The original intent of the second amendment

[danielpalos]

You are totally ignorant, not only of the U.S. Constitution, but of every principle of law anywhere under the authority of the U.S.

You wish, right-winger.

 

[justinacolmena]

You wish, right-winger.

Get off my property with that Democrat Mafia mob rule enforcement squad and your puss-in-boots fire department.

 

[danielpalos]

Right-wingers have nothing but fallacy. Why should we take them seriously?

 

[justinacolmena]

Right-wingers have nothing but fallacy. Why should we take them seriously?

Get off the weed before you die. You and all your buddies on the extreme left.

 

[danielpalos]

Get off the weed before you die. You and all your buddies on the extreme left.

Alcohol is worse.

 

[justinacolmena]

Alcohol is worse.

I don't care what you people are on. The drunken marijuana-addled crowds cannot get away with revoking the gun rights of clean and soberaw abiding citizens.

 

[justinacolmena]

Someone has mod privs and is hacking posts

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Where in the 2nd A. are guns noted?

True. Arms includes a much broader category than just guns. Thanks for pointing that out.

In addition to my machine guns, give me my tank and howitzers.

 

[danielpalos]

True. Arms includes a much broader category than just guns. Thanks for pointing that out.

In addition to my machine guns, give me my tank and howitzers.

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[justinacolmena]

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

And having said that, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The people. Human beings. Citizens. Your neighbors. Townspeople. Whether you like them or not. Whether they have military instruction or not. Whether they are wearing blue uniforms or not. Got that?

 

[danielpalos]

And having said that, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The people. Human beings. Citizens. Your neighbors. Townspeople. Whether you like them or not. Whether they have military instruction or not. Whether they are wearing blue uniforms or not. Got that?

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; and why the Union had to win our Civil War.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The leadership of a new America, which arose out of rebellion itself, or fearful of being called traitors and executed. That is one reason they did not establish a federal army, besides the fact they didn't have the money to fund it. If you read the second amendment in its entirety. The right for citizens to bear arms was given to the states so they could form their own well-regulated militias. It was their opinion but the states were so divided that they would never combined forces and attack the federal government. If not for that fact, the second amendment would not exist at all.

Sigh.
The of the people to keep and bear arms was protectedfrom infringement so the states would always have a capacity to form militias.
This does not in any way limit the 2A protection of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms to those serving in the militia -- "the people" is a broader category of persons than "the militia" and "the right to keep and bear arms" is broader category of use than "service in the militia".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where in the 2nd A. are guns noted?

"Arms" cannot, in any rational or honest way, be read to exclude firearms.

 

[Rye Catcher]

"Arms" cannot, in any rational or honest way, be read to exclude firearms.

Of course not, that is not my point. Arms include firearms, as well as every weapon of war noted in my post which you didn't fully post. Thus, shall not be infringed, can be controlled or denied ownership, for example fragmentation grenades.

Do you not agree that these and other lethal weapons are controlled? And, they (the ones' noted in my post, which you didn't fully post) are controlled and potentially illegal to own, possess or have in their custody and control?

The fact is, Arms are and should be controlled.

Now, I'm not and never have stated that all firearms be confiscated by the government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course not, that is not my point. Arms include firearms, as well as every weapon of war...

Generically, yes.
As the term is used in the 2nd amendment, no.

Do you not agree that [fragmentation grenades] and other lethal weapons are controlled?

They are.
Given the above - so what?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The leadership of a new America, which arose out of rebellion itself, or fearful of being called traitors and executed. That is one reason they did not establish a federal army, besides the fact they didn't have the money to fund it. If you read the second amendment in its entirety. The right for citizens to bear arms was given to the states so they could form their own well-regulated militias. It was their opinion but the states were so divided that they would never combined forces and attack the federal government. If not for that fact, the second amendment would not exist at all.

The Constitution Is a Sacred Cow That Established Elitist Tyranny

The Scrooge Founding Fodder was only concerned about keeping as much of the money they had stolen from the American true Founding Fathers as they could get away with by limiting government expenses to the point of threatening the nation's survival. With the Second Amendment, they could leave us weakly defended by relying on the citizens to train themselves through hunting and pay for their own weapons.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

This newbie is a fucking hoot!

No he is not…

 

[Rye Catcher]

Generically, yes.
As the term is used in the 2nd amendment, no.

They are.
Given the above - so what?

So, given above puts firearms into the Arms. And the Arms can be controlled (infringed upon, if you will). It's logic:

If A then B
A
Therefore B

aka: Modus Ponens

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, given above puts firearms into the Arms. And the Arms can be controlled (infringed upon, if you will). It's logic:

Incorrect. False equivalence.

The part of my post you failed to quote demonstrates the flaw in your argument.
"Arms", as the term is used in the dictionary does not have the same meaning as 'arms" as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.

Thus, it does NOT follows that because grenades - "arms", as the term is used in the dictionary - can be "controlled", then so too can firearms - "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Incorrect. False equivalence.

The part of my post you failed to quote demonstrates the flaw in your argument.
"Arms", as the term is used in the dictionary does not have the same meaning as 'arms" as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.

Thus, it does NOT follows that because grenades - "arms", as the term is used in the dictionary - can be "controlled", then so too can firearms - "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.

Posting part of a quote is dishonest! And a rule violation.

My post was this, for the reader:

"So, given above puts firearms into the Arms. And the Arms can be controlled (infringed upon, if you will). It's logic:

"If A then B
A
Therefore B"