The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

I should read it? Apparently this is YOUR argument, and your argument isn't to go get the part of Cruikshank that destroys my argument, but to tell me that it does.

Bullshit. If it destroyed my argument, you'd have posted it here.

1) you don't have a law degree

2) you don' t understand Cruikshank

3) you don't understand the entire foundation for the bill of rights

4) you don't understand the concept of natural rights and/or natural law

5) you don't understand that natural rights are not dependent on government nor membership in a governmentally controlled militia

6) you don' t understand what the founders stated

7) you don't understand that the RKBA also applies to people who are neither subject to the call up or eligible to serve in the militia

1) you don't know whether I have a law degree or not
2) You don't know whether I understand cruikshank or not

Shit dude, this is more bravado from you. No substance but plenty of complete and utter bullshit.

Here's the deal.

I set out my argument using sources to back myself up. You couldn't argue against this
You claim to have an argument but you won't provide the argument, and then say this is me not understanding something
You insult all the time.

The ONLY reason I haven't put your sorry ass on ignore is because I'm having too much fun watching you make a complete spectacle of yourself.

You haven't said ANYTHING of substance in ANY SINGLE POST. Nothing. A lawyer you are not.

You are the one with nothing of substance. Stop personally attacking TurtleDude just because he knows a boatload about this topic than you could ever know, and this is quite obvious to everyone. You are just an ignorant **** leftist POS who doesn't understand that the PEOPLE run the government and the United States. The people are in charge of the government, not the other way around. The government doesn't dictate us our rights. WE dictate to them. Got it lackey?

That you believe an anonymous message board poster is being ‘truthful’ is both pathetic and amusing.

well I know your posts are full of shit and you are a blow hard because you post nonsense. Chris knows me personally so you should stop pretending what you know and what she doesn't know. It must make you mad to understand that some of us who have actually taught at law schools can see what a gaping fraud you are

Haha, how ironic.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Founders' intent matters, because if we show that they intended no federal infringement of individual rights to keep and carry arms (or no federal authority), all current federal gun laws are facially unconstitutional, as is the F portion of the BATF.

Don't like it? Amend the constitution. Otherwise, the original text and intent apply, and all federal gun laws should be immediately struck down.

Likewise, via the 14th Amendment, all State gun laws will be struck down.

A change REQUIRES a constitutional amendment. Just because you commies are too ***** to try it, or can't get it done, is not an excuse to **** up the Constitution and shit on it.

No, but their intent for the 2A wasn't carry arms. Clearly, their intent for "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty".

 

[frigidweirdo]

I mean really, shall I quote the founding fathers EXACT words yet again so that this moron can just ignore it and go on being a dumbfuck? What a douchebag. I really hate this poster. Lol.

You’re in no position to refer to someone else as a ‘moron’ while exhibiting your own ignorance – in this case you’re ignorant of the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And the ‘exact words’ of the Framers can be found only in that case law.

hey moron, the exact words of the founders are found in their notes, writings and the constitution

Which I showed to you and you ignored.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Mr Gerry, founding father of the USA said that "bear arms" was "militia duty".

Mr Jackson, founding father of the USA said that "bear arms" was "render military service"

Mr Washington, founding father of the USA and first President of the USA said in Sentiments on a Peace Establishment said:


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Yep, he said "bear Arms" was "Military duties".

 

[tycho1572]

Im good with people having a way to defend themselves......

 

[tycho1572]

Libs can whine and cry all they want.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[Q hi inUOTE="frigidweirdo, post: 18579540, member: 47831"]

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.

To tell you the honest truth, frigidweirdo
I'm sure the founders back then argued this same way, didn't agree either,
and ended up with the law written as it was to accommodate BOTH.
So it BOTH included the right of people individually
FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS RESPECTING THAT WAY
as well as allowed for state militias
FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS BASED ON THAT.

The common factor was the STATES would pass laws
and not the Feds controlling all the access to arms,
because that's what they feared would get corrupted,oppressive and tyrannical
if there wasn't some check against Federal abuse of collective authority.

SEE below:

These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or non-restrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.

As the founders fought the same arguments we have today re Federal vs. State authority, I'm sure they disagreed and argued about who had the right to bear arms
in this same divided context. (I also read into certain state histories with issues over Catholics having equal right to bear arms because of the fear of abuse/violent crime.)

