Questioning the election process is undemocratic

[frigidweirdo]

If that were true the original meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment would have been restored by 74 and Roe would have been overturned and the abortion question sent back to the states.

There are probably at least a dozen other decisions that show that cannot be true.

Just because someone is appointed by a Republican President certainly doesn't mean that justice once seated won't become a flaming left wing activist on the bench.

Much greater care needs to be exercised by Republican Presidents in the future with respect to nominees and they should stick only with those with long records of decisions as a constructionist and textualist. If it isn't in there, it isn't in there. No, you don't get to change the wording as a justice of a law you do not like.

Well.... I'm sure you don't know what the "original meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment" is.

I'll tell you. The right of individuals to own weapons = right to keep arms.
The right of individuals to be in the militia = right to bear arms.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

There's more evidence in this document proving this is so, than there is evidence against this fact in the whole world. AND there's more evidence than this one document, quite a bit more, actually.

But no, the Supreme Court is not a place where Justices feel they can go out and make law. However they are changing things slowly, and the US has become far more conservative because of it.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Well.... I'm sure you don't know what the "original meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment" is.

I'll tell you. The right of individuals to own weapons = right to keep arms.
The right of individuals to be in the militia = right to bear arms.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

There's more evidence in this document proving this is so, than there is evidence against this fact in the whole world. AND there's more evidence than this one document, quite a bit more, actually.

But no, the Supreme Court is not a place where Justices feel they can go out and make law. However they are changing things slowly, and the US has become far more conservative because of it.

No, to bear simply means to carry and it is not predicated on membership in any militia.

Don't confuse propaganda with evidence. The Heller decision spelled it out very nicely with historical references.

 

[Colin norris]

I watched the Cyber Ninja's top IT expert prove with 100% certainty that there was major tampering with at least one of the main Dominion System servers.

It was probably on fox also. Did he mention they had been independently tested and found to be correct? Did he mention the audit on the machines was paid for by the gop and it still was not found faulty.
Its taking a while for the truth you sink in.

I also watched the Arizona Election Committee let out a collective yawn, and dismiss him with ZERO QUESTIONS about the damning proof he had just presented.

thats because they know the truth. Youre the bloody problem. Youve got no brains.

At that point, I lost any faith in the truth coming out about the 2020 election fraud that most certainly occurred.

there was no fraud and you can repeat that lie until the sun rises in the west. You have no evidence and never will. Youre simply repeating everything Trump said. Youre as dumb as dogshit.

That's what we're up against Mary. The system is corrupt.

Do you find it coincidental that all your supposed fraud conveniently happened when Trump was beaten. Trump even predicted it so the authorities were aware of it but it didn't happen.
You never mentioned fraud when Trump won. Why us that?

How does your god feel about calling the electoral authorities cheats and liars? He's ok with that?
Dickhead.v

 

[Colin norris]

Sorry but they are removing valid information including cited studies that go against the Admin/CDC narratives and have been doing so for many months.

Ok. Show me a couple of examples of what you mean.

Might I remind you. Those sites Facebook etc are privately owned. They dont take instructions from anyone. They take that shit down because it lies from Trump.

 

[Oddball]

Sorry but they are removing valid information including cited studies that go against the Admin/CDC narratives and have been doing so for many months.

Colon is a tool of The State.

 

[MaryL]

Are you sure it's not the other way around? Maybe it's the media controlling them? They are all certainly operating off of the same set of talking points every day.

Um... What?

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, to bear simply means to carry and it is not predicated on membership in any militia.

Don't confuse propaganda with evidence. The Heller decision spelled it out very nicely with historical references.

Bear means lots of things.

"Stool" means feces. Does that mean if a man tells you to "sit on the stool" that you'll go find a shit to sit on?

If you READ (I mean, use your eyes, look at the document, take on board what it says) you'll see that "bear arms" (rather than "bear") means "render military service" or "militia duty".

Also, I didn't say you needed militia membership to be in the militia. That makes NO SENSE.

Every US citizen has a RIGHT to be in the militia. So, when the shit hits the fan, the US federal government CANNOT stop people being in the militia, regardless of whether they're in it or not.

Why do you think the National Guard exists alongside an "unorganized militia"??? It's so you can't demand to be in the National Guard.

