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"

The right was given to the people, not the militia.

the People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People, are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. The unorganized militia is nowhere enumerated, necessary.

Didn't even read my post, did you?

they didn't give the right to the militia, they gave it to the people.

Militia, at the time, consisted of able bodied men between the ages of 16-45.

it excluded women of all ages, boys under the age of 16, and over the age of 45, and those physically infirm.

Which is why they gave the right to the people.

you simply appeal to ignorance by believing the terms, the people and the militia, are distinguishable under the common law, for the common defense.

 

[Auld Phart]

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

Muster the unorganized militia and regulate them well, until crime drops.

Let's start with gun lovers, first.

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

read the rest of the Amendment, not just the part you like.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"

The right was given to the people, not the militia.

the People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People, are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. The unorganized militia is nowhere enumerated, necessary.

Didn't even read my post, did you?

they didn't give the right to the militia, they gave it to the people.

Militia, at the time, consisted of able bodied men between the ages of 16-45.

it excluded women of all ages, boys under the age of 16, and over the age of 45, and those physically infirm.

Which is why they gave the right to the people.

you simply appeal to ignorance by believing the terms, the people and the militia, are distinguishable under the common law, for the common defense.

and you're stuck on the term militia, and ignore the rest of the amendment.

which highlights your ignorance on the subject.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

Muster the unorganized militia and regulate them well, until crime drops.

Let's start with gun lovers, first.

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

read the rest of the Amendment, not just the part you like.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"

The right was given to the people, not the militia.

the People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People, are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. The unorganized militia is nowhere enumerated, necessary.

Didn't even read my post, did you?

they didn't give the right to the militia, they gave it to the people.

Militia, at the time, consisted of able bodied men between the ages of 16-45.

it excluded women of all ages, boys under the age of 16, and over the age of 45, and those physically infirm.

Which is why they gave the right to the people.

you simply appeal to ignorance by believing the terms, the people and the militia, are distinguishable under the common law, for the common defense.

and you're stuck on the term militia, and ignore the rest of the amendment.

which highlights your ignorance on the subject.

projecting much, right winger? both terms, militia and the people are plural and collective, not singular and individual. who is appealing to ignorance of the simple meaning of the words involved?

 

[Auld Phart]

read the rest of the Amendment, not just the part you like.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"

The right was given to the people, not the militia.

the People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People, are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. The unorganized militia is nowhere enumerated, necessary.

Didn't even read my post, did you?

they didn't give the right to the militia, they gave it to the people.

Militia, at the time, consisted of able bodied men between the ages of 16-45.

it excluded women of all ages, boys under the age of 16, and over the age of 45, and those physically infirm.

Which is why they gave the right to the people.

you simply appeal to ignorance by believing the terms, the people and the militia, are distinguishable under the common law, for the common defense.

and you're stuck on the term militia, and ignore the rest of the amendment.

which highlights your ignorance on the subject.

projecting much, right winger? both terms, militia and the people are plural and collective, not singular and individual. who is appealing to ignorance of the simple meaning of the words involved?

you seem to be.

Question: Would 15 year old Phoebe Ann Mosey, had she lived at the time, been allowed to 'keep and bear arms'?

She was under age to belong to a militia, and the wrong sex.

But she was far more competent than the majority of men to handle firearms.

You may have heard of her under her 'stage' name.

Annie Oakley.

 

[danielpalos]

the People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People, are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. The unorganized militia is nowhere enumerated, necessary.

Didn't even read my post, did you?

they didn't give the right to the militia, they gave it to the people.

Militia, at the time, consisted of able bodied men between the ages of 16-45.

it excluded women of all ages, boys under the age of 16, and over the age of 45, and those physically infirm.

Which is why they gave the right to the people.

you simply appeal to ignorance by believing the terms, the people and the militia, are distinguishable under the common law, for the common defense.

and you're stuck on the term militia, and ignore the rest of the amendment.

which highlights your ignorance on the subject.

projecting much, right winger? both terms, militia and the people are plural and collective, not singular and individual. who is appealing to ignorance of the simple meaning of the words involved?

you seem to be.

Question: Would 15 year old Phoebe Ann Mosey, had she lived at the time, been allowed to 'keep and bear arms'?

She was under age to belong to a militia, and the wrong sex.

But she was far more competent than the majority of men to handle firearms.

You may have heard of her under her 'stage' name.

Annie Oakley.

In what way? Simply claiming that is a fallacy without a valid argument to support it.

 

[danielpalos]

the People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People, are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. The unorganized militia is nowhere enumerated, necessary.

Didn't even read my post, did you?

they didn't give the right to the militia, they gave it to the people.

Militia, at the time, consisted of able bodied men between the ages of 16-45.

it excluded women of all ages, boys under the age of 16, and over the age of 45, and those physically infirm.

Which is why they gave the right to the people.

you simply appeal to ignorance by believing the terms, the people and the militia, are distinguishable under the common law, for the common defense.

and you're stuck on the term militia, and ignore the rest of the amendment.

which highlights your ignorance on the subject.

projecting much, right winger? both terms, militia and the people are plural and collective, not singular and individual. who is appealing to ignorance of the simple meaning of the words involved?

you seem to be.

Question: Would 15 year old Phoebe Ann Mosey, had she lived at the time, been allowed to 'keep and bear arms'?

She was under age to belong to a militia, and the wrong sex.

But she was far more competent than the majority of men to handle firearms.

You may have heard of her under her 'stage' name.

Annie Oakley.

The people are the militia under the common law for the common defense.

"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