As for the citation on PA, I apologize for not looking up the direct reference previously
so I cited wrong online. (My excuse is my copy of Levy's "Origin of the Bill of Rights" got rescued from the flood and stashed in storage, so I took a shortcut and tried to search for a paraphrase instead of getting the source verbatim, Sorry!)

The CORRECT statement is that PA didn't have a state militia at the time of its STATE constitution which cited the right to bear arms, so clearly the STATE law on the right to bear arms didn't refer to state militia because they didn't have one. Sorry I miscited that.

Here is the corrected explanation:

In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence, the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms — the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia). One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally, Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.

Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

frigidweirdo thank you for at least explaining the history behind your conclusion.
I usually get the explanation that the big fear at the time was the British Crown and forces
taking away weapons from the colonists in order to keep them subordinated.
So the same fear was that if Federal govt required only militia to have weapons
that same scenario could happen of abusing militia to oppress the people.
That's the usual argument in favor of individuals retaining the right to check and defend against that as well!

But since you challenge that, I asked another source
and got yet another explanation I hadn't heard before:
If state militia had the right to take arms against federal govt
then the fight for Southern secession would have been legal.
I kinda get that argument, but still see it as whoever is enforcing
laws is in the right, and whoever is abusing force to violate laws
is what makes it unlawful. In the case of the Civil War there was
right and wrong on both sides: slavery was a violation of natural
laws by which people should have equal protections of rights,
but the federal govt should have respected the sovereign
consent of states and settled the conflict peaceably without force.
The fact both sides resorted to force ends up violating protections on both sides
because they both failed to resolve the conflicts peaceably by democratic process.

So I don't follow that argument
as easily as I do the historical argument
that the Second Amendment was influenced
by colonists having to take up arms to stop
oppression by collective govt, so they didn't want
to concede this right to bear arms to any higher govt that could become corrupted.

You can believe you have the truth
but so do people who cite history to argue the other way.

Again, honestly, I believe this is the same boat
the founders were in who didn't agree either
on federal vs. state authority and the right of the people.

I'm sure the Founding Fathers did disagree on many things. I'm sure they didn't disagree on the term "sun" for the sun.

Bear arms was used in the manner I have shown all over the place, and the Supreme Court has upheld that meaning for hundreds of years.

I mean, if you have anything where "bear arms" didn't mean this, then by all means show it and try and put it into your argument that it doesn't mean that in the Second Amendment. However, when looking at historical documents, when looking at logic, it always means the same thing.

Here's a question.

The context of the Second Amendment is the militia. Why would you go and protect a right to carry guns which doesn't protect the militia, and why wouldn't protect the individual's right to be in the militia when you've just protected his right to own guns so the militia has guns?

Guns don't kill people, people do. A militia full of guns but no people is pointless, right?

Hi frigidweirdo
1. In the case of PA state law their Constitution included the right to bear arms when PA did not have an organized militia
2. James Madison more clearly defended the right to bear arms as meaning individual not militia. Given how hard people like him defend their beliefs and won't let laws get passed that diminish them in any way, Madison and others would not have allowed this right as they saw it to be whittled down by the writing of such a law. They wouldn't agree to endorse it if it excluded or failed to enforce the principle they believed in defending.
3. The HELLER case in DC court 2008 also lays out where the interpretations have come from.

So frigidweirdo at most you can say the truth you defend is equal to the truth the other side defends. Both sides look at the same history and same law and still believe the truth as they see it. I believe it was written that way so both sides can still defend their beliefs which truth prevails, whether intentionally or not, it allows both beliefs to be equally defended and enforced using the same law.

The difference with me is I don't have a conflict with either side defending their beliefs and the truth they see in the law and history. If you have problems accommodating each other's beliefs, that's your problem and your refusal to accommodate each other! I am happy to accommodate both under the same law exactly as written.

So I believe that approach is more consistent Constitutionally with the First Fourteenth and other amendments and laws, civil rights laws on not discriminating by Creed, and the Code of ethics on not putting loyalty to party personal word or other things before duty to the public . The public includes people who believe that either one or the other interpretation is the truth as you do.

It is not fair ethical or Constitutional to exclude one for the other.

So that's what makes the inclusive approach different. I favor the individual rights interpretation but equally include the militia one.

My question to you is why can't you do the same?

I can believe in both creation and evolution and accommodate both, so why can't others do the same?