Heller spells it out, and gets ridiculously misread and misunderstood by people who want the 2A to read something it's not.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Bear means lots of things.

"Stool" means feces. Does that mean if a man tells you to "sit on the stool" that you'll go find a shit to sit on?

If you READ (I mean, use your eyes, look at the document, take on board what it says) you'll see that "bear arms" (rather than "bear") means "render military service" or "militia duty".

Also, I didn't say you needed militia membership to be in the militia. That makes NO SENSE.

Every US citizen has a RIGHT to be in the militia. So, when the shit hits the fan, the US federal government CANNOT stop people being in the militia, regardless of whether they're in it or not.

Why do you think the National Guard exists alongside an "unorganized militia"??? It's so you can't demand to be in the National Guard.

Heller spells it out, and gets ridiculously misread and misunderstood by people who want the 2A to read something it's not.

My mistake, I thought you would perhaps be someone who understood the context in which we're discussing "To Bear".

"To Keep and Bear" is there for a reason, they are not separate. We have a right to both keep and "bear" arms unless of course we give up those rights through due process.

"We are all The Militia", yes, we are, hence the predicate, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, The Right of The People... . .

Yes, the people all of us collectively.

They recognized that in times of emergency if the average man wasn't armed and familiar in the use of arms the nation could not last.

Only if federalized does the unorganized militia come under any federal scrutiny.

 

[frigidweirdo]

My mistake, I thought you would perhaps be someone who understood the context in which we're discussing "To Bear".

"To Keep and Bear" is there for a reason, they are not separate. We have a right to both keep and "bear" arms unless of course we give up those rights through due process.

"We are all The Militia", yes, we are, hence the predicate, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, The Right of The People... . .

Yes, the people all of us collectively.

They recognized that in times of emergency if the average man wasn't armed and familiar in the use of arms the nation could not last.

Only if federalized does the unorganized militia come under any federal scrutiny.

Let's look then.

First we use the document I provided and which you don't seem to want to look at.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

This is the clause that they were talking about. Essentially a clause that would not force people to "bear arms". Not "keep and bear arms" as you've just claimed is one thing, not two separate thing. The HOUSE in 1789 was literally using "bear arms" as SEPARATE from "keep arms".

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Here's another version from 8th June 1789, in fact they flip flopped between "bear arms" and "render military service" before dropping the clause by September 4th 1789.

Here below are the different versions for you:

17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.

June 8th 1789

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 17th 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

August 24th 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 25th

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

September 4th

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

September 9th

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

September 21st

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Just to PROVE that "bear arms" and "keep arms" are not one and the same, we have individual states' versions of this Amendment.

"1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;"

"1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;"

"1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State"

"1790 Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

"1792 Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

You know? Knowledge....

Back to the document I posted before.

Mr Gerry said, just after the bit about the clause we're talking about: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Wait, prevent them "bearing arms", not "keeping and bearing arms"

Mr Gerry also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples"

Why on Earth would he say this when "militia duty" is replacing "bear arms"???? Oh, unless "militia duty" and "bear arms" and "render military service" are one and the same.

Here's a dude called "George Washington" and his SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783

He says:
"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"​

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“​

"borne on the Militia Rolls". "Bear" past of "bear" is "borne" "bear on the militia rolls" "Bear arms" "render military service" "militia duty".

All the same.

Then, you have the Dick Act. Why do you think they made the "unorganized militia"? There is only one logical explanation and that is to have the National Guard as a place where people are semi-professional, and those who aren't can't demand to be in the National Guard through the right to bear arms. So they made an "unorganized militia". They shouldn't have bothered, seeing how few people even know they have a right to be in the militia.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Let's look then.

First we use the document I provided and which you don't seem to want to look at.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

This is the clause that they were talking about. Essentially a clause that would not force people to "bear arms". Not "keep and bear arms" as you've just claimed is one thing, not two separate thing. The HOUSE in 1789 was literally using "bear arms" as SEPARATE from "keep arms".

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Here's another version from 8th June 1789, in fact they flip flopped between "bear arms" and "render military service" before dropping the clause by September 4th 1789.

Here below are the different versions for you:

17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.

June 8th 1789

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 17th 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

August 24th 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 25th

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

September 4th

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

September 9th

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

September 21st

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Just to PROVE that "bear arms" and "keep arms" are not one and the same, we have individual states' versions of this Amendment.

