Salon article: US founded on gun control? Madison/2nd Amendment meant state militias?

[danielpalos]

Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.

The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that. According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong. Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind. Enjoy.

So what. Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.

Judicial activism, is simply that.

The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.

So you're claiming the second claus isn't there. It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight. I think it's called "indoctrination".

The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.

Then I have the right to own guns. I'm part of "the people" as you claim. Correct?

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."

Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows. Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis. No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll". No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.

It's just odd. Looks grossly unfinished.

Another falsehood from the regressive left.

View attachment 172762

Right wing indoctrination?

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

 

[BS Filter]

The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that. According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong. Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind. Enjoy.

So what. Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.

Judicial activism, is simply that.

The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.

So you're claiming the second claus isn't there. It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight. I think it's called "indoctrination".

The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.

Then I have the right to own guns. I'm part of "the people" as you claim. Correct?

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

I disagree. Natural rights are recognized and secured in both the US Constitution and state Constitutions. That's why we have a Supreme Court, to determine what is "Constitutional". I see where you're coming from now.

 

[danielpalos]

So what. Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.

Judicial activism, is simply that.

The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.

So you're claiming the second claus isn't there. It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight. I think it's called "indoctrination".

The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.

Then I have the right to own guns. I'm part of "the people" as you claim. Correct?

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

I disagree. Natural rights are recognized and secured in both the US Constitution and state Constitutions. That's why we have a Supreme Court, to determine what is "Constitutional". I see where you're coming from now.

Natural rights are recognized and secured by State Constitutions and available via Due Process in federal venues.

 

[BS Filter]

So you're claiming the second claus isn't there. It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight. I think it's called "indoctrination".

The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.

Then I have the right to own guns. I'm part of "the people" as you claim. Correct?

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

I disagree. Natural rights are recognized and secured in both the US Constitution and state Constitutions. That's why we have a Supreme Court, to determine what is "Constitutional". I see where you're coming from now.

Natural rights are recognized and secured by State Constitutions and available via Due Process in federal venues.

Are you claiming the US Constitution doesn't apply to me?

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.

Then I have the right to own guns. I'm part of "the people" as you claim. Correct?

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

I disagree. Natural rights are recognized and secured in both the US Constitution and state Constitutions. That's why we have a Supreme Court, to determine what is "Constitutional". I see where you're coming from now.

Natural rights are recognized and secured by State Constitutions and available via Due Process in federal venues.

Are you claiming the US Constitution doesn't apply to me?

It does in federal venues.

 

[miketx]

My final thought on this recurring attack on our rights is, Come get them scum bags.

 

[danielpalos]

My final thought on this recurring attack on our rights is, Come get them scum bags.

Why bother; seems like a job for bazookaniers or grenadiers.

 

[miketx]

My final thought on this recurring attack on our rights is, Come get them scum bags.

Why bother; seems like a job for bazookaniers or grenadiers.

Come get them.

 

[danielpalos]

My final thought on this recurring attack on our rights is, Come get them scum bags.

Why bother; seems like a job for bazookaniers or grenadiers.

Come get them.

why bother. I don't need the practice.

 

[miketx]

Anyone paying attention can tell when they have hit a nerve with one of the lying regressive scumbags, when they quote your posts one after another for a time. lol

 

[Pogo]

The dependent clause in the second only serves to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people, as the possession of such arms are prerequisite for a well-regulated militia--the precise militia, BTW, which the federal government is constitutionally empowered to draw upon to assure the security of a free state.

"to make it clear"?

Yes. Precisely.

There's no such element in a Constitution. A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period". It has no need whatsoever to explain its reasoning that led to any of its points. It is not a debate. There is no element of "dialogue" in it --- it's a direct assertion.

Well, that right there is an interesting denial of reality.

I might suggest to you, that you become aquainted with the U.S. Bill of Rights, and precisely why it was brought forth.

I'm pretty sure you've never heard of it, and I'm certain that if you had, you'd declare that it is entirely unnecessary since, " A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period"."

Aaaahhhhhmmmm... the Bill of Rights is exactly what I just quoted in that post several times Princess.

Well then, there's just no explaining why you're so confused.

Guess I assumed you'd recognize it and it wouldn't need explanation.

Oh, I recognized it just fine, it was apparent that you didn't, however.

I misoverestimated you. Would you like to borrow my copy?

Between you and I, I'm not the one confused by the existence of the Bill of Rights.

And indeed, no other Amendment, no other section in the Bill of Rights, takes such a tangent to do so.

That deosn't mean the authors of the amendment didn't didn't see the need to make a particular point in this one respect.

No shit Sherlock. That's what I just noted. The question is WHY they would do that. A question that remains untouched.

What question? Do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the prefatory clause is to make it clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?

If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.

You're welcome.

The statements are direct and to the point: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... "; "No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house...."; "The right of the People to be secure in their person.... shall not be violated..." and so on. NONE of them take a diversion to explain conditions; they simply get right to the point. The question of "why" is not present at all, nor does it need to be.

