The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

The second amendment and the right to self defense are a couple of the most important FOUNDING PRINCIPLES of this country. If you don't like freedom, then there are plenty of other countries that have governments that you can gladly surrender your rights to for a false sense of "safety." If you don't like freedom, then the solution is simple. MOVE.

So, where does it mention self defense in the US Constitution?

 

[emilynghiem]

NOt relevant.

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

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

Dear frigidweirdo
The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.

Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?

Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?

The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?

To answer the other points.

Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?

In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:

• 1 Connecticut
• 2 Delaware
• 3 Georgia
• 4 Maryland
• 5 Massachusetts
• 6 New Hampshire
• 7 New Jersey
• 8 New York
• 9 North Carolina
• 10 Pennsylvania
• 11 Rhode Island
• 12 South Carolina
• 13 Vermont
• 14 Virginia

That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.


List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.

You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.

Dear frigidweirdo
I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
(a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
(though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)

Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.

So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.

I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
have equal right to defend your interpretation. So good job with that, but it still does not give
you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.

I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.

(A)
10 PENNSYLVANIA
had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population

Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"

Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).

A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."

(B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.

From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.

(C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations

1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
similar to car insurance that is decided by state.

2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.

What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.

I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".

That is a lie. You are simply a Troll. You and your simple cohorts.

bear arms
DEFINITION

1. carry firearms.
   • wear or display a coat of arms.

I lie? Come off it.

Bear means LOTS of things.

bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

1) carry
2) support
3) endure
4) give birth to
5) turn and proceed in a specific direction

Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?

Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.

How do we know the difference? Context.

1) ‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
4) ‘she bore six daughters’
5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’

Now under your logic this is what happens

1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
3) she carried the pain stoically
4) she carried six daughters
5) carry left and follow the old road

The reality is that it's not the case, is it?

The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Pathetic beyond belief. The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were. Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself. The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.

James Madison -

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Okay then, seeing as I've sourced the Founding Fathers, the US Supreme Court in the 1880s and the 2000s, where's YOUR EVIDENCE?

Pathetic is attacking people with nothing.

 

[easyt65]

The govt who wants to take your guns is ths same govt that...

- Illegally spied on Americans, on reporters, on the media, on the US Senate, and in the USSC...

- illegally used the IRS to target Americans that opposed the re-election of the party leader in office

- Who destroyed the US health care system while lying to Americans, putting into place a steppi g-stone system designed to fail and lead to single payer

- Abandoned 4 Americans to die at the hands of Al Qaeda - who slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01, the same terrorists they helped take over their own country

- Auded, abetted, financed, supplied, armed, trained, defended, and protected ISIS, Al Qaeda, The Muslim Brotherhood, Mexican Drug Cartels, violent illegals who preyed on US citizens, and Sanctuary cities...

- Who killed a US citizen without due process abroad...

- Who set a new historic record for illegal non-compliance with the FOIA and Federal Records Act in order to keep what they were doing secret, hidden from US citizens these politicians work for...

- Protected perjurers, influence peddlers, pedophiles, traitors, and people who selfishly endangered our national security...

- Who are so fiscally irresponsible they put us Trillions in debt....

....and this isn't even all....

...and dumbass liberal sheep qant to hand over all our weapons / rights to this same government?!

Bwuhahaha...

...actually, that's pretty damn scary.

-

Very hypothetical and idea at the moment but even in the article about Australia they only took one fifth of the guns in Australia the assault weapons I believe basically and hand guns. All anybody wants is no automatics of any kind and background checks. Of course you're in favor of States being able to ban assault weapons as a states rights person? LOL

Hypothetical, my ass. The govt that seeks to limit strip our rights to bare arms DID all of that - victimizing American citizens, aiding our enemies, and making us less safe.

And as pointed out, thete is no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. It is a term made up by the same people who seek to limit or strip the 2nd Amendment....the same govt that came up with BS 'Carbon Credits'.

 

[ChrisL]

I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".

That is a lie. You are simply a Troll. You and your simple cohorts.

bear arms
DEFINITION

1. carry firearms.
   • wear or display a coat of arms.