"1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;"

"1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;"

"1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State"

"1790 Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

"1792 Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

You know? Knowledge....

Back to the document I posted before.

Mr Gerry said, just after the bit about the clause we're talking about: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Wait, prevent them "bearing arms", not "keeping and bearing arms"

Mr Gerry also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples"

Why on Earth would he say this when "militia duty" is replacing "bear arms"???? Oh, unless "militia duty" and "bear arms" and "render military service" are one and the same.

Here's a dude called "George Washington" and his SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783

He says:
"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“​

"borne on the Militia Rolls". "Bear" past of "bear" is "borne" "bear on the militia rolls" "Bear arms" "render military service" "militia duty".

All the same.

Then, you have the Dick Act. Why do you think they made the "unorganized militia"? There is only one logical explanation and that is to have the National Guard as a place where people are semi-professional, and those who aren't can't demand to be in the National Guard through the right to bear arms. So they made an "unorganized militia". They shouldn't have bothered, seeing how few people even know they have a right to be in the militia.

You can "Bear Arms" either personally or as part of the Militia. It is however an individual right, without a command to serve in the militia.

The "unorganized militia has always existed in this country outside of any formal guard or reserve.

There are actually still statutes on the books in most states allowing for a local or county officer to call up and train a militia or to administer their duties in an emergency.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

So, we get this straight, the 2020 election was a by a clear majority and Biden won fair and square. A majority of Americans WANTED Biden in office?

Yep. Just like COVID is real stuff, Republicans are racist & only care about white wealth, Trump colluded with Russia, and he ordered 100s to riot.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You can "Bear Arms" either personally or as part of the Militia. It is however an individual right, without a command to serve in the militia.

The "unorganized militia has always existed in this country outside of any formal guard or reserve.

There are actually still statutes on the books in most states allowing for a local or county officer to call up and train a militia or to administer their duties in an emergency.

You could use "bear arms" as

You can literally do whatever the hell you want with the language.

HOWEVER you said "true the original meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment"

Now you've suddenly gone from "true the original meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment " to "whatever the fuck I think it is"

If you THINK the "unorganized militia" existed before the Dick Act, I'd LOVE to see that evidence (doesn't exist, don't waste your time).

"There are actually still statutes on the books in most states allowing for a local or county officer to call up and train a militia or to administer their duties in an emergency."

I don't see the relevance of this sentence.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

You could use "bear arms" as View attachment 615981

You can literally do whatever the hell you want with the language.

HOWEVER you said "true the original meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment"

Now you've suddenly gone from "true the original meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment " to "whatever the fuck I think it is"

If you THINK the "unorganized militia" existed before the Dick Act, I'd LOVE to see that evidence (doesn't exist, don't waste your time).

"There are actually still statutes on the books in most states allowing for a local or county officer to call up and train a militia or to administer their duties in an emergency."

I don't see the relevance of this sentence.

Let's see, I can go with the opinion of some anonymous internet poster or I can Read Scalia's Decision and go with what he had to say.. ..Hmm

We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose— confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “

---

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6

II We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment. A The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been

1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

Thanks, but I'm quite comfortable with my understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[cnm]

The Heller decision spelled it out very nicely with historical references.

Scalia could have picked Washington's cherry tree.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

He could have picked Washington's cherry tree.

I'm sorry, was that supposed to be funny?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Let's see, I can go with the opinion of some anonymous internet poster or I can Read Scalia's Decision and go with what he had to say.. ..Hmm


At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose— confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “

---

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

Thanks, but I'm quite comfortable with my understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

Maybe if you actually READ it properly you'll see what they're doing.

1) They defined "bear" on it's own away from "arms".
2) They wrote "When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation."
3) They also wrote: "In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to "bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" or "bear arms in defense of himself and the state.""

Number three is controversial to say the least. I've posted some of these state clauses.

Let's go have a look again.

I'm going to make the case that in the beginning they said people have the right to be in the militia to defend their state and the people within that state.

"1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;"

So, NC says that they can bear arms "for the defence of the State". I mean, that's the very definition of what the militia is. The militia is there to defend the state.

"1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state"

Here it gets a little more confusing. Defense of state and "themselves". What does "themselves" mean?

"1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

MA has "common defence" which I'm going to say is "defence of themselves". That "themselves" (a plural) means "the people of the community, the state etc".

