The Right To Bear Arms

[ChrisL]

The thing is that the founding fathers did not believe in the government "regulating" the people. They said so in their own damn words. This just proves that the leftists are liars and creeping incrementalist gun banners who want to take away the rights of their fellow citizens because they are BAD people, government lackeys.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you encourage him, he will reply with the exact same nonsense that he always posts, all of which has been already established as lies and dishonesty many, many, many times. He is either retarded or a troll.

I am starting to think he is a huge troll.

If I get nothing from this dude but the same bullshit "wellness of regulation" and "clueless and Causeless" with no historical substance justifying his interpretation, his ass is going on ignore.

 

[francoHFW]

After 30 years of b******* misinformation propaganda and the NRA going batshit, 1 wonders when the semi insane GOP voters will come back to the Civilized world. All people need is hunting guns to protect themselves. Our country is close to insane at this point. The hero in this case should not be allowed assault rifles because that would have stopped the mentally ill guy from having an assault rifle. Duh.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

After 30 years of b******* misinformation propaganda and the NRA going batshit, 1 wonders when the semi insane GOP voters will come back to the Civilized world. All people need is hunting guns to protect themselves. Our country is close to insane at this point. The hero in this case should not be allowed assault rifles because that would have stopped the mentally ill guy from having an assault rifle. Duh.

Okay. Call for a constitutional convention. Congress was not given the Constitutional authority to regulate firearms, but they are doing it anyway. Change the Constitution, and you can get your way.

 

[francoHFW]

After 30 years of b******* misinformation propaganda and the NRA going batshit, 1 wonders when the semi insane GOP voters will come back to the Civilized world. All people need is hunting guns to protect themselves. Our country is close to insane at this point. The hero in this case should not be allowed assault rifles because that would have stopped the mentally ill guy from having an assault rifle. Duh.

Okay. Call for a constitutional convention. Congress was not given the Constitutional authority to regulate firearms, but they are doing it anyway. Change the Constitution, and you can get your way.

We have already had plenty of Regulation until the last 20 years of insanity, so no such thing is needed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We have already had plenty of Regulation until the last 20 years of insanity, so no such thing is needed.

The Scary-Looking Weapons Ban?


I bought a post-ban civilian AK-47 for dirt cheap. Looked exactly like this one:

This is what the pre-ban civilian AK looked like:

That's what the Scary-Looking Gun Ban (Assault Weapons Ban) did.

JACK SHIT!!!

It didn't effect crime either.

Admit that you want to infringe on the right of Americans to have guns. Just admit it, so we can go ahead and have this war. This death by a thousand cuts bullshit is OVER. We want full repeal, and let States make their own gun laws, as was intended.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, it is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

REGARDLESS? no, in ADDITION to, as part of the greater
body of Constitutional laws and principles.

You must be sarcastic here
There is even an Amendment that specifies enumeration of rights is not to disparage others.

But seriously danielpalos you do make a point
that DOES WORK with Conservatives and Constitutionalists:

You are RIGHT that no law including the Second Amendment
can be "taken out of context" with the REST of the Constitutional laws.

This is also why I make the argument that both sides'
political beliefs on this MUST BE EQUALLY included
represented and protected from exclusion or discrimination.

Because OTHERWISE it would VIOLATE the
First and Fourteenth Amendments on equal protection
of the laws including religious freedom.

So danielpalos both you and others have equal right
to exercise and defend your respective political beliefs.
If we are REALLY to enforce equal Constitutional protections
for ALL PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF CREED.

Thanks for showing why this is so important danielpalos
if people like me didn't include and respect your beliefs equally
you would be excluded from expressing and exercising them!

So by the same token, those with opposing beliefs and
interpretations from yours equally invoke the same freedom
to DEFEND THEIR INTERPRETATION AND BELIEFS FROM YOURS.

I hope you get this point.
Maybe frigidweirdo will get it
and understand why it's so hard for Conservatives to
accommodate and include "views they believe to be WRONG":
when frigidweirdo and apparently you
have the same difficulty acknowledging valid rights
to believe YOU believe are wrong as well!

I hope the irony isn't lost on you
and that you are both intelligent to see that this is mutual
where both sides struggle to manage conflicts with beliefs
they believe are just plain wrong and have no standing
to be taken seriously! My goodness, please tell me
you get this even where you don't agree with the opposing beliefs!

I don't have to agree with your and frigidweirdo's statements
views and beliefs to defend your right to those equally under
Constitutional principles ethics and standards;
am I the only one willing to do that here?

Good ness!!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Bootney Lee Farnsworth and westwall
since you both seem better at presenting the historical citations:

Can you please do the same and help spell out the argument that a Libertarian friend tried to explain to me?
The argument was something along the lines
that if the 2nd Amendment is about state militia taking arms against
the federal govt, then that means the insurrection of the states against the federal union would have been legal.

