The real meaning of the 2nd Amendment

[woodwork201]

The left often argues that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says; mostly lying, sometimes just ignorantly, they claim that the first half of the sentence sets a reason or requirement for the second half.

As Ratified:
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.

As voted out of Congress:
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.

The Courts continue to try to parse the extra comma as though it changes the meaning. If they were right, if it did change the meaning, then the 2nd Amendment would not be valid at all. It is not possible for the States to ratify something other than what Congress proposed. No provision of Article V permits the Constitution to be amended that way.

So, comma or no comma, the meaning is exactly the same. And this is a very important point. Different writers and transcribers may have different styles (and the Internet Grammar Police didn't yet exist to tell them if their style wasn't perfect). Comma or no comma, the Amendment ratified has the exact same meaning and interpretation as the Amendment from Congress. Were it not so, the issue of the comma would have been raised in 1791.

So, now we accept that writers and transcribers might write something differently but it is accepted by the Founders to be exactly the same and requiring not even a discussion of the difference.

So let's look at what is referred to as the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. The left claims that it sets up a prerequisite that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the State and only necessary for those who serve in the militia. But consider what was originally written and proposed for the right to keep and bear arms.

It will be interesting to discuss first, though, that many claim that James Madison is the author of the Bill of Rights. This could not be further from the truth. James Madison was the editor of the Bill of Rights but variations on each and every theme were discussed and written multiple times by multiple people in multiple ways. Even then, many of the concepts were taken directly from the Magna Carte.

The document, Journal, Acts and Proceedings, The Convention Assembled at Philadelphia, Monday, May 14, and Dissolved Monday, September 17, 1787, which Formed the Constitution of the United States, includes the exact writings of the various State conventions upon ratifying the Constitution. In several of those ratifying document, the States included the very amendments they insisted should be passed immediately. After ratification, other states and scholars proposed additional sets of amendments.

No, Madison did not author the Bill of Rights; he simply compiled it.

In the ratifying documents to the Constitution, as I said, several States included what they wanted in the first amendments to the Constitution - phrased and paraphrased as a bill of rights but not yet titled the Bill of Rights. In red below is the first page mentioning ratify for those States and then which page to find that State's demand for the right to keep and bear arms.

New Hampshire 412 - see 415 for RKBA: XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

Virginia 417 - see bottom of 420 to 421 for RKBA: XVII. That the people have aright to keep and 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.

New York 431 - see page 427 for New Yorks RKBA clause: That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

North Carolina 452 - see 443 for RKBA: XVII. That the people have a right to keep and 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 cir- cumstances 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.

Rhode Island 452 (same page as NC) see 456 for RKBA: xvii. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection; that standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrate in such manner as the law directs.


In each of these, other than New Hampshire - which is really the best, there are multiple concepts combined into what we'd call a long-running sentence today. Things like a standing army, housing soldiers, the militia and martial law, and military subordination to civil power are only connected in the loosest of ways and yet were all in the same sentence. Just because multiple ideas are in the same sentence, in the style of the day, does not mean that one idea is dependent on the other ideas.

Considering the multiple ideas, note that in each case where the militia is mentioned in the same sentence as the right to keep and bear arms, the right to keep and bear arms came first. Quoting Rhode Island as example: That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ;

There's no confusion about how that is written. The same sentences explicitly recognizes that the people have an individual right to keep and bear arms and the, separately, states that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bear arms, JUST AS I HAVE BEEN POSTING in many threads, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state. Two different ideas in the same sentence.

So how did it get reversed? Notice that in the Rhode Island version, there is the right to keep and bear arms, quartering soldiers, standing army, and the militia as the proper defense of the nation. Others were similar but not exactly the same. This is where James Madison comes in as editor. From all of the input that came from all of the States and others, he had to standardize the specific protections to send to the Congress for approval to send to the States. That meant clarifying, simplifying, separating, ordering, and even choosing some ideas over others. Even then, he didn't do that in a vacuum sitting alone in his house; it was a collaboration.

So, in that clean up of the diverse writing styles of the various States, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ; became, 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.

That this change was not hotly debated and was broadly accepted, is proof that, to the Founders, to the Congress, to the Legislatures of the period, the two versions had EXACTLY the same meaning, just as did two commas versus three commas. They all, to the people of the time, meant EXACTLY the same thing.