I can believe some homosexuality orientation or transgender identity is a choice that can change and some cases are inherently in someone's spiritual identity and process and may not ever be able to change. Why can't both be included equally?

Even if it is true that someone cannot change, if that isn't proven to someone of a different belief, they still have equal right to their beliefs whether that's true or not. The govt and laws can't be abused to force one on the other, but people have the right to consent to change their minds by free will and not be harassed or punished for their beliefs.

With you frigidweirdo I can't tell if your defensiveness over your side is just a reaction against others who have been attacking you for arguing for that. If so I do apologize on behalf of others, and don't believe it is right to bully or attack people or treat them less than equal because of conflicts like this. If you are just trying to defend yourself and the truth from attack then I understand and respect that.

But if your intent is to IMPOSE what you find to be true against the will consent and free choice of others to change their minds, then no, I don't support or recommend political bullying to coerce others. That is equally disrespectful when it's done to you as it is if you or I would do that to others.

I believe in an environment and commitment to equal inclusion we can better share the information and history and respect ppl free choice to examine understand and accept either explanation or both as I have no problem doing to accommodate all people equally regardless of view point.

Thank you for trying to use reason and sorry if you've found yourself under personal attack in the process. I join your efforts to steer clear of that bullying harassing approach and applaud you in sticking to historical legal and rational explanations of where these views are coming from

Keep up the good work and may all views be equally respected and included in that context and process of reaching a shared understanding to resolve past conflicts. Thanks frigidweirdo[/QUOTE]

Basically your argument appears to be this.

If you have one person saying the sun is the sun, and another person saying the sun is his head, then I should be willing to accommodate that sun is both the sun and his head.

Er... what? clearly the person who thinks the sun is his head is wrong.

I also know that people who say the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms are wrong. It's that simple. I'm not going to accommodate someone's made up belief simply so they can push their own agenda, when they're clearly wrong. Sorry.

The "truth" on the other side is made up because it's convenient. It has NO BASIS IN REALITY.

Every time I present FACTS, they get IGNORED and instead they post stuff that has no relevance at all.

Take the person who posted lots of Founding Father quotes about the right to keep arms to prove that I was wrong about the right to bear arms. Er.... what? It's like saying this pear is nice, therefore that apple has to be nice too. Logical?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

To tell you the honest truth, frigidweirdo
I'm sure the founders back then argued this same way, didn't agree either,
and ended up with the law written as it was to accommodate BOTH.
So it BOTH included the right of people individually
FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS RESPECTING THAT WAY
as well as allowed for state militias
FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS BASED ON THAT.

The common factor was the STATES would pass laws
and not the Feds controlling all the access to arms,
because that's what they feared would get corrupted,oppressive and tyrannical
if there wasn't some check against Federal abuse of collective authority.

SEE below:

These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or non-restrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.

As the founders fought the same arguments we have today re Federal vs. State authority, I'm sure they disagreed and argued about who had the right to bear arms
in this same divided context. (I also read into certain state histories with issues over Catholics having equal right to bear arms because of the fear of abuse/violent crime.)

As for the citation on PA, I apologize for not looking up the direct reference previously
so I cited wrong online. (My excuse is my copy of Levy's "Origin of the Bill of Rights" got rescued from the flood and stashed in storage, so I took a shortcut and tried to search for a paraphrase instead of getting the source verbatim, Sorry!)

The CORRECT statement is that PA didn't have a state militia at the time of its STATE constitution which cited the right to bear arms, so clearly the STATE law on the right to bear arms didn't refer to state militia because they didn't have one. Sorry I miscited that.

Here is the corrected explanation:

In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence, the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms — the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia). One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally, Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.

Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

frigidweirdo thank you for at least explaining the history behind your conclusion.
I usually get the explanation that the big fear at the time was the British Crown and forces
taking away weapons from the colonists in order to keep them subordinated.
So the same fear was that if Federal govt required only militia to have weapons
that same scenario could happen of abusing militia to oppress the people.
That's the usual argument in favor of individuals retaining the right to check and defend against that as well!

But since you challenge that, I asked another source
and got yet another explanation I hadn't heard before:
If state militia had the right to take arms against federal govt
then the fight for Southern secession would have been legal.
I kinda get that argument, but still see it as whoever is enforcing
laws is in the right, and whoever is abusing force to violate laws
is what makes it unlawful. In the case of the Civil War there was
right and wrong on both sides: slavery was a violation of natural
laws by which people should have equal protections of rights,
but the federal govt should have respected the sovereign
consent of states and settled the conflict peaceably without force.
The fact both sides resorted to force ends up violating protections on both sides
because they both failed to resolve the conflicts peaceably by democratic process.

