CDZ Law abiding citizens should be able to carry a gun, open or concealed in any state...

[2aguy]

OK so then use the law of large numbers to prove that states with the harshest gun laws don't have higher murder rates than the states with the least restrictive gun laws

it is about population density not guns.

Murder rate are stated per 100,000 so density population density is accounted for

per number of guns in that population density. the right wing prefers to plead, so specially.

no it's per-capita
It has nothing to do with the number of guns since you only need one gun to murder a person

then, you cannot make the claim, that more guns equals less crime, since you don't keep those actual statistics.

The CDC and the FBI have.......as more Americans own and carry guns our gun violence and gun murder rates have gone down...that is a fact. 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 people with permits to carry guns in 1997....in 2016 we have 357-400 million guns in private hands and 15 million people with permits to carry guns...so the total of gun carriers is higher since many states allow carrying without a permit.....

And our gun murder rate went down 47%........those are actual statistics......law abiding people carrying guns does not increase gun crime. Letting violent criminals run loose increases all crime...

 

[Pogo]

It doesn't matter what you think it should have said, what matters is what it actually says. If you do not like what it says, go ahead and try to amend the constitution.

The clause says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Everybody with adequate reading comprehension skills understands that the right is not exclusive to people who are members of a militia.

Actually I just *QUOTED* exactly what it says, and raised (again) the question of WHY it says that. And intrinsic to that question is whether or not that is exclusive. A question you completely failed to address and which you're running away from right now.

And no, the clause is the first part. It has no verb. What you quoted is the statement. The qualifier (and/or basis) comes first. And that's the question. If you don't like the qualifier being in there or can't hack it being examined, then YOU go get it changed. But right now it IS in there.

So answer the question --- if you can: If the first thirteen word subordinate clause is not there as a limitation ----- then what is its purpose?

Do we have an Amendment stating "A well-informed Populace being necessary to the Function of a free State, Congress shall make no Law abridging Freedom of Speech, or of the Press" etc?

No we do not. It simply says "Congress shall make no Law...." PERIOD. There's no need to qualify it.

Sorry....plain english.....the Right of the People...to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed....it does not state the Right of a militia to keep and bear arms...you are wrong....again....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

you have to understand the context. the second clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto itself; but, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

The People are the Militia.

Only well regulated militia of the People, are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

The Bill of rights secures the right of the PEOPLE not the government

Therefore

The PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Nobody's arguing that the 2A protect's the government's right to keep and bear arms.

The question is the reference to the well regulated Militia --- why is the reference there?

One possible (and plausible) reason is that it was intended as the qualification --- the conditions under which the People's right may not be infringed. If that was the intention --- it wasn't clarified as such.

On the other hand if that is not the intention ---- then the phrase has no function at all, and should not exist. Yet --- it does.

It's just sloppy sloppy work that looks like it was unfinished when some committee had been up for three days with no sleep. And that's why I described it from the start as something that has never been properly explained.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes we know that so the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The wording is not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The People are the Militia. There is no Individual Right to keep and bear Arms.

No the militia is the people and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

No, well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State. The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The militia is the people

You can't have a militia without the people but you can have people without a militia therefore the people have the right to keep and bear arms so as to form a militia when necessary

There is no mention of the bearing of arms for the country it is and always will be the people's right

There is a mention of bearing arms for the country

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

yes, well regulated militia are necessary; unorganized militia are not necessary.

 

[Pogo]

Doesn't say "firearms" --- it says "Arms". Nukes are arms. Torpedoes on the submarines are arms.

This of course leads us to the context of what "arms" meant in the 18th century since obviously those technologies did not yet exist, nor did plane bombers or drones, nor did the Minié ball which itself considerably changed the definition of what "arms" could do ----- and the attendant question of whether the Founders, had they had the clairvoyance to anticipate these future technologies, would have second-guessed their wording here, or whether they really did mean that if I can afford one I can have a nuke.