I lie? Come off it.

Bear means LOTS of things.

bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

1) carry
2) support
3) endure
4) give birth to
5) turn and proceed in a specific direction

Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?

Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.

How do we know the difference? Context.

1) ‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
4) ‘she bore six daughters’
5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’

Now under your logic this is what happens

1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
3) she carried the pain stoically
4) she carried six daughters
5) carry left and follow the old road

The reality is that it's not the case, is it?

The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Pathetic beyond belief. The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were. Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself. The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.

James Madison -

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Okay then, seeing as I've sourced the Founding Fathers, the US Supreme Court in the 1880s and the 2000s, where's YOUR EVIDENCE?

Pathetic is attacking people with nothing.

Your twisting words is not a valid citation of anything. I am the one who has cited the founding fathers and intent and words.

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

George Mason, of Virginia:
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“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.” — Within Mason`s declaration of “the essential and unalienable Rights of the People,” — later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788
Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts:
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” — Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

William Grayson, of Virginia:
“[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty.” — Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights

Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia:
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” — Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

James Madison, of Virginia:
The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — The Federalist, No. 46

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” — An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

Alexander Hamilton, of New York:
“f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” — The Federalist, No. 29

Thomas Paine, of Pennsylvania:
“[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” — Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

Fisher Ames, of Massachusetts:
“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” — Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789

Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:
“What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” — Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789



Patrick Henry, of Virginia:
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

Dear frigidweirdo
The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.

Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?

Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?

The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?

To answer the other points.

Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?

In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:

• 1 Connecticut
• 2 Delaware
• 3 Georgia
• 4 Maryland
• 5 Massachusetts
• 6 New Hampshire
• 7 New Jersey
• 8 New York
• 9 North Carolina
• 10 Pennsylvania
• 11 Rhode Island
• 12 South Carolina
• 13 Vermont
• 14 Virginia

That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.


List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.

You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.

Dear frigidweirdo
I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
(a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
(though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)

Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.

So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.

I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
have equal right to defend your interpretation. So good job with that, but it still does not give
you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.

I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.

(A)
10 PENNSYLVANIA
had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population

Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"

Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).

A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."

(B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.

From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.

(C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations

1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
similar to car insurance that is decided by state.

2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.

What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.

I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.

Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.

This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.

Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.

People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.

Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.

111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia

"

• 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
• 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
• 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
• 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
• 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
• 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
• 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
  
  Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.

At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.

You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.

• 
  
  
  

 

[emilynghiem]

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

Dear frigidweirdo
The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.

Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?

Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?

The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?

To answer the other points.

Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?

In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:

• 1 Connecticut
• 2 Delaware
• 3 Georgia
• 4 Maryland
• 5 Massachusetts
• 6 New Hampshire
• 7 New Jersey
• 8 New York
• 9 North Carolina
• 10 Pennsylvania
• 11 Rhode Island
• 12 South Carolina
• 13 Vermont
• 14 Virginia

That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.


List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.

You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.

Dear frigidweirdo
I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
(a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
(though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)

Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.

So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.

I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
have equal right to defend your interpretation. So good job with that, but it still does not give
you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.

I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.

(A)
10 PENNSYLVANIA
had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population

Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"

Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).

A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."

(B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.

From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.

(C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations

1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
similar to car insurance that is decided by state.

2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.

What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.

I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.

Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.

This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.

Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.

People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.

Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.

111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia

"

• 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
• 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
• 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
• 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
• 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
• 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
• 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
  
  Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.

At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.

You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.

• 
  

Very good frigidweirdo you have presented the best backing and historical justification
for the interpretation you support which I have seen up to this point.

Again, I still believe you have the right to your interpretation even without any such backing,
but by the nature of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.

In order to protect the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to security and protections of the law,
I find it legally necessary to educate and train all citizens and residents in Constitutional law enforcement and ethics.

Otherwise if people do not have knowledge or experience with the laws and ethics that the public and community agrees to enforce,
that is what causes breaches of the peace, abuses and violations.

