The Right To Bear Arms

[Deleted member 61768]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

Just as government's authority to control personal weapons is not unlimited. Never has been and never will be. The People are more likely to replace government than they are the 2nd Amendment. And rightly so.

Amen Brother!!!

 

[Deleted member 61768]

There should never be a law against the possession of a firearm under any circumstances.

The governmental restrictions should be focused on using firearms for an unlawful purpose, not the possession, carrying or using it for lawful purposes. .

My sentiments exactly!

 

[Hum Dinger]

I'd be curious to hear what a linguistic expert had to say about the second amendment. It doesn't seem to be a correct sentence:

"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 pro-gun people seem to interpret it as:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Two separate statements.

The single statement:

"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."

Seems to mean that 'a well regulated militia' is what satisfies the condition of 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', not individual gun ownership.

There has to be some reason why these two were combined into a single sentence - some relation. It's almost as though something got left out in the middle.

But I'm not a linguistic expert....

 

[hadit]

I'd be curious to hear what a linguistic expert had to say about the second amendment. It doesn't seem to be a correct sentence:

"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 pro-gun people seem to interpret it as:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Two separate statements.

The single statement:

"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."

Seems to mean that 'a well regulated militia' is what satisfies the condition of 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', not individual gun ownership.

There has to be some reason why these two were combined into a single sentence - some relation. It's almost as though something got left out in the middle.

But I'm not a linguistic expert....

The SC, supposedly much more adept in understanding the Constitution than any of us, has ruled that it applies to private ownership.

 

[Deleted member 61768]

I'd be curious to hear what a linguistic expert had to say about the second amendment. It doesn't seem to be a correct sentence:

"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 pro-gun people seem to interpret it as:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Two separate statements.

The single statement:

"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."

Seems to mean that 'a well regulated militia' is what satisfies the condition of 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', not individual gun ownership.

There has to be some reason why these two were combined into a single sentence - some relation. It's almost as though something got left out in the middle.

But I'm not a linguistic expert....

Try reading the documents surrounding the writing of the Second Amendment as well as what what was going on at the time that was of concern to the Founding Fathers to put the document into context of the time.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[Q


Can't it?

The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.

The government can do all kinds of oppression but that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution clearly states that the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", does it?

It does. So why do you think that after due process, the RKBA is infringed?

The reality is the US govt is NOT breaking the constitution when doing this. The simple fact is that all rights are seen as having limits. The "shall not be infringed" would be assumed to mean before due process. There was never, ever a time when criminals in prison were seen as having their guns with them. Incarceration is a punishment and you CAN have your rights infringed upon while in prison. Not all. Cruel and unusual punishment is one of those, because it actually refers to criminals in the first place.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?

That's already happening.

Not really. Churches don't have to perform gay marries, etc.

Kim Davis.

She was in trouble for not doing her job.

Your quote is, in part, "you infringe you face prosecution". She did, and did. You may have been focused on churches, but people HAVE faced prosecution for infringing on the rights of homosexuals to get "married".

Fine, but that doesn't mean that everyone who infringes gets prosecuted. Also, she was working for the government. Has anyone been prosecuted who didn't work for the govt? No, probably not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[
Can't it?

The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.

I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime. Agree?

What are you going on about? Do try and be serious.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[
Can't it?

The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.

I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime. Agree?

I am a firearms expert with several arms, booby traps, knives and will not yield to any man or government my G_d given rights. I will not be alive upon this earth many more moons however anyone who takes me for granted makes a fatal mistake because though I may be much slower I know more ways to sent my enemies to meet their maker than when I was 21.

God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....

 

[Flash]

[Q

What are you going on about? Do try and be serious.

I asked a very simple question that you didn't answer..

If I agree that the government has the right to deny the RTBA to somebody that is arrested would you agree that the the government should not take away my RTBA because somebody else uses a firearm illegally?

Why should my Constitutional rights be restricted because somebody else commits crimes?

That is a valid question. Do you have the intellectual honesty to answer it?

 

[Flash]

[

God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....

The people that wrote the rules for this country established their beliefs that God has given us all inalienable rights that the filthy ass government should not infringe upon. Our Constitutional Republic lays out some of those rights in the Bill of Rights. Included in that is the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you have a problem with Liberty? Are you stupid, confused or is it that you simply don't like the concept of Liberty?

 

[frigidweirdo]

[Q

What are you going on about? Do try and be serious.

I asked a very simple question that you didn't answer..

If I agree that the government has the right to deny the RTBA to somebody that is arrested would you agree that the the government should not take away my RTBA because somebody else uses a firearm illegally?

Why should my Constitutional rights be restricted because somebody else commits crimes?

That is a valid question. Do you have the intellectual honesty to answer it?