So I don't follow that argument
as easily as I do the historical argument
that the Second Amendment was influenced
by colonists having to take up arms to stop
oppression by collective govt, so they didn't want
to concede this right to bear arms to any higher govt that could become corrupted.

You can believe you have the truth
but so do people who cite history to argue the other way.

Again, honestly, I believe this is the same boat
the founders were in who didn't agree either
on federal vs. state authority and the right of the people.

I'm sure the Founding Fathers did disagree on many things. I'm sure they didn't disagree on the term "sun" for the sun.

Bear arms was used in the manner I have shown all over the place, and the Supreme Court has upheld that meaning for hundreds of years.

I mean, if you have anything where "bear arms" didn't mean this, then by all means show it and try and put it into your argument that it doesn't mean that in the Second Amendment. However, when looking at historical documents, when looking at logic, it always means the same thing.

Here's a question.

The context of the Second Amendment is the militia. Why would you go and protect a right to carry guns which doesn't protect the militia, and why wouldn't protect the individual's right to be in the militia when you've just protected his right to own guns so the militia has guns?

Guns don't kill people, people do. A militia full of guns but no people is pointless, right?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I mean really, shall I quote the founding fathers EXACT words yet again so that this moron can just ignore it and go on being a dumbfuck? What a douchebag. I really hate this poster. Lol.

You’re in no position to refer to someone else as a ‘moron’ while exhibiting your own ignorance – in this case you’re ignorant of the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And the ‘exact words’ of the Framers can be found only in that case law.

hey moron, the exact words of the founders are found in their notes, writings and the constitution

Which I showed to you and you ignored.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Mr Gerry, founding father of the USA said that "bear arms" was "militia duty".

Mr Jackson, founding father of the USA said that "bear arms" was "render military service"

Mr Washington, founding father of the USA and first President of the USA said in Sentiments on a Peace Establishment said:


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Yep, he said "bear Arms" was "Military duties".

That does not help your argument, even if we accept your interpretation by those out-of-context quotes (whivh we don’t) because you forgot about the “keep” part.

Further, in Washington’s first State if the Union Address, he said:

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


There can be NO QUESTION Washington’s intent. You can try to spin it all day, but to bear means to carry. To carry guns in defense of your nation is militia service. It does not take away from out proposed meaning.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

This mindless statement, with no authoritative backing, deservrse this level of response: Nuh uhh!

 

[danielpalos]

I mean really, shall I quote the founding fathers EXACT words yet again so that this moron can just ignore it and go on being a dumbfuck? What a douchebag. I really hate this poster. Lol.

You’re in no position to refer to someone else as a ‘moron’ while exhibiting your own ignorance – in this case you’re ignorant of the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And the ‘exact words’ of the Framers can be found only in that case law.

BS. The founders made their views on the second amendment quite clear in ALL the papers related to the constitution, the minutes of their discussions about it, etc.

Are you trying to argue that the founders wanted the government to be in charge of our 2nd amendment right, which was thought by the founders to be a GOD GIVEN or a NATURAL right?

Only natural rights are, "god given"; our Constitution only secures the rights ceded by us to our elected representatives.

 

[danielpalos]

A natural right is one that exists before the formation of governments. The founders knew that the first step towards tyranny is the disarming of the citizens. They believed that the people had the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, for self defense of themselves, their families, their land, their property, to fight against tyranny and to fight against invasions. It is all quite clearly stated in the written records of their meetings and discussions and debates. You have no argument. All you have is your dishonest twisting of words and definitions. As soon as a person does a little research into what the founding fathers actually SAID about the 2nd amendment, it is quite clear just what kind of dishonest little jerks you people are. I don't trust you, and nobody should. No way in hell would anyone in their right minds give up one of their rights because of you sniveling little cowards.

dear, right wingers; God did not give us our Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

This is much, much more than a "disagreement." This is an assault on one of my freedoms as an American citizen, and that is why I have absolutely NO respect for the anti-rights movement. They are dishonest. Pretty much everything they claim is lies and twisting of words and dishonesty. They are traitors to us, to our country, to our freedom. They are nothing but cowards.