This completely destroys the militia argument against the individual right to keep and bear arms and proves, absolutely and without doubt, that what I have been saying, that what is called the prefatory phrase, is simply a requirement that the militia, consisting of all those who can bear arms, be the first line of defense against invasion and insurrection.

I have proven beyond question that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not connected to militia service.

 

[excalibur]

A right clearly listed which the left denies while claiming that a right not in the Constitution, abortion, is a right.

There can be no compromise with such people.

 

[jackflash]

The status left has a delusional viewpoint about humanity in general as they push their power & control marxist religion against all common sense. The statist left is not just against firearms & assorted weapons used in self defense they are literally AGAINST SELF DEFENSE FROM ATTACK. The statist left believes that ONLY g'ment employees(police etc.) are allowed to protect individuals from attack & if one fights back when being criminally assaulted by another individual(s) it is a crime to fight back against said assailant(s). This is what gun control means to the statist left. I've taken on the statist left in debate numerous times on this issue(gun control) & had them for breakfast I mean their argument contradicts all rational reality & borders on delusional paranoia.

If you have ever tried to reason with a cultist you realize after a while that the cultist argument/viewpoint is not only taking a circuitous path but also is taking a somewhat circular path as they ALWAYS end their argument/reasoning AT THE SAME STARTING POINT & ready to repeat the same argument/reasoning with you again & again & again, over & over again & again. "THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS TO REPEAT THE SAME BOGUS ARGUMENT/OPINION OVER & OVER AGAIN & EXPECTING THE BOGUS ARGUMENT TO EVENTUALLY BECOME CORRECT IN ITS BOGUS LOGIC." Plain & simple the statist left marxist cult mentality is nothing more than a mental disorder.

 

[Penelope]

The left often argues that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says; mostly lying, sometimes just ignorantly, they claim that the first half of the sentence sets a reason or requirement for the second half.

As Ratified:
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.

As voted out of Congress:
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.

The Courts continue to try to parse the extra comma as though it changes the meaning. If they were right, if it did change the meaning, then the 2nd Amendment would not be valid at all. It is not possible for the States to ratify something other than what Congress proposed. No provision of Article V permits the Constitution to be amended that way.

So, comma or no comma, the meaning is exactly the same. And this is a very important point. Different writers and transcribers may have different styles (and the Internet Grammar Police didn't yet exist to tell them if their style wasn't perfect). Comma or no comma, the Amendment ratified has the exact same meaning and interpretation as the Amendment from Congress. Were it not so, the issue of the comma would have been raised in 1791.

So, now we accept that writers and transcribers might write something differently but it is accepted by the Founders to be exactly the same and requiring not even a discussion of the difference.

So let's look at what is referred to as the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. The left claims that it sets up a prerequisite that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the State and only necessary for those who serve in the militia. But consider what was originally written and proposed for the right to keep and bear arms.

It will be interesting to discuss first, though, that many claim that James Madison is the author of the Bill of Rights. This could not be further from the truth. James Madison was the editor of the Bill of Rights but variations on each and every theme were discussed and written multiple times by multiple people in multiple ways. Even then, many of the concepts were taken directly from the Magna Carte.

The document, Journal, Acts and Proceedings, The Convention Assembled at Philadelphia, Monday, May 14, and Dissolved Monday, September 17, 1787, which Formed the Constitution of the United States, includes the exact writings of the various State conventions upon ratifying the Constitution. In several of those ratifying document, the States included the very amendments they insisted should be passed immediately. After ratification, other states and scholars proposed additional sets of amendments.

No, Madison did not author the Bill of Rights; he simply compiled it.

In the ratifying documents to the Constitution, as I said, several States included what they wanted in the first amendments to the Constitution - phrased and paraphrased as a bill of rights but not yet titled the Bill of Rights. In red below is the first page mentioning ratify for those States and then which page to find that State's demand for the right to keep and bear arms.

New Hampshire 412 - see 415 for RKBA: XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

Virginia 417 - see bottom of 420 to 421 for RKBA: XVII. That the people have aright to keep and 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.

New York 431 - see page 427 for New Yorks RKBA clause: That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

North Carolina 452 - see 443 for RKBA: XVII. That the people have a right to keep and 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 cir- cumstances 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.

