The Right To Bear Arms

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The People are the Militia. What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?

Who has the right?

I don't care if the people are ******* fence posts, the right of the people shall not be infringed.

When I get my machine gun, you are going to love it. I promise.

Are you mad that I have weapons of war?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Gun lovers are simply unorganized militia for Second Amendment purposes.

Which still prohibits the federal government (and state governments, via the 14th Amendment) from infringing on the right of the clueless and causeless, gun-******* white people you hate.

It pisses you off that we can put down your communist plot.


Cry *****.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We have guns, bitches.

Cry about it.


I love how much it pisses off you ******* commies.

I'm going to go **** my shotgun now.

 

[danielpalos]

Gun lovers are simply unorganized militia for Second Amendment purposes.

Which still prohibits the federal government (and state governments, via the 14th Amendment) from infringing on the right of the clueless and causeless, gun-******* white people you hate.

It pisses you off that we can put down your communist polt.


Cry *****.

Not at all;

we must distinguish between natural rights and the security needs of a free State; if you want to quibble.

Natural rights are for the unorganized militia, not the organized and well regulated militias of the People of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

We have guns, bitches.

Cry about it.


I love how much it pisses off you ******* commies.

I'm going to go **** my shotgun now.

so what; I don't mind joining a militia, becoming well regulated, and asking for weapons qualification on bazookas or grenade launchers; a bazookanier or a grenadier.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

so what; I don't mind joining a militia, becoming well regulated, and asking for weapons qualification on bazookas or grenade launchers; a bazookanier or a grenadier.

Most of us don't mind either. It will not happen because the left will demonize and ridicule anyone who does, by making them out to be crazy, anti-government separatists.

If you really are willing to allow us access to all weapons, as long as we are getting military training and adhere to proper regulatory precautions on the use and storage of our military-grade weapons, then you and I are on the same team.

I will ALWAYS support and advocate good training and proper safety practices. You will find that 99.99% of gun owners and advocates are the same.

 

[hadit]

The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

I don't give a rat **** what is necessary for the security of a free state. The people have the right. Not the militia. NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.

If you believe otherwise, cite your source.

Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.

The People are the Militia. What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?

You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?

Well, if he is arguing that we should join a militia, get training, and follow strict storage and safety rules in the possession of our military-grade weapons, I have no problem with that position.


Somehow, I don't think that's what he means, because he argues from a position that makes him appear like a gun-grabbing commie. His lack of response to post #4186 stating his agreement confirms my suspicion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary

The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.

well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.

The right is the people's, not the militia's.

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.

it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary

The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.

well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.

The right is the people's, not the militia's.

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.

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 people have the right.
In a militia, not in a militia, well regulated, unregulated, poorly regulated or overregulated, the people have the right.

States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.

So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.

 

[2aguy]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.

An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.

There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).

All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?

And had Europe not disarmed their people, the Germans could never have launched World War 2.....they could never have held the territory they captured if they faced half a million armed, pissed off locals in every country.

/—-/ So true. After WWI, Britan banned guns. When the Germans attacked 20 years later, they had to beg the US for any guns we could send them. And no one knew how to shoot well except the military and police. They scrambled to teach folks. Of course after WWII the Brits banned guns again.

Yes...that is what is just freaking crazy...they saw what the German socialists did to 12 million Europeans.....they saw what the communists did to 25 million people, and the Chinese, cambodians.......and they still allowed themselves to be disarmed...that is ******* stupid.....

 

[2aguy]

You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?

Well, if he is arguing that we should join a militia, get training, and follow strict storage and safety rules in the possession of our military-grade weapons, I have no problem with that position.


Somehow, I don't think that's what he means, because he argues from a position that makes him appear like a gun-grabbing commie. His lack of response to post #4186 stating his agreement confirms my suspicion.

It is more than an appearance of being a gun grabbing commie, it is who he actually is....

 

[Cellblock2429]

We have guns, bitches.

Cry about it.


I love how much it pisses off you ******* commies.

I'm going to go **** my shotgun now.

so what; I don't mind joining a militia, becoming well regulated, and asking for weapons qualification on bazookas or grenade launchers; a bazookanier or a grenadier.

/——/ I want to be trained on a WWII Sherman. The cannon and 50 Cals can be disabled. I just want it to help my commute on the Long Island Expressway

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.

If I understand danielpalos correctly, he is saying that a person's right to keep and bear arms absolutely shall not be infringed, as long as:
1. the person is actively participating in an organized local militia (other than the national guard),
2. gets regular training, and
3. follows safety rules on the use and storage of military-grade weapons.

then, I will concede, as long as membership in a local militia is not unreasonably restricted to anyone who applies. (It can't work as a defacto infringement.) Also, those not in a local militia should still have the right to keep and bear arms, but that right can be infringed for safety purposes (like banning full-autos ect).

I have yet to confirm if that is what dannyboy actually believes.

 

[turtledude]

Yeah...Americans who have no idea what Background checks mean. If you poll those same people, most of them probably think we don't have any background checks.......

There is a valid reason to oppose universal background checks, the only way they can pretend to make them work is with universal gun registration......and that is the last step the anti gunners need to ban and confiscate guns when they get enough political power.

And no, criminals do not get their guns from private sales...they get them from stealing, or buy using people who can pass a background check and they buy them from gun stores, where they have to pass the current federal background check.....

That you continue to push these lies shows that you are a vile person....

Bannerhoid pollsters ask questions like this

DO YOU SUPPORT UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS THAT KEEP FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS?

and people say yes because they are too stupid to understand that UBGCs don't do squat to keep felons from getting guns.