So my definition of what is necessary for citizenship IS based on teaching people to be law abiding
and to use that educational, training and conflict resolution process to SCREEN for criminal disorders, illnesses or other incompetence
that would render someone "disabled" or "unable" to comply with laws without additional assistance, guardianship or supervision.

Those are my beliefs which I equally defend my right to exercise and enforce by
the same First and Fourteenth Amendment I would invoke to protect yours.

The difference I have found, is that I am willing to do the work and invest the resources
and set up the system in order to enforce the interpretation I support.

However, I find too many other people NOT willing to pay the cost or consequences of
THEIR interpretations. That is why people argue against gun rights because there is no responsibility for the cost of abuse.
Or against abortion rights or prolife beliefs where the advocates aren't taking responsibility for the costs to enforce those policies.

frigidweirdo are you REALLY willing to shoulder the cost to enforce your interpretation?

I have described what I believe it will take to ensure the right to bear arms is
exercised within a "law abiding" environment that is constitutional where it
is locally elected and enforced.

What about what you are asking, to require people to join militias?

Would you be okay with the proposal to reward districts for reduced
crime rates by the residents working WITH police and military to
offer the SAME training and screening for all citizens/residents seeking to bear arms?

That's not the same as joining a militia to have the same training and screening.
I suggest adding this to the neighborhood or district policies, or giving tax
breaks where communities effectively reduce crime and can invest those
dollars into their schools or programs for daycare, health care or elderly care
as an incentive to promote LAW ABIDING citizenry.

So I would focus on compliance with laws by education, training and job creation,
and not so much on "joining an official militia" unless you count citizen patrols and security training?

I still see it more as citizen based, not as militia run.

The militia, even the "first responders" cannot be the only ones trained
and relied upon for emergency response and criminal activity.

frigidweirdo as recent events in Texas showed, with both widespread
storms and flooding that sent independent teams to do rescue work,
and with the mass shooting that required citizens to intervene since
there were no police, we will always need active citizens IN ADDITION
to any such "militia" or dedicated emergency/first responders.

But if you want to call these a form of "trained militia" then you
and I are just using different terms for the same concept of
having trained citizens to ensure enforcement of laws and safety.

I just don't see everyone agreeing to be REQUIRED to join a militia
group, though I could see people agreeing to uniform neighborhood
ordinances when they are equally involved in the process of making that policy
that represents the residents and owners in that community.
If this takes the form of a "militia" then fine, but if it just means all
community members agree to work with police to go through the
same training to understand and comply with the same procedures,
that doesn't necessarily mean JOINING the police or militia to be enforcing the same
policies and standards for security in that district.

So I would think my interpretation is more inclusive of
yours and others, while yours would exclude people who don't
agree with the condition of joining a militia.

And the interpretation that includes more people's beliefs equally
would seem to me to be more constitutionally consistent
by not discriminating or excluding
but by accommodating and protecting people equally
regardless of their beliefs and interpretations.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

Dear frigidweirdo
The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.

Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?

Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?

The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?

To answer the other points.

Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?

In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:

• 1 Connecticut
• 2 Delaware
• 3 Georgia
• 4 Maryland
• 5 Massachusetts
• 6 New Hampshire
• 7 New Jersey
• 8 New York
• 9 North Carolina
• 10 Pennsylvania
• 11 Rhode Island
• 12 South Carolina
• 13 Vermont
• 14 Virginia

That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.


List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.

You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.

Dear frigidweirdo
I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
(a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
(though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)

Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.

So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.

I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
have equal right to defend your interpretation. So good job with that, but it still does not give
you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.

I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.

(A)
10 PENNSYLVANIA
had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population

Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"

Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).

A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."

(B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.

From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.

(C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations

1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
similar to car insurance that is decided by state.

2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.

What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.

I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.

Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.

This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.

Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.

People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.

Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.

111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia

"

• 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
• 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
• 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
• 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
• 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
• 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
• 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
  
  Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.

At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.

You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.

Very good frigidweirdo you have presented the best backing and historical justification
for the interpretation you support which I have seen up to this point.

Again, I still believe you have the right to your interpretation even without any such backing,
but by the nature of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.