Don't trust them, don't believe them. Do some research into what the founding fathers ACTUALLY believed about the 2nd amendment and how important it was to freedom. It is one of the most important amendments in the BoR. There is a good reason why it was #2 on the list.

The BoR is NOT about government limitations on citizen rights. The BoR is about the people and their rights and how WE control the government. WE are the government. WE are the ones in charge here in America. The government does not tell us which rights we can practice. RIGHTS are not granted by governments. They are recognized by governments.

It is not just a disagreement, I agree. It is WAR.

Freedom lovers,

You are witnessing the attack on your liberty from within by the communists. They do not believe in free speech, press, or assembly. They do not want you to have freedom of religion. They do not love individual libery.

All of your rights are are at risk, and they are pushing to rid you of the one freedom that protects all others.

Is a violent response justified?

Just right wing, hearsay and soothsay.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

/
/----/ How about in the first paragraph: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,>>>>>>>>> provide for the common defense,<<<<<< promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence.

And there is this: The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for people to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.[1]
If a defendant uses defensive force because of a threat of deadly or grievous harm by the other person, or a reasonable perception of such harm, the defendant is said to have a "perfect self-defense" justification.[2] If defendant uses defensive force because of such a perception, and the perception is not reasonable, the defendant may have an "imperfect self-defense" as an excuse.[2]

Any more questions?

Common defense is, by definition, something people do TOGETHER..... self defense is, by definition, something you do ALONE.

But well done on providing evidence that has nothing to do with what I said.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does self defense make you happier?

Actually self defense is in the Constitution. The biggest problem here is that those people who demand that self defense is in the Constitution are the very same people who argue in other topics that if it's not written specifically in the US Constitution, it's not valid (and therefore Supreme Court justices are "making law").

It's in the Constitution in the 10th Amendment.

Funny how you missed that one.

/----/ I never understood what motivates the gun grabbers. Did you know prior to 1964, gun safety classes were taught at many High Schools and students could bring their rifles to class? Nobody had a problem with it back then. But now Libs are rabid attackers of the 2nd Amendment. Why?

Wars on Crime, Drugs, and Terror; that is what happened.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

So, what does it mean to be well-regulated?



No response odds? Any guesses?

In good working order

Nope; Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You missed punctuation in school, didn't you? Quite a few other classes in English too.

I'm sorry, what the ****?

You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?

Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all.

Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.

The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".

No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.

No matter how much you deny it, punctuation matters and the emphasis is not on the dependent clause, it is on the independent clause and while have been academians in the past that have tried to torture the Amendment to say what you wish it would say, the right belongs to THE PEOPLE and it shall not be infringed.

I didn't say punctuation doesn't matter.

I'm saying in the Second Amendment it doesn't matter. Or more specifically the two commas that may or may not exist.

You can have "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." as ratified by the states or "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." as was going through Congress.

The two extra commas don't change anything in the meaning.

But trying to pretend that this does anything is wrong.

The first half of the Amendment doesn't do anything. It merely says WHY the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms are important.

Now, think about this. The Amendment is about the militia. The Amendment says a militia is important. It doesn't say TV is important, it doesn't say breathing is important, it doesn't say a lot of things. But it does say THE MILITIA.

This is CONTEXT.

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons that the US federal govt cannot take away.
The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.

A militia without guns is not "a well regulated militia", nor is a militia without personnel.

However a militia without individuals walking around in the streets with their guns is the same as it would be if they were walking about with their guns.

*sigh* Here is the context. The wording of the Second Amendment does emphasize the importance of the militia, but the Right is reserved to the PEOPLE. If they had wanted the right reserved only to the militia, they could have said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms...they'd already proven they can spell it. The Second is not ABOUT the militia, it's about the right of the People.

Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless; there is no reservation in the militia; the People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.

 

[danielpalos]

I should read it? Apparently this is YOUR argument, and your argument isn't to go get the part of Cruikshank that destroys my argument, but to tell me that it does.

Bullshit. If it destroyed my argument, you'd have posted it here.

1) you don't have a law degree

2) you don' t understand Cruikshank

3) you don't understand the entire foundation for the bill of rights

4) you don't understand the concept of natural rights and/or natural law

5) you don't understand that natural rights are not dependent on government nor membership in a governmentally controlled militia

6) you don' t understand what the founders stated

7) you don't understand that the RKBA also applies to people who are neither subject to the call up or eligible to serve in the militia

1) you don't know whether I have a law degree or not
2) You don't know whether I understand cruikshank or not

Shit dude, this is more bravado from you. No substance but plenty of complete and utter bullshit.