 

[turtledude]

If I understand danielpalos correctly, he is saying that a person's right to keep and bear arms absolutely shall not be infringed, as long as:
1. the person is actively participating in an organized local militia (other than the national guard),
2. gets regular training, and
3. follows safety rules on the use and storage of military-grade weapons.

then, I will concede, as long as membership in a local militia is not unreasonably restricted to anyone who applies. (It can't work as a defacto infringement.) Also, those not in a local militia should still have the right to keep and bear arms, but that right can be infringed for safety purposes (like banning full-autos ect).

I have yet to confirm if that is what dannyboy actually believes.

militia duty is not requirement. Full autos that police are issued are covered as well and so is the general issue rifle that the infantry has. DanielTrollus has no clue what he says-he doesn't understand his own claims

 

[turtledude]

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

From your link:

‘Notwithstanding the lengthy opinions in Heller and McDonald, they technically ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes. Heller tentatively suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”’

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

The Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

It also reaffirms the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that government has the authority to enact regulatory measures with regard to firearms, provided those measures comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The problem is that there are far too many on the right who harbor the ridiculous, wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment is ‘absolute,’ opposing reasonable, appropriate, and Constitutional regulatory measures, and attempting to justify that opposition with inane lies and baseless slippery slope fallacies.

since Article ONE, SECTION 8 has no delegation of any power to the federal government to impose "reasonable, appropriate measures, they cannot be constitutional

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...Americans who have no idea what Background checks mean. If you poll those same people, most of them probably think we don't have any background checks.......

There is a valid reason to oppose universal background checks, the only way they can pretend to make them work is with universal gun registration......and that is the last step the anti gunners need to ban and confiscate guns when they get enough political power.

And no, criminals do not get their guns from private sales...they get them from stealing, or buy using people who can pass a background check and they buy them from gun stores, where they have to pass the current federal background check.....

That you continue to push these lies shows that you are a vile person....

Bannerhoid pollsters ask questions like this

DO YOU SUPPORT UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS THAT KEEP FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS?

and people say yes because they are too stupid to understand that UBGCs don't do squat to keep felons from getting guns.

Exactly.....notice how they don't tell the person....in order to get UBCs you will have to register with the government ....

 

[frigidweirdo]

The funniest one is to give birth, apparently the right think you have a right to give birth to guns.

Actually, if by "give birth" you mean create, yes, we have the right to create our own guns. That tradition goes all the way back to the beginning.

From Washington's first State of the Union Address 1790:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined;— to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."

But, we also have the right to **** our guns, which I do frequently. Why, just last night, I was ******* my AK, when my grandfather's Remington 788 walked in and got hotly jealous.

Poor Remmy. I have neglected her.

Actually no, I don't mean to create. I mean to give birth as in giving birth to a baby. Like it comes out of the womb.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[




So here's me asking a question, how can a guy end up going to teach the Second Amendment at law schools when he doesn't know what the Amendment means?

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Have a look at this document. I'm seriously hoping you've seen this, I mean, you can't be teaching about the Second Amendment without having seen this.

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

This was what they were talking about. I assume you've seen this, it wasn't put into the Amendment at the end, and they give the reasoning why.

Now Mr Gerry said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

I've seen plenty of people ignore this, but no one has ever actually taken this information in and been able to come out the other side saying that "bear arms" in the 2A saying that it doesn't mean "militia duty".

It's pretty clear here that Mr Gerry is using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms", right?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Then you have Mr Jackson using the term "render military service" as synonymous to "bear arms".

Also Mr Jackson said:

"Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Now, are they talking about "bear arms" to mean people walking around with guns, or people serving in the militia? And if it is the former, then why would individuals who are opposed to walking around with guns have to pay an equivalent? Especially when it says "would have to defend the other in case of invasion"?

It all seems pretty clear.

Now, from a language point of view, "bear" CAN mean carry, right?

However "stool" can mean feces or it can mean wooden seat without a back.

So, if I say, "the doctor asked him to sit on the stool", we're going to think the second option, and if we say "the doctor asked to see his stool sample" we're going to think the former.

English language can have words mean the same thing, but CONTEXT tells us which is right and which is wrong.

The Second Amendment's context is "A well regulated militia", not "Joe wants a gun to go down to the shops", so why would it mean "carry" How does carrying a gun around with you protect the militia? It's simple, it doesn't.

Now, as a supposed Second Amendment Scholar, someone who talks to people in Law Schools about this, what do you think?

who exactly did you quote is an actual legal scholar? you apparently have no clue what you are talking about. the second amendment was merely recognizing a pre-existing right that man had from the dawn of time and to say it has something to do with the "right" to be in government service is beyond stupid

could you point me to your article from the Yale Law Journal or a similar publication where you set this theory out?

Haha, nice deflection, but I'm not buying it. Like I said, most people try and slip and slide out of this.

I expected you to spend a little more time on it.

This is a document FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS>

Come on, let's have a go. This is MY ARGUMENT, I'm not pointing to someone else's argument. This is mine. You think your "legal expertise" is better than mine, then bring it on. Or do you feel that I've just shown you something you don't know and you want to hide?

What do you think the Founding Fathers thought "bear arms" meant?

why are you ignoring "Keep"

I have a great idea-I have stated what the second amendment means every leading scholar of the time-St George Tucker being the most prominent, agrees that it was an individual right Every major constitutional scholar today does too-Van Alstpyne, Calabresi, Amar, Levinson, Volokh Koppel and even Laurence Tribe.

so what do you claim it was

why would the citizens need a bill of rights provision saying they can serve in the federal army?

So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?

 

[turtledude]

So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said