Otherwise, the implication is that the state militias would be aligned with federal govt in enforcing the laws from that controlling entity, so the taking up of arms to oppose criminal abuse or tyranny would lie with the people.

He was saying "you can't have it both ways."
I got it when he explained it, but can't repeat it back the way he did in detail.
Can you do that? It's like understanding the language when someone else speaks it, but not being fluent enough to repeat back or speak myself. But if someone else does, I get it.

This argument went a bit over my head, but I thought it might work better.
Can you reconstruct the argument based on my description of it? Thanks!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Dear Bootney Lee Farnsworth and westwall
since you both seem better at presenting the historical citations:

Can you please do the same and help spell out the argument that a Libertarian friend tried to explain to me?
The argument was something along the lines
that if the 2nd Amendment is about state militia taking arms against
the federal govt, then that means the insurrection of the states against the federal union would have been legal.

Otherwise, the implication is that the state militias would be aligned with federal govt in enforcing the laws from that controlling entity, so the taking up of arms to oppose criminal abuse or tyranny would lie with the people.

He was saying "you can't have it both ways."
I got it when he explained it, but can't repeat it back the way he did in detail.
Can you do that? It's like understanding the language when someone else speaks it, but not being fluent enough to repeat back or speak myself. But if someone else does, I get it.

This argument went a bit over my head, but I thought it might work better.
Can you reconstruct the argument based on my description of it? Thanks!

Article 1, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To....

(whole bunch of stuff)

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

"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;"

Then you have Article 1, Section 10:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Then, the 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Then, the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


The States did not have the power to raise an army or "keep troops" without the consent of Congress. States were also restricted in the power to enter into agreements with each other or form confederations. So, States could not take up arms against the federal government, even though the question about whether they could leave the Union was still undecided until the 1860s.

The 9th Amendment prohibits the Constitution from being interpreted in a way that denies the people their pre-existing rights, or "natural rights" that existed before government existed. We the people created the government. A natural right of the people is self-determination, and thereby, self-governance. We can vote out a government we don't like. If that government refuses to get out, we force it, with guns.

Am I on topic?

 

[francoHFW]

We have already had plenty of Regulation until the last 20 years of insanity, so no such thing is needed.

The Scary-Looking Weapons Ban?


I bought a post-ban civilian AK-47 for dirt cheap. Looked exactly like this one:

This is what the pre-ban civilian AK looked like:

That's what the Scary-Looking Gun Ban (Assault Weapons Ban) did.

JACK SHIT!!!

It didn't effect crime either.

Admit that you want to infringe on the right of Americans to have guns. Just admit it, so we can go ahead and have this war. This death by a thousand cuts bullshit is OVER. We want full repeal, and let States make their own gun laws, as was intended.

nobody needs an army machine gun or anything that looks like it. they are advertised that way now you're a man now your Macho now you can kill . We should also make armor illegal and cut the Macho bulshit. You can hunt and you can defend your house with a all kinds of Rifle hunting rifles and shotguns. You assholes are deluded and aren't going to save us from tyranny. Absolute brainwashed fear mongered right-wing insanity.

 

[francoHFW]

We have already had plenty of Regulation until the last 20 years of insanity, so no such thing is needed.

The Scary-Looking Weapons Ban?


I bought a post-ban civilian AK-47 for dirt cheap. Looked exactly like this one:

This is what the pre-ban civilian AK looked like:

That's what the Scary-Looking Gun Ban (Assault Weapons Ban) did.

JACK SHIT!!!

It didn't effect crime either.

Admit that you want to infringe on the right of Americans to have guns. Just admit it, so we can go ahead and have this war. This death by a thousand cuts bullshit is OVER. We want full repeal, and let States make their own gun laws, as was intended.

nobody needs an army machine gun or anything that looks like it. they are advertised that way now you're a man now your Macho now you can kill . We should also make armor illegal and cut the Macho bulshit. You can hunt and you can defend your house with a all kinds of Rifle hunting rifles and shotguns. You assholes are deluded and aren't going to save us from tyranny. Absolute brainwashed fear mongered right-wing insanity.

No imentally ill person should have guns especially a collection of military assault weapons with bump stocks...

 

[francoHFW]

After 30 years of b******* misinformation propaganda and the NRA going batshit, 1 wonders when the semi insane GOP voters will come back to the Civilized world. All people need is hunting guns to protect themselves. Our country is close to insane at this point. The hero in this case should not be allowed assault rifles because that would have stopped the mentally ill guy from having an assault rifle. Duh.