Rhode Island 452 (same page as NC) see 456 for RKBA: xvii. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection; that standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrate in such manner as the law directs.


In each of these, other than New Hampshire - which is really the best, there are multiple concepts combined into what we'd call a long-running sentence today. Things like a standing army, housing soldiers, the militia and martial law, and military subordination to civil power are only connected in the loosest of ways and yet were all in the same sentence. Just because multiple ideas are in the same sentence, in the style of the day, does not mean that one idea is dependent on the other ideas.

Considering the multiple ideas, note that in each case where the militia is mentioned in the same sentence as the right to keep and bear arms, the right to keep and bear arms came first. Quoting Rhode Island as example: That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ;

There's no confusion about how that is written. The same sentences explicitly recognizes that the people have an individual right to keep and bear arms and the, separately, states that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bear arms, JUST AS I HAVE BEEN POSTING in many threads, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state. Two different ideas in the same sentence.

So how did it get reversed? Notice that in the Rhode Island version, there is the right to keep and bear arms, quartering soldiers, standing army, and the militia as the proper defense of the nation. Others were similar but not exactly the same. This is where James Madison comes in as editor. From all of the input that came from all of the States and others, he had to standardize the specific protections to send to the Congress for approval to send to the States. That meant clarifying, simplifying, separating, ordering, and even choosing some ideas over others. Even then, he didn't do that in a vacuum sitting alone in his house; it was a collaboration.

So, in that clean up of the diverse writing styles of the various States, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ; became, 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.

That this change was not hotly debated and was broadly accepted, is proof that, to the Founders, to the Congress, to the Legislatures of the period, the two versions had EXACTLY the same meaning, just as did two commas versus three commas. They all, to the people of the time, meant EXACTLY the same thing.

This completely destroys the militia argument against the individual right to keep and bear arms and proves, absolutely and without doubt, that what I have been saying, that what is called the prefatory phrase, is simply a requirement that the militia, consisting of all those who can bear arms, be the first line of defense against invasion and insurrection.

I have proven beyond question that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not connected to militia service.

Why does one need military style weapons and large mag? To kill.

 

[woodwork201]

Why does one need military style weapons and large mag? To kill.

I thought you wanted the right to keep and bear arms to be tied to the militia.. So I should have military weapons, not military "style" weapons.

And I may never need the military weapon or a large magazine. I certainly hope I never need them. But I don't control the bad guys so I can't predict what I will need or not need. I just have to prepare for what might happen.

 

[Penelope]

I thought you wanted the right to keep and bear arms to be tied to the militia.. So I should have military weapons, not military "style" weapons.

And I may never need the military weapon or a large magazine. I certainly hope I never need them. But I don't control the bad guys so I can't predict what I will need or not need. I just have to prepare for what might happen.

So bad guys you might need them, how do you know they are bad, are they democrats.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Yeah, the lefties make these mostly circular arguments on about everything. They are used to having their brains twisted up with what passes for their nonsensical "logic" so they hope they can confuse the rest of us into giving up.
If you engage them for any length of time, you actually lose brain matter & get dumber.

The real problem is they have either surrendered or never developed their ability to reason things out

 

[JoeB131]

The left often argues that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says; mostly lying, sometimes just ignorantly, they claim that the first half of the sentence sets a reason or requirement for the second half.

As Ratified:
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.

As voted out of Congress:
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.

Here's the problem with your very long babbling.

The original intent of the Second Amendment (and the Third Amendment) was to define and limit militias.

The original proposed text of the Second also allowed for contentious objections on religious grounds for being conscripted into a militia. This was a big deal at the time, because you had groups like the Quakers who objected to military service. It was rejected because that would limit the power of the militia. The third was meant to limit the militia... it wasn't just about putting soldiers in people's houses, it was about having a permanent militia presence in communities in peacetime.

The problem, of course, is that these original intents have been lost, because militias have been replaced by professional Armies and Police Forces, with the police become far more militarized than in the worst nightmares of the founders.

Of course, it was never about gun ownership. Gun ownership was actually relatively rare in colonial America. There wasn't even a domestic gun industry, firing mechanisms had to be imported from Europe.