Cool story bro. I OBVIOUSLY wasn't making any kind of point that the pefatory clause was setting conditions upon the excercise of the right.

Wow, you think the universe revolves around you huh?

No. But you did blockquote my post, right? ... excuse me for assuming you were attempting to address something you thought I said.

Dick.

No Jingles, you're not suggesting the idea that the dependent clause sets conditions on the second --- that would be me.
I'm asking specifically, if that is not its purpose --- then what IS its purpose. The same question that remains the same degree of untouched.

Do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the preforatory clause is to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?

If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.

You're welcome.

Again.

Yyyyyyeah unfortunately that doesn't follow. You can't just slap together two disparate thoughts and then point to them claiming one flows from the other when it obviously does not. There's no way you can bang that clause into that meaning. It says nothing about comparisons between the people and federal soldiers. It makes no reference to federal soldiers whatsoever. And if it could mean that, your specious interpretation would mean I have the right to own tanks, bazookas, grenades, shoulder-fired missiles, Sirin gas and nuclear bombs.

Don't feel bad --- it's a question none of us can answer because we haven't enough to start with. It's a phrase that never explains itself. And if it can be explained, the leap you just made with no bridge --- ain't it.

And please, don't come waggling "prefatory" up in here thinking you're gonna snow people with what looks like a legal term. All prefatory means is that it's at the beginning-- an introduction, a preface (and it has an R in it -- learn to spell). We all know perfectly well WHERE it is; the question on the table, untouched, is WHY it is.

Well, as it turns out, the legal priority placed upon the preforatory clause is determined by it's grammatical dependency upon the main, independent clause of the Amendement.

And as far as the "question" is concerned, do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the prefatory clause is to make it clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?

If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.

You're welcome.

Again.

Ergo the First Amendment does not read, "A free and open discourse being necessary to the exercise of a healthy democracy, Congress shall make no law..... etc". Nor does it have any reason to since the merits of each point have already been argued in committees, and the eventual Constitution represents the decisions the parties agreed to.

You present this as a counter to which point that I made?

Can you be specific?

Again when you receive my copy of the Bill of Rights you'll notice that what I did there was modify the First Amendment into a model of what the Second actually looks like. That's what 1A would look like if it took the time and trouble to list a justification of itself first. Obviously the present Amendment does not do that, as it does not need to. NONE of the Amendments do that ---except the Second.

Your faulty presumption, in direct contradiction to all your discussion regarding "...{being} argued in committees...", is that the purpose of the prefatory clause is to present any kind of "justification" at all.

That appears to possibly be its purpose, although as noted from the outset, there's no reason at all to do that. But dismissing that, what other purpose can the clause have? The only other function it can have is to set some kind of qualification/limitation on what follows it. Unfortunately it doesn't detail what that intention might be, which is why I describe it as a train wreck. It's fatally vague.

After this point you went into Pee Wee Herman mode repeating the same fallacious leap over and over and over and over and over and over and over, so I shitcanned it. I understood the first time that you had no answer --- not necessary to overmake the point.

I'm not in the habit of posing questions that HAVE answers. That's the point of posing them.

 

[Pogo]

The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.

That still leaves the question open --- what then is the purpose of the first clause? Why does it exist?

Simple. No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order. No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.

What happens in Any conflict of laws?

Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.

NO ONE may be infringed upon. That's the whole point. Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion. The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.

The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that. According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong. Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind. Enjoy.

Kind of an ironic post in that, according to that same English language, "Progressives" faded out a century ago.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."

Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows. Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis. No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll". No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.

It's just odd. Looks grossly unfinished.

The problem isn’t so much the wording but that it’s a ‘standalone’ Amendment to begin with.

The wording makes sense when included in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 12 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; [where 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;

Article II, Section 8 prohibits the establishment of a permanent National standing army, limiting funding for an army to two years. When no such funding is authorized – and no Federal army exists – the Nation would be protected by the state militias, who would provide the first defense against an invading force.

In order to ensure the militia were prepared to defend the Nation, residents of the states are afforded the right to arm themselves.

This is why the Heller Court recognized an individual right to possess a firearm, unrelated to militia service, the state militia having become an anachronism.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the militia.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If gun-control advocates didn't have arguments that rely upon disinformation and logical fallacy, they'd have no arguments at all.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Second Amendment jurisprudence itself authorizes the enactment of firearm regulatory measures:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Those who advocate for gun control measures that comport with the Second Amendment – such as the measures noted in Heller – are not predicating their advocacy on disinformation and logical fallacies, but on settled, accepted Constitutional case law.

It was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that firearms be subject to government regulation, as no right is in fact ‘unlimited.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court has been assuming powers for itself it doesn't have; forget about it, it's a joke and the system of checks and balances broke down over a hundred years ago.

Nonsense.

Article VI of the Constitution clearly authorizes the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, and to invalidate laws that violate the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

The Idea that the 2nd amendment only applies to state militias is nonsensical, as well as intellectually dishonest. It shows an extreme ignorance to the philosophy that lead to the bill of rights, an ignorance to the historical context, and a purposeful ignorance to the text itself.