Here's the deal.

I set out my argument using sources to back myself up. You couldn't argue against this
You claim to have an argument but you won't provide the argument, and then say this is me not understanding something
You insult all the time.

The ONLY reason I haven't put your sorry ass on ignore is because I'm having too much fun watching you make a complete spectacle of yourself.

You haven't said ANYTHING of substance in ANY SINGLE POST. Nothing. A lawyer you are not.

You are the one with nothing of substance. Stop personally attacking TurtleDude just because he knows a boatload about this topic than you could ever know, and this is quite obvious to everyone. You are just an ignorant **** leftist POS who doesn't understand that the PEOPLE run the government and the United States. The people are in charge of the government, not the other way around. The government doesn't dictate us our rights. WE dictate to them. Got it lackey?

That you believe an anonymous message board poster is being ‘truthful’ is both pathetic and amusing.

well I know your posts are full of shit and you are a blow hard because you post nonsense. Chris knows me personally so you should stop pretending what you know and what she doesn't know. It must make you mad to understand that some of us who have actually taught at law schools can see what a gaping fraud you are

dude; You have nothing but appeals to ignorance, not the law.

 

[danielpalos]

Founders' intent matters, because if we show that they intended no federal infringement of individual rights to keep and carry arms (or no federal authority), all current federal gun laws are facially unconstitutional, as is the F portion of the BATF.

Don't like it? Amend the constitution. Otherwise, the original text and intent apply, and all federal gun laws should be immediately struck down.

Likewise, via the 14th Amendment, all State gun laws will be struck down.

A change REQUIRES a constitutional amendment. Just because you commies are too ***** to try it, or can't get it done, is not an excuse to **** up the Constitution and shit on it.

Yes, right winger; Intent matters, that is why they included an Intent and Purpose Clause.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I mean really, shall I quote the founding fathers EXACT words yet again so that this moron can just ignore it and go on being a dumbfuck? What a douchebag. I really hate this poster. Lol.

You’re in no position to refer to someone else as a ‘moron’ while exhibiting your own ignorance – in this case you’re ignorant of the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And the ‘exact words’ of the Framers can be found only in that case law.

hey moron, the exact words of the founders are found in their notes, writings and the constitution

Which I showed to you and you ignored.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Mr Gerry, founding father of the USA said that "bear arms" was "militia duty".

Mr Jackson, founding father of the USA said that "bear arms" was "render military service"

Mr Washington, founding father of the USA and first President of the USA said in Sentiments on a Peace Establishment said:


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Yep, he said "bear Arms" was "Military duties".

That does not help your argument, even if we accept your interpretation by those out-of-context quotes (whivh we don’t) because you forgot about the “keep” part.

Further, in Washington’s first State if the Union Address, he said:

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


There can be NO QUESTION Washington’s intent. You can try to spin it all day, but to bear means to carry. To carry guns in defense of your nation is militia service. It does not take away from out proposed meaning.

Out of context quotes huh?

What can be MORE IN CONTEXT than a document of House members discussing the Second Amendment?

Carry guns in defense of your nation is militia service. Carry guns because you feel like it in the street IS NOT MILITIA SERVICE and Presser pointed that one out.


"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

When the Supreme Court says that drilling or parading with arms in cities is NOT PROTECTED by the Second Amendment, then what?

In DC v. Heller the court said:

"None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

Yep, they upheld Presser.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

This mindless statement, with no authoritative backing, deservrse this level of response: Nuh uhh!

More than yours. The Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose clause.

Only the right wing is that, clueless and that Causeless.

 

[turtledude]

Founders' intent matters, because if we show that they intended no federal infringement of individual rights to keep and carry arms (or no federal authority), all current federal gun laws are facially unconstitutional, as is the F portion of the BATF.

Don't like it? Amend the constitution. Otherwise, the original text and intent apply, and all federal gun laws should be immediately struck down.

Likewise, via the 14th Amendment, all State gun laws will be struck down.

A change REQUIRES a constitutional amendment. Just because you commies are too ***** to try it, or can't get it done, is not an excuse to **** up the Constitution and shit on it.

No, but their intent for the 2A wasn't carry arms. Clearly, their intent for "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty".

bullshit, and why do you ignore keep and bear?