The founding fathers believed in Well-Regulated Militias, and at the time, each state had reams of laws defining the militia, with everything from uniforms to what the standard weaponry should be. (Again, you can't do logistics for a militia if everyone shows up with a different caliber gun). What they didn't believe in was angry mobs with guns, which is why "popular rebellions" like Shay's Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion were put down.

 

[woodwork201]

So bad guys you might need them, how do you know they are bad, are they democrats.

One common clue is they come into my house uninvited. Or they come arms in hand and uninvited onto my property. Or they come with the intention of taking me (for any purpose or to any place) against my will.

 

[woodwork201]

Here's the problem with your very long babbling.

The original intent of the Second Amendment (and the Third Amendment) was to define and limit militias.

The original proposed text of the Second also allowed for contentious objections on religious grounds for being conscripted into a militia. This was a big deal at the time, because you had groups like the Quakers who objected to military service. It was rejected because that would limit the power of the militia. The third was meant to limit the militia... it wasn't just about putting soldiers in people's houses, it was about having a permanent militia presence in communities in peacetime.

The problem, of course, is that these original intents have been lost, because militias have been replaced by professional Armies and Police Forces, with the police become far more militarized than in the worst nightmares of the founders.

Of course, it was never about gun ownership. Gun ownership was actually relatively rare in colonial America. There wasn't even a domestic gun industry, firing mechanisms had to be imported from Europe.

The founding fathers believed in Well-Regulated Militias, and at the time, each state had reams of laws defining the militia, with everything from uniforms to what the standard weaponry should be. (Again, you can't do logistics for a militia if everyone shows up with a different caliber gun). What they didn't believe in was angry mobs with guns, which is why "popular rebellions" like Shay's Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion were put down.

Did you read what several States submitted in the very document with which they ratified the Constitution, itself? That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, defence of a free state.

The second and third amendments are written as they are because they were simply edited for style along with many others out of all of the submissions by the States.

To the Founders, including the Congress, and the State Legislators, the three statements below meant EXACTLY the same thing:

Rhode Island submission:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state

As Ratified:
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.

As voted out of Congress:
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.

 

[woodwork201]

Here's the problem with your very long babbling.

The original intent of the Second Amendment (and the Third Amendment) was to define and limit militias.

By the way, mine was not my babbling; I quoted the Founders. My remarks on what they said were perfectly accurate and documented by their own words.

If you want to argue that the original intent of the 2nd and 3rd Amendments were what you suggest then provide any evidence from the Founders to support your argument.

Of course you cannot because I've proven absolutely what I said.

 

[woodwork201]

The third was meant to limit the militia... it wasn't just about putting soldiers in people's houses, it was about having a permanent militia presence in communities in peacetime.

Please provide any contemporaneous writing that supports your argument that the third was about having militia in communities.

You can't, of course, I gave you exactly what was written by the Founders and your claim is not there.

Besides the fact that the community WAS the militia. To keep the militia out of the community would require keeping the community out of the community.

You keep claiming what you wish was so but I have proven by the Founders own words that what I said was exactly, perfectly, correct and accurate.

 

[JoeB131]

Did you read what several States submitted in the very document with which they ratified the Constitution, itself? That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, defence of a free state.

The second and third amendments are written as they are because they were simply edited for style along with many others out of all of the submissions by the States.

To the Founders, including the Congress, and the State Legislators, the three statements below meant EXACTLY the same thing:

Rhode Island submission:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state

As Ratified:
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.

As voted out of Congress:
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.

You are kind of making my point for me... that the concern when this was being written was defining militias, particularly at the state level, and NOT allowing every yahoo who wanted a gun to have one so he can form an angry mob and overthrow the local government.

 

[woodwork201]

You are kind of making my point for me... that the concern when this was being written was defining militias, particularly at the state level, and NOT allowing every yahoo who wanted a gun to have one so he can form an angry mob and overthrow the local government.

The people have a right to keep and bear arms. That's making your point that the people don't have a right to keep and bear arms? OK. Whatever you say. NOT

 

[beautress]

Why does one need military style weapons and large mag? To kill.

If you really want to know, ask Pelosi, Waters, Schumer, Cheney, Nadler, and Schiff why their bodyguards need military style weapons and large max. Same answer as yours. Right now, the Supreme Court Justices have to have bodyguards with military style weapons and large max. Steve Scalise, who was nearly killed a few years ago by a Democrat/ Sociocommunist who worked for Bernie Sanders may employ them, and all outspoken Republicans need them too whenever Maxine Waters goes on a blabbermouth approved stalking binge for her apparatchiks in which a very closely protected-by-the-best President Biden does absolutely nothing but hide behind his wife's skirt in the basement of whichever of six luxury homes he is hiding in, including the White House offlimits areas.