First and foremost, the text of the 2nd. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It really doesn't need to be any clearer than that. It clearly states PEOPLE, not states, not government, not governors, not militias, but people.

IF it were true that militias were to be controlled strictly by the states...then state legislature would be appointing the leaders of the militia, much like they appointed senators at the time, because the senate was there to represent the states. That was not the case, the people who made up the militias elected their own leaders. Could the governors call upon the militia it times of common defense, yes, but the duly elected militia leaders still had control over their militia. The individuality of the militias made them a pretty shitty tool to repel actual standing armies, they did not move in unison as a single unit, they did not have a top down structured hierarchy much like a standing army that can coordinate mass numbers of troops into a single much more effective attack or defense. To give governors and/or states total control of the militias goes totally against the philosophy at the time, which was a government in control of force is dangerous and short sighted. Sure its not the fed government, but that still gives states to power to not only ignore protest of their constituents, since "i control the militia, what are you going to do about it," but to also swoop in on selective counties and use those counties militias against them. NO, a well armed PEOPLE makes a respectable government. Giving governors total control over militias, also gave them standing armies, which the founders were deathly afraid of, and why they banned standing armies in times of peace, even though standing armies were much more effective at common defense. Do you really believe the founders were ok changing one standing army with another standing arm? NO, just a ridiculous notion.

Wrong.

Again, the Constitution prohibited the establishment of a National army, which is why its funding was limited to two years.

The states’ militia would defend the Nation until a Federal army could be mobilized.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

The Idea that the 2nd amendment only applies to state militias is nonsensical, as well as intellectually dishonest. It shows an extreme ignorance to the philosophy that lead to the bill of rights, an ignorance to the historical context, and a purposeful ignorance to the text itself.

First and foremost, the text of the 2nd. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It really doesn't need to be any clearer than that. It clearly states PEOPLE, not states, not government, not governors, not militias, but people.

IF it were true that militias were to be controlled strictly by the states...then state legislature would be appointing the leaders of the militia, much like they appointed senators at the time, because the senate was there to represent the states. That was not the case, the people who made up the militias elected their own leaders. Could the governors call upon the militia it times of common defense, yes, but the duly elected militia leaders still had control over their militia. The individuality of the militias made them a pretty shitty tool to repel actual standing armies, they did not move in unison as a single unit, they did not have a top down structured hierarchy much like a standing army that can coordinate mass numbers of troops into a single much more effective attack or defense. To give governors and/or states total control of the militias goes totally against the philosophy at the time, which was a government in control of force is dangerous and short sighted. Sure its not the fed government, but that still gives states to power to not only ignore protest of their constituents, since "i control the militia, what are you going to do about it," but to also swoop in on selective counties and use those counties militias against them. NO, a well armed PEOPLE makes a respectable government. Giving governors total control over militias, also gave them standing armies, which the founders were deathly afraid of, and why they banned standing armies in times of peace, even though standing armies were much more effective at common defense. Do you really believe the founders were ok changing one standing army with another standing arm? NO, just a ridiculous notion.

Dear sakinago
While I agree with the traditional interpretation as more consistent with historical context and Constitutional meaning, I also acknowledge that opponents and dissenters have equal right to their beliefs, however contradictory or irrational, provided they keep these beliefs to themselves and dont impose on others. They have equal right to govern themselves under beliefs that health care is a right through govt and that arms are reserved for militia regulated by govt as well.

The problem then becomes imposing this belief through govt. But if we recognize this as a belief, then it cant be imposed or it violates Amendment One.

If we keep arguing back and forth, both sides claiming historic or judicial precedent as justification for imposing one belief or another, we risk losing our right to the interpretation we believe in. If the only way that the liberals feel they can protect their right to their belief is to override the Constitution by abusing judicial or executive power, this invites if not necessitates such abuse! To prevent that, I argue it is better to recognize the liberal rights to their beliefs as a Political Religion, then they have free exercise without prohibition by govt and also the same laws prevent such political beliefs from being established by govt.

Similar with LGBT beliefs, beliefs in health care and in marriage as a right. Acknowledging these as Political Beliefs protects them as part of free exercise of religion, while at the same time barring govt from establishing such beliefs by law. The protection is mutual!

No one is seeking to ‘impose belief through government’ – whatever that’s supposed to mean.

The government passes laws.

Those laws must comport with Constitutional jurisprudence.

Laws that fail to do so are invalidated by the courts.

That’s it – no ‘beliefs’ being ‘imposed.’

 

[westwall]

Simple. No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order. No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.

What happens in Any conflict of laws?

Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.

NO ONE may be infringed upon. That's the whole point. Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion. The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.

The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that. According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong. Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind. Enjoy.

Kind of an ironic post in that, according to that same English language, "Progressives" faded out a century ago.

No, they just rebranded and slunk back in. Like they always do.