Okay. Call for a constitutional convention. Congress was not given the Constitutional authority to regulate firearms, but they are doing it anyway. Change the Constitution, and you can get your way.

The Supreme Court says regulation is just fine. I think I'll go with them, not you're brainwashed far right bulshit thank you very much LOL

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dear frigidweirdo
A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
and is not the original intent?

B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
because it hasn't been struck down

what about new laws like conceal and carry.

new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.

Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.

So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
'

I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "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 and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.

The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.

No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.

Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.

Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.

what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?

Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?

Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.

If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.

I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision. I wonder why you ignore that?

because it *****-slaps frigid's faux argument

I gave my response, you can go and look at it. You can also go see how many times I've replied to Westwall in the last few years.... you won't find anything.

I could argue what he said, but I choose not to.

Now, when it comes to YOU, I'm wondering why you have been unable to answer my initial question. Every time you duck and dive and attack in order to not answer a SIMPLE question about a document from the Founding Fathers.....

Law degree, my ass.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

The wellness of regulation?


But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right. I am ******* tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the **** up.

Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.

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

It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.

The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.

I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.

So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.

This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!

Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo

Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.

I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief. I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
I would be MISERABLE AS FU.

I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.

So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.

Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.

So glad I take this approach.

Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.

It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.

So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.

He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.

You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.

The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.

I'm sorry Emily, I really don't see how you have come to the conclusion that "the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia."

I didn't say that. I'm worried that you're not understanding what I'm writing, or worried even more that you're not reading what I'm writing and just thinking you know what I'm saying.

I'll explain.

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons. The reason why this is protected in the 2A is so that it protects the militia. The US federal govt could call people up into federal service, then take away their guns while there. The 2A prevents this.

An individual gets to keep guns when not in the militia too. The reason for the protection is the militia, but this doesn't limit ownership to militia membership in any way.

Why? Well, because this would destroy the militia. The militia needs a ready supply of arms in times of need, you take them away from individuals in times with no need, then in times of need there is no need.

The same for the right to bear arms. You have a right to be in the militia in times of quiet and in times of need. Without people being in the militia in times of quiet, then in times of need it might be impossible to get into the militia.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We have already had plenty of Regulation until the last 20 years of insanity, so no such thing is needed.

The Scary-Looking Weapons Ban?


I bought a post-ban civilian AK-47 for dirt cheap. Looked exactly like this one:

This is what the pre-ban civilian AK looked like:

That's what the Scary-Looking Gun Ban (Assault Weapons Ban) did.

JACK SHIT!!!

It didn't effect crime either.

Admit that you want to infringe on the right of Americans to have guns. Just admit it, so we can go ahead and have this war. This death by a thousand cuts bullshit is OVER. We want full repeal, and let States make their own gun laws, as was intended.

nobody needs an army machine gun or anything that looks like it. they are advertised that way now you're a man now your Macho now you can kill . We should also make armor illegal and cut the Macho bulshit. You can hunt and you can defend your house with a all kinds of Rifle hunting rifles and shotguns. You assholes are deluded and aren't going to save us from tyranny. Absolute brainwashed fear mongered right-wing insanity.

No imentally ill person should have guns especially a collection of military assault weapons with bump stocks...

Anyone who is adjudicated mentally ill cannot own firearms.

 

[Skull Pilot]

what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?

Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?

Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.

If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.

I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision. I wonder why you ignore that?

Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.

Oh? I see. When presented by facts that completely destroy your meme you flee. i get it. Then by all means go someplace else. This Board is for adults to discuss things. I am sure there are play pens out there for those of your ilk.

This baiting is the EXACT reason why people hate you and want to put you on ignore. The exact reason why you should NOT be a moderator on this site.

Only pussies put people on ignore

 

[francoHFW]

We have already had plenty of Regulation until the last 20 years of insanity, so no such thing is needed.

The Scary-Looking Weapons Ban?


I bought a post-ban civilian AK-47 for dirt cheap. Looked exactly like this one:

This is what the pre-ban civilian AK looked like:

That's what the Scary-Looking Gun Ban (Assault Weapons Ban) did.

JACK SHIT!!!

It didn't effect crime either.

Admit that you want to infringe on the right of Americans to have guns. Just admit it, so we can go ahead and have this war. This death by a thousand cuts bullshit is OVER. We want full repeal, and let States make their own gun laws, as was intended.

nobody needs an army machine gun or anything that looks like it. they are advertised that way now you're a man now your Macho now you can kill . We should also make armor illegal and cut the Macho bulshit. You can hunt and you can defend your house with a all kinds of Rifle hunting rifles and shotguns. You assholes are deluded and aren't going to save us from tyranny. Absolute brainwashed fear mongered right-wing insanity.