All the Senators and congresswomen need protection alike because people believe the videos of Joe bragging about his 30% fees on sundry Foreign Aid Package countries that is his shield for extortion of billions of dollars, if you consider he didn't just start this slimy crap before he was appointed Vice President so as to go on being the chief DNC point man who could smoothly and quietly take tax money going to Foreign Aid, 30% of which winds up in his deep pockets for distribution to MSM harpies and cooperating congresscritters that would make him popular enough to run for President and have enough left over to pay off incrowd precinct chairman to hand him more votes than voters in the precinct in certain cases where math wasn't their strong suite while they scream "notme!!!". Some people don't like criminals in high places, so the sneakiest criminals in the DNC have to run for President to cover their barenekkid dirty pollitick riddled asses.

 

[JoeB131]

The people have a right to keep and bear arms. That's making your point that the people don't have a right to keep and bear arms? OK. Whatever you say. NOT

Let me know when you can track your own argument, M'kay?

 

[JoeB131]

If you really want to know, ask Pelosi, Waters, Schumer, Cheney, Nadler, and Schiff why their bodyguards need military style weapons and large max. Same answer as yours. Right now, the Supreme Court Justices have to have bodyguards with military style weapons and large max. Steve Scalise, who was nearly killed a few years ago by a Democrat/ Sociocommunist who worked for Bernie Sanders may employ them, and all outspoken Republicans need them too whenever Maxine Waters goes on a blabbermouth approved stalking binge for her apparatchiks in which a very closely protected-by-the-best President Biden does absolutely nothing but hide behind his wife's skirt in the basement of whichever of six luxury homes he is hiding in, including the White House offlimits areas.

All the Senators and congresswomen need protection alike because people believe the videos of Joe bragging about his 30% fees on sundry Foreign Aid Package countries that is his shield for extortion of billions of dollars, if you consider he didn't just start this slimy crap before he was appointed Vice President so as to go on being the chief DNC point man who could smoothly and quietly take tax money going to Foreign Aid, 30% of which winds up in his deep pockets for distribution to MSM harpies and cooperating congresscritters that would make him popular enough to run for President and have enough left over to pay off incrowd precinct chairman to hand him more votes than voters in the precinct in certain cases where math wasn't their strong suite while they scream "notme!!!". Some people don't like criminals in high places, so the sneakiest criminals in the DNC have to run for President to cover their barenekkid dirty pollitick riddled asses.

They need bodyguards because they are too cowardly to pass real gun reform to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.

Now, if we took the bodyguards away from them, imagine how fast they'd fix the problem.

Darn it, the Second Amendment really IS about militias, they'd all exclaim!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The left often argues that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says; mostly lying,

This is a lie.

The ‘left’ knows exactly what the Second Amendment means and supports Second Amendment jurisprudence – unlike many on the right.

What the ‘left’ is referring to is the Second Amendment prior to Heller, when for over 200 years the Amendment was interpreted as a collective – not individual – right.

Indeed, it’s conservatives who lie about the Second Amendment – their most idiotic lie is that the Amendment codifies insurrectionist dogma when in fact there’s nothing in the history, text, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that authorizes private armed citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why does one need military style weapons and large mag? To kill.

One doesn’t – it’s a want, not a ‘need.’

And it's fine if someone wants an AR 15 with a 30-round detachable magazine.

But conservatives shouldn’t contrive ridiculous lies about why they ‘need’ and AR 15; conservatives need to stop lying in a pathetic effort to ‘justify’ possessing such weapons.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ exercising a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to do so – the want alone is more than sufficient.

 

[Abatis]

What the ‘left’ is referring to is the Second Amendment prior to Heller, when for over 200 years the Amendment was interpreted as a collective – not individual – right.

That's the lie. The genesis of the "collective right" in the federal system occurred in the LOWER federal courts in 1942 with the specific purpose of dismissing and ignoring the Supreme Court's individual right holdings, especially in US v Miller.

You are the liar.