Just because a question is simple, doesn't mean it's sensible. Don't come at me and talk about "intellectual honesty". If you want to play silly games, go find someone who's interested in silly games.

To answer the parts where you are not doing silly shit, which in this case appears to be the line beginning with "Why....", I didn't say Constitutional rights should be restricted because someone else commits crimes.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[

God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....

The people that wrote the rules for this country established their beliefs that God has given us all inalienable rights that the filthy ass government should not infringe upon. Our Constitutional Republic lays out some of those rights in the Bill of Rights. Included in that is the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you have a problem with Liberty? Are you stupid, confused or is it that you simply don't like the concept of Liberty?

Fine. Their belief. Does a belief make something so? If I believe the moon is made from cheese, does the moon suddenly become made of cheese?

As for you silly games below asking why I have a problem with liberty, you're making too many assumptions about me, which you don't know the answer to. Again, stop with the silly games or I'm done with you.

 

[2aguy]

[

God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....

The people that wrote the rules for this country established their beliefs that God has given us all inalienable rights that the filthy ass government should not infringe upon. Our Constitutional Republic lays out some of those rights in the Bill of Rights. Included in that is the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you have a problem with Liberty? Are you stupid, confused or is it that you simply don't like the concept of Liberty?

all of the above....

 

[Flash]

[


Just because a question is simple, doesn't mean it's sensible. Don't come at me and talk about "intellectual honesty". If you want to play silly games, go find someone who's interested in silly games.

To answer the parts where you are not doing silly shit, which in this case appears to be the line beginning with "Why....", I didn't say Constitutional rights should be restricted because someone else commits crimes.

So you agree with me that the government should not pass laws to restrict my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms because some non law abiding shithead abuses the right.

Good, we are making progress. However, I need to warn you. You need to be careful lest you get kicked out of the Moon Bat Guild. They don't like shit like that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[


Just because a question is simple, doesn't mean it's sensible. Don't come at me and talk about "intellectual honesty". If you want to play silly games, go find someone who's interested in silly games.

To answer the parts where you are not doing silly shit, which in this case appears to be the line beginning with "Why....", I didn't say Constitutional rights should be restricted because someone else commits crimes.

So you agree with me that the government should not pass laws to restrict my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms because some non law abiding shithead abuses the right.

Good, we are making progress. However, I need to warn you. You need to be careful lest you get kicked out of the Moon Bat Guild. They don't like shit like that.

Ah, insults. Like I said, more shit and I'm done with you. I've not reached "I'm done with you" part. Bye.

 

[Flash]

[QU


Fine. Their belief. Does a belief make something so? If I believe the moon is made from cheese, does the moon suddenly become made of cheese?

As for you silly games below asking why I have a problem with liberty, you're making too many assumptions about me, which you don't know the answer to. Again, stop with the silly games or I'm done with you.

Well, yea Moon Bat. We are talking about the Founding Fathers of this country. They are the ones that established the rules. Do you even know that? If you don't like the rules then go some place else. I hear Venezuela is a socialist paradise for you Moon Bats. It is lovely this time of year. No pesty right to keep and bear arms there.

My assumption about you (based upon what I have seen you post) is that you are a confused and dumbass Moon Bat that has no appreciation for the Constitution.

I f I am wrong all you have to do is show me that you do understand what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means. You sure have hell have not demonstrated it so far in this thread.

Just stop being a dumbass. It makes you look like a fool.

 

[Flash]

[


Ah, insults. Like I said, more shit and I'm done with you. I've not reached "I'm done with you" part. Bye.

You deserve insults because you don't understand the basic Liberties of which this country was founded upon.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I'd be curious to hear what a linguistic expert had to say about the second amendment. It doesn't seem to be a correct sentence:

"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 pro-gun people seem to interpret it as:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Two separate statements.

The single statement:

"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."

Seems to mean that 'a well regulated militia' is what satisfies the condition of 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', not individual gun ownership.

There has to be some reason why these two were combined into a single sentence - some relation. It's almost as though something got left out in the middle.

But I'm not a linguistic expert....

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."

Seems to mean that 'a well regulated militia' is what satisfies the condition of 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', not individual gun ownership.


Problems with that:
It is plain that the "Bill of Rights" enumerated individual rights. Nowhere else are the Rights referred to considered communal rather individual. We have a free press but that by itself does not satisfy the individual's right of free speech.
"Militia" as it was known to the people of the time simply meant "armed civilian" so it is individual either way you look at it.

Who Were The Minute Men - Minute Man National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

According to Massachusetts colonial law, all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 were required to keep a serviceable firearm and serve in a part-time citizen army called the militia.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[


Ah, insults. Like I said, more shit and I'm done with you. I've not reached "I'm done with you" part. Bye.

You deserve insults because you don't understand the basic Liberties of which this country was founded upon.

Well that one got you on the ignore list. Grow up.