In order to protect the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to security and protections of the law,
I find it legally necessary to educate and train all citizens and residents in Constitutional law enforcement and ethics.

Otherwise if people do not have knowledge or experience with the laws and ethics that the public and community agrees to enforce,
that is what causes breaches of the peace, abuses and violations.

So my definition of what is necessary for citizenship IS based on teaching people to be law abiding
and to use that educational, training and conflict resolution process to SCREEN for criminal disorders, illnesses or other incompetence
that would render someone "disabled" or "unable" to comply with laws without additional assistance, guardianship or supervision.

Those are my beliefs which I equally defend my right to exercise and enforce by
the same First and Fourteenth Amendment I would invoke to protect yours.

The difference I have found, is that I am willing to do the work and invest the resources
and set up the system in order to enforce the interpretation I support.

However, I find too many other people NOT willing to pay the cost or consequences of
THEIR interpretations. That is why people argue against gun rights because there is no responsibility for the cost of abuse.
Or against abortion rights or prolife beliefs where the advocates aren't taking responsibility for the costs to enforce those policies.

frigidweirdo are you REALLY willing to shoulder the cost to enforce your interpretation?

I have described what I believe it will take to ensure the right to bear arms is
exercised within a "law abiding" environment that is constitutional where it
is locally elected and enforced.

What about what you are asking, to require people to join militias?

Would you be okay with the proposal to reward districts for reduced
crime rates by the residents working WITH police and military to
offer the SAME training and screening for all citizens/residents seeking to bear arms?

That's not the same as joining a militia to have the same training and screening.
I suggest adding this to the neighborhood or district policies, or giving tax
breaks where communities effectively reduce crime and can invest those
dollars into their schools or programs for daycare, health care or elderly care
as an incentive to promote LAW ABIDING citizenry.

So I would focus on compliance with laws by education, training and job creation,
and not so much on "joining an official militia" unless you count citizen patrols and security training?

I still see it more as citizen based, not as militia run.

The militia, even the "first responders" cannot be the only ones trained
and relied upon for emergency response and criminal activity.

frigidweirdo as recent events in Texas showed, with both widespread
storms and flooding that sent independent teams to do rescue work,
and with the mass shooting that required citizens to intervene since
there were no police, we will always need active citizens IN ADDITION
to any such "militia" or dedicated emergency/first responders.

But if you want to call these a form of "trained militia" then you
and I are just using different terms for the same concept of
having trained citizens to ensure enforcement of laws and safety.

I just don't see everyone agreeing to be REQUIRED to join a militia
group, though I could see people agreeing to uniform neighborhood
ordinances when they are equally involved in the process of making that policy
that represents the residents and owners in that community.
If this takes the form of a "militia" then fine, but if it just means all
community members agree to work with police to go through the
same training to understand and comply with the same procedures,
that doesn't necessarily mean JOINING the police or militia to be enforcing the same
policies and standards for security in that district.

So I would think my interpretation is more inclusive of
yours and others, while yours would exclude people who don't
agree with the condition of joining a militia.

And the interpretation that includes more people's beliefs equally
would seem to me to be more constitutionally consistent
by not discriminating or excluding
but by accommodating and protecting people equally
regardless of their beliefs and interpretations.

I think the first problem here is that you take me for someone who has an interpretation in order to fit an agenda. The closest you're going to get there is that my agenda is the truth.

I didn't decide this to be the truth, I just found out that it WAS THE TRUTH.

If you really want to get to the places where it's not about truth but it's about how you think something would work in the future, then this topic enlarges itself massively. But this topic is about one single thing. I have said plenty of times what I think the biggest problem is in the US, and why the gun issue will never be solved, nor any other problem. The electoral system.

However your points that Texas shows that people need guns, my point would be that in the UK and most of the Western World, these things don't usually happen, except in the US.

The reality is that in the US you are four times more likely to die with your gun that you are in the UK to die without a gun.

135 police officers died in the line of duty last year in the US, zero died in the UK. All police officers in the US are armed.

You think your interpretation is more inclusive, I think my interpretation is the truth.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Commie Lib Dictionary---

Bear Arms:

• To give up all your guns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".