It doesn't matter what you think it should have said, what matters is what it actually says. If you do not like what it says, go ahead and try to amend the constitution.

The clause says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Everybody with adequate reading comprehension skills understands that the right is not exclusive to people who are members of a militia.

Actually I just *QUOTED* exactly what it says, and raised (again) the question of WHY it says that. And intrinsic to that question is whether or not that is exclusive. A question you completely failed to address and which you're running away from right now.

And no, the clause is the first part. It has no verb. What you quoted is the statement. The qualifier (and/or basis) comes first. And that's the question. If you don't like the qualifier being in there or can't hack it being examined, then YOU go get it changed. But right now it IS in there.

So answer the question --- if you can: If the first thirteen word subordinate clause is not there as a limitation ----- then what is its purpose?

Do we have an Amendment stating "A well-informed Populace being necessary to the Function of a free State, Congress shall make no Law abridging Freedom of Speech, or of the Press" etc?

No we do not. It simply says "Congress shall make no Law...." PERIOD. There's no need to qualify it.

Sorry....plain english.....the Right of the People...to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed....it does not state the Right of a militia to keep and bear arms...you are wrong....again....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

you have to understand the context. the second clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto itself; but, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

The People are the Militia.

Only well regulated militia of the People, are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

Not necessarily.

You can't have a Militia without people in it. But you can certainly have people who are not a Militia. A bank robber working solo is not a militia. A police officer is not a militia. A mass shooter sitting in a tree is not a militia.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia. There is no Individual Right to keep and bear Arms.

No the militia is the people and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

No, well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State. The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The militia is the people

You can't have a militia without the people but you can have people without a militia therefore the people have the right to keep and bear arms so as to form a militia when necessary

There is no mention of the bearing of arms for the country it is and always will be the people's right

There is a mention of bearing arms for the country

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

that says nothing about the militia bearing arms for the country it merely states the necessity of a militia for the security of a free state
the people's right to keep and bear arms is not qualified in fact it is not to be infringed at all

Yes, only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; even organized confederates, did not have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms, and were disArmed, as a result. disarming the unorganized militia is routine, through gun control laws.

 

[danielpalos]

No the militia is the people and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

No, well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State. The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The militia is the people

You can't have a militia without the people but you can have people without a militia therefore the people have the right to keep and bear arms so as to form a militia when necessary

There is no mention of the bearing of arms for the country it is and always will be the people's right

There is a mention of bearing arms for the country

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

that says nothing about the militia bearing arms for the country it merely states the necessity of a militia for the security of a free state
the people's right to keep and bear arms is not qualified in fact it is not to be infringed at all

Why not just say......The right to bear arms shall not be infringed
and leave it at that. Why was it necessary to say why?

Our Founding Fathers were not that fantastical.

 

[danielpalos]

it is about population density not guns.

Murder rate are stated per 100,000 so density population density is accounted for

per number of guns in that population density. the right wing prefers to plead, so specially.

no it's per-capita
It has nothing to do with the number of guns since you only need one gun to murder a person

then, you cannot make the claim, that more guns equals less crime, since you don't keep those actual statistics.

The CDC and the FBI have.......as more Americans own and carry guns our gun violence and gun murder rates have gone down...that is a fact. 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 people with permits to carry guns in 1997....in 2016 we have 357-400 million guns in private hands and 15 million people with permits to carry guns...so the total of gun carriers is higher since many states allow carrying without a permit.....

And our gun murder rate went down 47%........those are actual statistics......law abiding people carrying guns does not increase gun crime. Letting violent criminals run loose increases all crime...

it merely changes the venue. some criminals don't carry guns.

 

[danielpalos]

It doesn't matter what you think it should have said, what matters is what it actually says. If you do not like what it says, go ahead and try to amend the constitution.

The clause says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Everybody with adequate reading comprehension skills understands that the right is not exclusive to people who are members of a militia.

