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

[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.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. it is only and merely, the Second Article of 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

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

So freedom of religion is just a group Right?

there is no, true freedom of Religion.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Only well regulated militia of the people need to be Armed. The unorganized militia is not declared necessary.

 

[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.

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

that "language expert" only has a fallacy of composition. our Second Article of Amendment cannot be a Constitution unto itself.

 

[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.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. it is only and merely, the Second Article of Amendment.

MY god it is not the second article of amendment

it is the second amendment included in the bill of rights which is a list of the rights of the people

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Only well regulated militia of the people need to be Armed. The unorganized militia is not declared necessary.

You cannot arm a militia if the people are not armed

The militia is secondary to the people because it cannot exist without the people

 

[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

that "language expert" only has a fallacy of composition. our Second Article of Amendment cannot be a Constitution unto itself.

yeah you didn't understand it because your grasp of the English language is tenuous at best

FYI the Bill of Rights and all the amendments contained therein are part of the Constitution

 

[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.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. it is only and merely, the Second Article of Amendment.

MY god it is not the second article of amendment

it is the second amendment included in the bill of rights which is a list of the rights of the people

nope; merely the second article of amendment. it must rely on the context of our Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Only well regulated militia of the people need to be Armed. The unorganized militia is not declared necessary.

You cannot arm a militia if the people are not armed

The militia is secondary to the people because it cannot exist without the people

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

you are asking for wellness of regulation welfare, you are not willing to work for.

 

[danielpalos]

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?


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

that "language expert" only has a fallacy of composition. our Second Article of Amendment cannot be a Constitution unto itself.

yeah you didn't understand it because your grasp of the English language is tenuous at best

FYI the Bill of Rights and all the amendments contained therein are part of the Constitution

Our Bill of Rights, are amendments, not Constitutions unto themselves.

 

[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

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

They are clearly speaking about the need to maintain well organized militias to ensure the security of a free state. A bunch of people running around with guns is not an organized militia

 

[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.

They are clearly speaking about the need to maintain well organized militias to ensure the security of a free state. A bunch of people running around with guns is not an organized militia

it seems, the unorganized militia may be considered, "civilians" for law enforcement purposes.

 

[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

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.

They are clearly speaking about the need to maintain well organized militias to ensure the security of a free state. A bunch of people running around with guns is not an organized militia

Nope......they wouldn't have stated the right of The People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.....they would have specified the militia.....

 

[danielpalos]

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?


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.

They are clearly speaking about the need to maintain well organized militias to ensure the security of a free state. A bunch of people running around with guns is not an organized militia

Nope......they wouldn't have stated the right of The People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.....they would have specified the militia.....

nope; even the entire and whole of the People of the South, were Infringed by well regulated militias of the United States.

 

[rightwinger]

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?


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.

They are clearly speaking about the need to maintain well organized militias to ensure the security of a free state. A bunch of people running around with guns is not an organized militia

Nope......they wouldn't have stated the right of The People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.....they would have specified the militia.....

Exactly....If they wanted to say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they could have left it at that
But they chose to tie it to well regulated militias

 

[danielpalos]

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.

They are clearly speaking about the need to maintain well organized militias to ensure the security of a free state. A bunch of people running around with guns is not an organized militia

Nope......they wouldn't have stated the right of The People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.....they would have specified the militia.....

Exactly....If they wanted to say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they could have left it at that
But they chose to tie it to well regulated militias

Because, Only well regulated Militias of the whole and entire People of the United States, may not be Infringed.

 

[2aguy]

Trolls......you have been fed enough....

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Only well regulated militia of the people need to be Armed. The unorganized militia is not declared necessary.

You cannot arm a militia if the people are not armed

The militia is secondary to the people because it cannot exist without the people

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

you are asking for wellness of regulation welfare, you are not willing to work for.

Just because you rewrite the constitution doesn't make your point valid

We are talking about the Bill of Rights which is a collection of amendments that secure the rights of the people

There is no Second Article of Amendment

 

[Skull Pilot]

Trolls......you have been fed enough....

YUP it's time to put DP on ignore

 

[Pogo]

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?


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.

They are clearly speaking about the need to maintain well organized militias to ensure the security of a free state. A bunch of people running around with guns is not an organized militia

Nope......they wouldn't have stated the right of The People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.....they would have specified the militia.....

---- which they did. In the first thirteen words.
What they didn't do is unequivocally connect the two. They implied a connection but didn't spell it out.

The question was, and is, why would they drop such an implication in there? It must have some function.

Again, a Constitution has no need to ---and other than this phrase does not --- justify its reasoning. Again, we do not have an Amendment worded, "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.... " That phrase isn't necessary and does not exist. In any other Amendment at all.

And yet --- here it is in the Second. Doing..... something. No one knows exactly what.