That is a lie. You are simply a Troll. You and your simple cohorts.

bear arms
DEFINITION

1. carry firearms.
   • wear or display a coat of arms.

I lie? Come off it.

Bear means LOTS of things.

bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

1) carry
2) support
3) endure
4) give birth to
5) turn and proceed in a specific direction

Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?

Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.

How do we know the difference? Context.

1) ‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
4) ‘she bore six daughters’
5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’

Now under your logic this is what happens

1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
3) she carried the pain stoically
4) she carried six daughters
5) carry left and follow the old road

The reality is that it's not the case, is it?

The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Pathetic beyond belief. The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were. Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself. The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.

James Madison -

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Okay then, seeing as I've sourced the Founding Fathers, the US Supreme Court in the 1880s and the 2000s, where's YOUR EVIDENCE?

Pathetic is attacking people with nothing.

Your twisting words is not a valid citation of anything. I am the one who has cited the founding fathers and intent and words.

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

George Mason, of Virginia:
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“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.” — Within Mason`s declaration of “the essential and unalienable Rights of the People,” — later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788
Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts:
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” — Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

William Grayson, of Virginia:
“[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty.” — Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights

Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia:
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” — Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

James Madison, of Virginia:
The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — The Federalist, No. 46

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” — An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

Alexander Hamilton, of New York:
“f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” — The Federalist, No. 29

Thomas Paine, of Pennsylvania:
“[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” — Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

Fisher Ames, of Massachusetts:
“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” — Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789

Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:
“What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” — Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789



Patrick Henry, of Virginia:
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention

I'm sorry, which twisting of words did I do? I'll accept any evidence on your part from my posts.

Your quotes are just quotes. What do they mean?

I'm talking about the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Not the right to keep arms.

Your first quote from Jefferson has nothing to do with the the right to bear arms.
Your second quote has nothing to do with the right to bear arms.
Your third quote has nothing to do with the right to bear arms.

In fact none of your quotes have anything to do with what I've said. Not one thing.

Oh please, you don't even know what I'm talking about. You've picked up some quotes from a gun website and you've copied and pasted them and hoped that you were making a point about what I was saying, and you failed, big style.

I'm wondering if you've even bothered to read what I wrote, it seems to be a big problem on websites like this. People like you see that someone has a different view of things, and then they think they understand what is being said without even reading it. Because they think there are only two ways of thinking, your way and the other way, so you don't even read it.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

You don't know what you are talking about. The supreme court said no such thing.

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

/----/ It's settled science -- err I mean settled law:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

That can Only happen in a vacuum of special pleading. Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; it is a part of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.

The subject of Arms for the Militia is enumerated, Socialized, for the Militia of the United States:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Well regulated Militias of the United States get their wellness of regulation prescribed by our federal Congress.

And the incoherence rises, soon to be followed by diversion and a sudden departure.

Nothing but repeal, right wingers?

 

[danielpalos]

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed

You are incorrect. Again.

when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;

My right does not require state or union.

defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment

You are incorrect. Again.

Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

Where in the Second Amendment does it use the word "only"?

It says, "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.

Notice the comma after the word State? It means an independent clause or statement.

The Supreme Court has on many occasions has upheld the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because that is the correct reading of the 2nd Amendment.

Express and Limited powers. Only well regulated militia of the People are Necessary, and shall not be Infringed as a result.

The comma in the statement says you are misinterpreting the Constitution, do you have anything other than your same old canned responses that have been proven through the Supreme Court as being wrong?

Means nothing since our Second Amendment is not a Constitution Unto itself. But, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

He is arguing with several voices in his head.

I used to be bipolar; the right wing is so full of fallacy, I had to argue with myself. Now I have a "dual core" processor. Thanks, right wingers.

I told people you were an AI Program!!

Watch the incoherence increase to a state of virtual chaos when he paints himself into a corner. Then he stops, goes away for a few weeks, and comes back, pretending that nothing happened.

Nope; The Supreme Court merely fixed a Precedent for ignoring the "prefatory clause or paragraph", for the "operative clause or paragraph".