Because up until 1817 all the clauses were kind of similar. And "common defence" and "defence of themselves" comes up.

"1817 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State."

"defence of himself" as opposed to "themselves".

So, when the Supreme Court says: that "bear arms" is "carry of arms outside of the militia", they mean "armed for confrontation", as in, people are forming a militia outside of the State militia. They're not "bearing" (as in "carrying" arms). They said "for confrontation" and that's the meaning here.

4) They also said: "It is clear from those formulations that "bear arms" did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit."

No, not necessarily in an "organized military unit", it could also be a militia made up of the people outside of government control. Rather than just some dude walking around with a gun.

5) They also said: " The phrase "bear Arms" also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" or "to wage war.""

The Supreme Court essentially say, and I'll summarize.

1) "bear" means lots of things.
2) "bear arms" can mean "to be in the militia", "render military service" "militia duty"
3) "bear arms" can mean "to be in a militia that isn't under state control".

NOW.... the Second Amendment does NOT have "common defence", "defence of themselves" or "defence of himself". It simply does not exist. Why would the Feds need this? This was essentially a state issue. The fed's issue was that they wanted to protect the militia. The militia as stated in article 1, section 8. The Militia the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (hence why it's a federal issue) could call up into federal service.

They protected the militia's weaponry and personnel. How does protecting some dude to carry his gun around all day have anything to do with the Federal government? It doesn't. It doesn't protect the militia, the 2A starts with the words "A well regulated militia...." that's what the Amendment is about.

If you actually READ what the Supreme Court has said in Heller and other cases, you realize it does NOT go against what I am saying, that "Bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty" and an individual has the right to be in the militia. Hence why the Dick Act made the "unorganized militia", so people could not demand to be in the National Guard.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

Thanks, but I'm quite comfortable with my understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

Oh, I'm totally sure you're happy with your convenient version you made up of the Second Amendment.

However, the Second Amendment DOES protect and individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in the militia. It's called the right to keep arms. Not bear arms.

Individuals can also use that gun (it's not protected, but they can do it) for "traditionally lawful purposes". I mean, they're literally saying "you can use this thing if you don't break the law", I mean, "DUUUUHHHH". If it's not against the law, you can do ANYTHING if you so choose. It's like politics 101.

Do you see what they did? They made the Second Amendment look like something to people like you who want to see it as something. But the reality is, they KNOW what it means. They KNOW it means what I'm saying it means. They're pandering to people like you who want to believe, while not going and opening Pandora's Box by actually trying to change the meaning. If they can keep the original meaning, but pretend it's something else....

It's kind of crafty and well done. But all the same, none of it goes against my argument. Not one thing.

 

[scruffy]

Dosen't that seem rather antithetical?

Hi MaryL, yes it seems antithetical to me.

Voting is what I would call "mission critical". It's the same as the spaceship that carries astronauts to the moon, or oxygen at the hospital. If it fails, people die. Lives are lost, the mission fails.

If the mission is a thriving and stable political system, then voting is mission critical. If people don't trust the vote then all bets are off, because voting is the ONLY POWER WE HAVE over our government.

In my view it is therefore vital that we apply the principles of highly secure systems to the voting process.

First of all, we don't outsource our elections to foreign corporations. That's suicidal, it's asking for trouble.

Second, we have had highly secure point-of-sale systems for DECADES, and there's no reason we can't have highly secure point-of-vote systems right now this very instant.

Third, voter ID is MANDATORY. Sorry liberals, no debate on this point. From a security standpoint, we WILL identify you and that's the end of the story.

We could go on, but you get the idea.

"Mission critical". That's what voting is.

There has to be trust in the electoral process. If there isn't, we don't have a Constitution and we don't have a country.

 

[scruffy]

The governments of banana republics have no checks and balances. That is why we have tens of millions of illegals here. And we are heading to where they came from.

Agreed.

Our checks and balances are breaking down.

 

[scruffy]

Thats a lie. They remove posts which are proven to be wrong and encourage revenge and violence.
Thats why old mogadon got banned.

Horse pucky.

Putin's still on there.

The Ayatollah's are still on there.

Kim Jong Un is still on there.

You are uncredibly hyperpartisan.

You do realize that our government is required to respect our rights, but corporations are not?