Actually I just *QUOTED* exactly what it says, and raised (again) the question of WHY it says that. And intrinsic to that question is whether or not that is exclusive. A question you completely failed to address and which you're running away from right now.

And no, the clause is the first part. It has no verb. What you quoted is the statement. The qualifier (and/or basis) comes first. And that's the question. If you don't like the qualifier being in there or can't hack it being examined, then YOU go get it changed. But right now it IS in there.

So answer the question --- if you can: If the first thirteen word subordinate clause is not there as a limitation ----- then what is its purpose?

Do we have an Amendment stating "A well-informed Populace being necessary to the Function of a free State, Congress shall make no Law abridging Freedom of Speech, or of the Press" etc?

No we do not. It simply says "Congress shall make no Law...." PERIOD. There's no need to qualify it.

Sorry....plain english.....the Right of the People...to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed....it does not state the Right of a militia to keep and bear arms...you are wrong....again....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

you have to understand the context. the second clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto itself; but, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

The People are the Militia.

Only well regulated militia of the People, are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

Not necessarily.

You can't have a Militia without people in it. But you can certainly have people who are not a Militia.

The People are the Militia. Why be disingenuous.

 

[Pogo]

It does not say the Right of the states to arm and equip a militia shall not be infringed....the Right of the People shall not be infringed....

It certainly implies that it's talking about a militia. Why else would the phrase even exist there at all?
A militia is certainly not the only application in which Arms can be used. Why did they single this one out?

The actual people have the Right to keep and bear arms.....and serve in a militia...twit....

See? You pointed yourself right back to the militia application. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Now --- a Constitution has to be clear; it can't set forth what it sets forth by vague implication. And other than this particular Amendment --- it doesn't. It's specific, as it should be. Then there's this eternally murky area.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No the militia is the people and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

No, well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State. The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The militia is the people

You can't have a militia without the people but you can have people without a militia therefore the people have the right to keep and bear arms so as to form a militia when necessary

There is no mention of the bearing of arms for the country it is and always will be the people's right

There is a mention of bearing arms for the country

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

that says nothing about the militia bearing arms for the country it merely states the necessity of a militia for the security of a free state
the people's right to keep and bear arms is not qualified in fact it is not to be infringed at all

Why not just say......The right to bear arms shall not be infringed
and leave it at that. Why was it necessary to say why?

The founders just overthrew a tyrannical government which is why they were obsessed with the free state and its protection. They knew that even the government they were crafting had the potential to stop serving the people as they envisioned and oppress them instead.

The people were meant to be the militia the militia is secondary to the people therefore the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed


J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

 

[Skull Pilot]

No the militia is the people and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

No, well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State. The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The militia is the people

You can't have a militia without the people but you can have people without a militia therefore the people have the right to keep and bear arms so as to form a militia when necessary

There is no mention of the bearing of arms for the country it is and always will be the people's right

There is a mention of bearing arms for the country

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

that says nothing about the militia bearing arms for the country it merely states the necessity of a militia for the security of a free state
the people's right to keep and bear arms is not qualified in fact it is not to be infringed at all

Yes, only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; even organized confederates, did not have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms, and were disArmed, as a result. disarming the unorganized militia is routine, through gun control laws.

The right is for the people not the militia
there can be no militia without the people therefore the militia is secondary to the people
It is the people's right to keep and bear arms

 

[Skull Pilot]

It does not say the Right of the states to arm and equip a militia shall not be infringed....the Right of the People shall not be infringed....

It certainly implies that it's talking about a militia. Why else would the phrase even exist there at all?
A militia is certainly not the only application in which Arms can be used. Why did they single this one out?

The actual people have the Right to keep and bear arms.....and serve in a militia...twit....

See? You pointed yourself right back to the militia application. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Now --- a Constitution has to be clear; it can't set forth what it sets forth by vague implication. And other than this particular Amendment --- it doesn't. It's specific, as it should be. Then there's this eternally murky area.