Paragraph (2) Only applies to the unorganized militia when they are considered, "civilians" unconnected with militia service, well regulated.

(2) 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Well regulated Militia of the People of a State or the Union, enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

That is not a proper interpretation. The Bill of Rights enumerates individual, not collective rights. It is not necessary to be part of a militia to own a gun. But congrats on googling up something that fits your POV.

Only in right wing conspiracy theory. Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights, and has everything to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[danielpalos]

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed

You are incorrect. Again.

when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;

My right does not require state or union.

defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment

You are incorrect. Again.

Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

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.

Limited and express powers, dears. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Exactly. Glad you sobered up enough to admit you were wrong.

It says, well regulated militia are necessary for the security of a free State not the unorganized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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.

It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.

It is the right of the People

Exactly! Are you in rehab?

The People=The Militia; why are You, not in rehab.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

/----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."

then, dears, get some social morals for free and stop whining about taxes.

Wow talk about the moby dick of red herrings

lol. Not enough morals to go around in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the incorrigibles?

We would not need as much government, if the right were as moral as they claim, and insisted on Only the Cost, of Ten simple Commandments.

 

[danielpalos]

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act. the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes

Then answer this one.

In 1903 they made the Dick Act.

Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.

They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?

Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?

The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".

So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.

Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.

damn you're one dumb MF. Why don't women have this same right? or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age

Again, your argument is an insult.

Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.

how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity

lol. it is in our Second Amendment. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Dear frigidweirdo
The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.

Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?

Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?

The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?

To answer the other points.

Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?

In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:

• 1 Connecticut
• 2 Delaware
• 3 Georgia
• 4 Maryland
• 5 Massachusetts
• 6 New Hampshire
• 7 New Jersey
• 8 New York
• 9 North Carolina
• 10 Pennsylvania
• 11 Rhode Island
• 12 South Carolina
• 13 Vermont
• 14 Virginia

That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.


List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.

You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.

Dear frigidweirdo
I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
(a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
(though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)

Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.

So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.

I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
have equal right to defend your interpretation. So good job with that, but it still does not give
you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.

I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.

(A)
10 PENNSYLVANIA
had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population

Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"

Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).

A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."

(B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.

From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.

(C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations

1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
similar to car insurance that is decided by state.

2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.

What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.

I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.

Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.

This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.

Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.

People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.

Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.

111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia

"

• 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
• 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
• 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
• 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
• 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
• 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
• 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
  
  Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.

At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.

You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.

Very good frigidweirdo you have presented the best backing and historical justification
for the interpretation you support which I have seen up to this point.

Again, I still believe you have the right to your interpretation even without any such backing,
but by the nature of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.

In order to protect the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to security and protections of the law,
I find it legally necessary to educate and train all citizens and residents in Constitutional law enforcement and ethics.

Otherwise if people do not have knowledge or experience with the laws and ethics that the public and community agrees to enforce,
that is what causes breaches of the peace, abuses and violations.

So my definition of what is necessary for citizenship IS based on teaching people to be law abiding
and to use that educational, training and conflict resolution process to SCREEN for criminal disorders, illnesses or other incompetence
that would render someone "disabled" or "unable" to comply with laws without additional assistance, guardianship or supervision.

Those are my beliefs which I equally defend my right to exercise and enforce by
the same First and Fourteenth Amendment I would invoke to protect yours.

The difference I have found, is that I am willing to do the work and invest the resources
and set up the system in order to enforce the interpretation I support.

However, I find too many other people NOT willing to pay the cost or consequences of
THEIR interpretations. That is why people argue against gun rights because there is no responsibility for the cost of abuse.
Or against abortion rights or prolife beliefs where the advocates aren't taking responsibility for the costs to enforce those policies.

frigidweirdo are you REALLY willing to shoulder the cost to enforce your interpretation?

I have described what I believe it will take to ensure the right to bear arms is
exercised within a "law abiding" environment that is constitutional where it
is locally elected and enforced.

What about what you are asking, to require people to join militias?

Would you be okay with the proposal to reward districts for reduced
crime rates by the residents working WITH police and military to
offer the SAME training and screening for all citizens/residents seeking to bear arms?