No imentally ill person should have guns especially a collection of military assault weapons with bump stocks...

Anyone who is adjudicated mentally ill cannot own firearms.

Supposedly, in a perfect world, if you're an idiot

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Sigh. What I find is that people on this forum often end up arguing what they're comfortable arguing with. They often decide what the other person is saying BEFORE they're bothered to read what the other person has said, and therefore don't need to read what the other person has said as they BELIEVE they know what has been said.

Yes, the Second Amendment emphasizes the importance of the militia. Why? Because the Amendment is ABOUT THE MILITIA.

You say the right is reserved to the people. Yet I wrote "The right to keep arms is the right of individuals" and "The right to bear arms is the right of individuals" and you're attacking me for saying it's not the right of individuals. Are you ******* serious?


Here's the other deal, let's see if you bother to read this.

Each right in the US Bill of Rights is there for a reason. The reason is politics.

The First Amendment has the right to freedom of religion, right to protest and right of freedom of speech and the press. All of these are protected in the First Amendment because of their impact on politics.

Freedom of speech so you can talk about politics, freedom to protest so you can protest politicians, freedom of religion so there isn't a state religion.

Of course individuals can use their freedom of speech in other ways, there is no limit on the freedom of speech to just politics.

However in the Bill of Rights there is no protection of the right to walk. The right to breathe. The right to eat food. The right to play games. There are so many things NOT PROTECTED, and that's because they're not directly connected with politics. Hence the 10th Amendment.

The Second Amendment is about the militia. That's what it starts with "A well regulated militia..." It protects the militia by protecting individuals.

No, it's NOT about the militia. It's about the Right of the People, or as you insist, the right of individuals, to keep and bear arms. The dependent clause about the militia is just one justification for the 2nd Amendment.

Yes, the first part is the justification for putting the protection of the right in the first place.

Now, you have an amendment which is in the US Constitution in order to protect the militia.

You have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" and "militia duty".

You do NOT have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean carrying arms around.

You have the Supreme Court saying that the right to bear arms does not mean carrying arms around.

You do NOT have the Supreme Court saying the 2A protects carrying arms around.

So, which part makes you think "bear arms" means "carrying guns around"?

I'm confused at how people can take such evidence and then be like "nah, I don't like it, I'll ignore it ALL".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, it is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

REGARDLESS? no, in ADDITION to, as part of the greater
body of Constitutional laws and principles.

You must be sarcastic here
There is even an Amendment that specifies enumeration of rights is not to disparage others.

But seriously danielpalos you do make a point
that DOES WORK with Conservatives and Constitutionalists:

You are RIGHT that no law including the Second Amendment
can be "taken out of context" with the REST of the Constitutional laws.

This is also why I make the argument that both sides'
political beliefs on this MUST BE EQUALLY included
represented and protected from exclusion or discrimination.

Because OTHERWISE it would VIOLATE the
First and Fourteenth Amendments on equal protection
of the laws including religious freedom.

So danielpalos both you and others have equal right
to exercise and defend your respective political beliefs.
If we are REALLY to enforce equal Constitutional protections
for ALL PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF CREED.

Thanks for showing why this is so important danielpalos
if people like me didn't include and respect your beliefs equally
you would be excluded from expressing and exercising them!

So by the same token, those with opposing beliefs and
interpretations from yours equally invoke the same freedom
to DEFEND THEIR INTERPRETATION AND BELIEFS FROM YOURS.

I hope you get this point.
Maybe frigidweirdo will get it
and understand why it's so hard for Conservatives to
accommodate and include "views they believe to be WRONG":
when frigidweirdo and apparently you
have the same difficulty acknowledging valid rights
to believe YOU believe are wrong as well!

I hope the irony isn't lost on you
and that you are both intelligent to see that this is mutual
where both sides struggle to manage conflicts with beliefs
they believe are just plain wrong and have no standing
to be taken seriously! My goodness, please tell me
you get this even where you don't agree with the opposing beliefs!

I don't have to agree with your and frigidweirdo's statements
views and beliefs to defend your right to those equally under
Constitutional principles ethics and standards;
am I the only one willing to do that here?

Good ness!!!!

The problem here Emily is that laws have been made. You disagree with the laws, so you pretend that the laws mean something different to what they actually mean in order to promote your own view on the matter.

Everything I have said is backed up with plenty of evidence. Everything you have said has been backed up with almost nothing other than your own opinion.

 

[danielpalos]

dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.

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

It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.

Indeed. And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". What part of that sentence do you not understand?

Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

the unorganized militia may be infringed.

I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.

That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.

The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.

Both the House, the Senate, and the POTUS were solid left wingers. The Court was evenly split. As usual you are factually wrong.

You must be on the right wing. How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.

Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.