It implies that the people have the obligation to form a militia in order to protect the free state and therefore the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It is clearly stated that the people's right (not the miltia's right) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I don't think it's murky at all in fact it is quite clear to me

 

[rightwinger]

It doesn't matter what you think it should have said, what matters is what it actually says. If you do not like what it says, go ahead and try to amend the constitution.

The clause says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Everybody with adequate reading comprehension skills understands that the right is not exclusive to people who are members of a militia.

Actually I just *QUOTED* exactly what it says, and raised (again) the question of WHY it says that. And intrinsic to that question is whether or not that is exclusive. A question you completely failed to address and which you're running away from right now.

And no, the clause is the first part. It has no verb. What you quoted is the statement. The qualifier (and/or basis) comes first. And that's the question. If you don't like the qualifier being in there or can't hack it being examined, then YOU go get it changed. But right now it IS in there.

So answer the question --- if you can: If the first thirteen word subordinate clause is not there as a limitation ----- then what is its purpose?

Do we have an Amendment stating "A well-informed Populace being necessary to the Function of a free State, Congress shall make no Law abridging Freedom of Speech, or of the Press" etc?

No we do not. It simply says "Congress shall make no Law...." PERIOD. There's no need to qualify it.

Sorry....plain english.....the Right of the People...to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed....it does not state the Right of a militia to keep and bear arms...you are wrong....again....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

you have to understand the context. the second clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto itself; but, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

The People are the Militia.

Only well regulated militia of the People, are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

Not necessarily.

You can't have a Militia without people in it. But you can certainly have people who are not a Militia. A bank robber working solo is not a militia. A police officer is not a militia. A mass shooter sitting in a tree is not a militia.

A redneck shooting rats at the dump with an AR-15 is not a militia

 

[rightwinger]

It does not say the Right of the states to arm and equip a militia shall not be infringed....the Right of the People shall not be infringed....

It certainly implies that it's talking about a militia. Why else would the phrase even exist there at all?
A militia is certainly not the only application in which Arms can be used. Why did they single this one out?

The actual people have the Right to keep and bear arms.....and serve in a militia...twit....

See? You pointed yourself right back to the militia application. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Now --- a Constitution has to be clear; it can't set forth what it sets forth by vague implication. And other than this particular Amendment --- it doesn't. It's specific, as it should be. Then there's this eternally murky area.

It implies that the people have the obligation to form a militia in order to protect the free state and therefore the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It is clearly stated that the people's right (not the miltia's right) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I don't think it's murky at all in fact it is quite clear to me

To me it is saying that since we need armed citizens to form our militias, citizens should be allowed to bear arms
Take away that right and your ability to form militias is gone

 

[danielpalos]

No, well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State. The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The militia is the people

You can't have a militia without the people but you can have people without a militia therefore the people have the right to keep and bear arms so as to form a militia when necessary

There is no mention of the bearing of arms for the country it is and always will be the people's right

There is a mention of bearing arms for the country

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

that says nothing about the militia bearing arms for the country it merely states the necessity of a militia for the security of a free state
the people's right to keep and bear arms is not qualified in fact it is not to be infringed at all

Yes, only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; even organized confederates, did not have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms, and were disArmed, as a result. disarming the unorganized militia is routine, through gun control laws.

The right is for the people not the militia
there can be no militia without the people therefore the militia is secondary to the people
It is the people's right to keep and bear arms

the People are the Militia; what part of that do you not get?

 

[danielpalos]

It does not say the Right of the states to arm and equip a militia shall not be infringed....the Right of the People shall not be infringed....

It certainly implies that it's talking about a militia. Why else would the phrase even exist there at all?
A militia is certainly not the only application in which Arms can be used. Why did they single this one out?

The actual people have the Right to keep and bear arms.....and serve in a militia...twit....

See? You pointed yourself right back to the militia application. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Now --- a Constitution has to be clear; it can't set forth what it sets forth by vague implication. And other than this particular Amendment --- it doesn't. It's specific, as it should be. Then there's this eternally murky area.

It implies that the people have the obligation to form a militia in order to protect the free state and therefore the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It is clearly stated that the people's right (not the miltia's right) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I don't think it's murky at all in fact it is quite clear to me

The People are the Militia; there are no Individual Rights recognized in our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

It does not say the Right of the states to arm and equip a militia shall not be infringed....the Right of the People shall not be infringed....

It certainly implies that it's talking about a militia. Why else would the phrase even exist there at all?
A militia is certainly not the only application in which Arms can be used. Why did they single this one out?

The actual people have the Right to keep and bear arms.....and serve in a militia...twit....

See? You pointed yourself right back to the militia application. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Now --- a Constitution has to be clear; it can't set forth what it sets forth by vague implication. And other than this particular Amendment --- it doesn't. It's specific, as it should be. Then there's this eternally murky area.

It implies that the people have the obligation to form a militia in order to protect the free state and therefore the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It is clearly stated that the people's right (not the miltia's right) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I don't think it's murky at all in fact it is quite clear to me

To me it is saying that since we need armed citizens to form our militias, citizens should be allowed to bear arms
Take away that right and your ability to form militias is gone

Well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary to the security of a free State. The unorganized militia is not.

 

[2aguy]

It does not say the Right of the states to arm and equip a militia shall not be infringed....the Right of the People shall not be infringed....

It certainly implies that it's talking about a militia. Why else would the phrase even exist there at all?
A militia is certainly not the only application in which Arms can be used. Why did they single this one out?

The actual people have the Right to keep and bear arms.....and serve in a militia...twit....

See? You pointed yourself right back to the militia application. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Now --- a Constitution has to be clear; it can't set forth what it sets forth by vague implication. And other than this particular Amendment --- it doesn't. It's specific, as it should be. Then there's this eternally murky area.

It implies that the people have the obligation to form a militia in order to protect the free state and therefore the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It is clearly stated that the people's right (not the miltia's right) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I don't think it's murky at all in fact it is quite clear to me

The People are the Militia; there are no Individual Rights recognized in our Second Amendment.

So freedom of religion is just a group Right?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The militia is the people

You can't have a militia without the people but you can have people without a militia therefore the people have the right to keep and bear arms so as to form a militia when necessary

There is no mention of the bearing of arms for the country it is and always will be the people's right

There is a mention of bearing arms for the country

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

that says nothing about the militia bearing arms for the country it merely states the necessity of a militia for the security of a free state
the people's right to keep and bear arms is not qualified in fact it is not to be infringed at all

Yes, only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; even organized confederates, did not have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms, and were disArmed, as a result. disarming the unorganized militia is routine, through gun control laws.

The right is for the people not the militia
there can be no militia without the people therefore the militia is secondary to the people
It is the people's right to keep and bear arms

the People are the Militia; what part of that do you not get?

It's you who doesn't understand it not me

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The PEOPLE need to be armed in order to form a militia

 

[Skull Pilot]

It does not say the Right of the states to arm and equip a militia shall not be infringed....the Right of the People shall not be infringed....

It certainly implies that it's talking about a militia. Why else would the phrase even exist there at all?
A militia is certainly not the only application in which Arms can be used. Why did they single this one out?

The actual people have the Right to keep and bear arms.....and serve in a militia...twit....

See? You pointed yourself right back to the militia application. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Now --- a Constitution has to be clear; it can't set forth what it sets forth by vague implication. And other than this particular Amendment --- it doesn't. It's specific, as it should be. Then there's this eternally murky area.

It implies that the people have the obligation to form a militia in order to protect the free state and therefore the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It is clearly stated that the people's right (not the miltia's right) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I don't think it's murky at all in fact it is quite clear to me

The People are the Militia; there are no Individual Rights recognized in our Second Amendment.

Wrong. I have posted the opinion of a language expert here you just think you know more than him when it's quite clear to everyone here that you are no expert on language usage