That's not the same as joining a militia to have the same training and screening.
I suggest adding this to the neighborhood or district policies, or giving tax
breaks where communities effectively reduce crime and can invest those
dollars into their schools or programs for daycare, health care or elderly care
as an incentive to promote LAW ABIDING citizenry.

So I would focus on compliance with laws by education, training and job creation,
and not so much on "joining an official militia" unless you count citizen patrols and security training?

I still see it more as citizen based, not as militia run.

The militia, even the "first responders" cannot be the only ones trained
and relied upon for emergency response and criminal activity.

frigidweirdo as recent events in Texas showed, with both widespread
storms and flooding that sent independent teams to do rescue work,
and with the mass shooting that required citizens to intervene since
there were no police, we will always need active citizens IN ADDITION
to any such "militia" or dedicated emergency/first responders.

But if you want to call these a form of "trained militia" then you
and I are just using different terms for the same concept of
having trained citizens to ensure enforcement of laws and safety.

I just don't see everyone agreeing to be REQUIRED to join a militia
group, though I could see people agreeing to uniform neighborhood
ordinances when they are equally involved in the process of making that policy
that represents the residents and owners in that community.
If this takes the form of a "militia" then fine, but if it just means all
community members agree to work with police to go through the
same training to understand and comply with the same procedures,
that doesn't necessarily mean JOINING the police or militia to be enforcing the same
policies and standards for security in that district.

So I would think my interpretation is more inclusive of
yours and others, while yours would exclude people who don't
agree with the condition of joining a militia.

And the interpretation that includes more people's beliefs equally
would seem to me to be more constitutionally consistent
by not discriminating or excluding
but by accommodating and protecting people equally
regardless of their beliefs and interpretations.

I think the first problem here is that you take me for someone who has an interpretation in order to fit an agenda. The closest you're going to get there is that my agenda is the truth.

I didn't decide this to be the truth, I just found out that it WAS THE TRUTH.

If you really want to get to the places where it's not about truth but it's about how you think something would work in the future, then this topic enlarges itself massively. But this topic is about one single thing. I have said plenty of times what I think the biggest problem is in the US, and why the gun issue will never be solved, nor any other problem. The electoral system.

However your points that Texas shows that people need guns, my point would be that in the UK and most of the Western World, these things don't usually happen, except in the US.

The reality is that in the US you are four times more likely to die with your gun that you are in the UK to die without a gun.

135 police officers died in the line of duty last year in the US, zero died in the UK. All police officers in the US are armed.

You think your interpretation is more inclusive, I think my interpretation is the truth.

And you are twice as likely to be the victim of an assault or rape in the UK than in the USA.

And what you think I 'need" is your agenda.

I and I alone determine what I need not you.

 

[turtledude]

I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".

That is a lie. You are simply a Troll. You and your simple cohorts.

bear arms
DEFINITION

1. carry firearms.
   • wear or display a coat of arms.

I lie? Come off it.

Bear means LOTS of things.

bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

1) carry
2) support
3) endure
4) give birth to
5) turn and proceed in a specific direction

Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?

Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.

How do we know the difference? Context.

1) ‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
4) ‘she bore six daughters’
5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’

Now under your logic this is what happens

1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
3) she carried the pain stoically
4) she carried six daughters
5) carry left and follow the old road

The reality is that it's not the case, is it?

The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Pathetic beyond belief. The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were. Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself. The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.

James Madison -

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Okay then, seeing as I've sourced the Founding Fathers, the US Supreme Court in the 1880s and the 2000s, where's YOUR EVIDENCE?

Pathetic is attacking people with nothing.

what is pathetic is denying the obvious

you should read the CRUIKSHANK CASE-that destroys your nonsense

 

[turtledude]

there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act. the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes

Then answer this one.

In 1903 they made the Dick Act.

Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.

They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?

Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?

The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".

So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.

Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.

damn you're one dumb MF. Why don't women have this same right? or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age

Again, your argument is an insult.

Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.

how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity

lol. it is in our Second Amendment. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills