The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

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.

Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia? Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.

Article 1, Section 8:

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;

So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority. Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right? That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).

If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!

The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right. Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state. But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.

It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.

I am not going to re-quote all the founders again. You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot. You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.

I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning. If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.

I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Dear danielpalos
do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?

When people TODAY don't even "all agree"

What makes you think they would have agreed back
then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!

The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.

They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.

So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?

 

[westwall]

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.

Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia? Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.

Article 1, Section 8:

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;

So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority. Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right? That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).

If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!

The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right. Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state. But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.

It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.

I am not going to re-quote all the founders again. You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot. You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.

I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning. If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.

I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Except for the word people...

The People, not the Person. There are no Individual rights. The People are the Militia.

Yep. You don't understand the English language. That is abundantly clear. Of course you are a self described Federalist, and they were for an authoritarian government. it was because of them that the 2nd was a REQUIREMENT, as a part of the Bill of Rights, for the COTUS to be accepted.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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".

I know you are just determined to change the subject, but since I haven't said a word about "carrying guns around", I'll just leave you to your fantasy.

Right now I'm making the case that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty".

If you jump into someone else's conversation and then complain that you did not say something that is the debate, then that's your problem.

There appear, at this point, to be two argument.

The first is mine, backed up with sources from the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, you name it.

The second is that "bear arms" means carry arms.

The only evidence for this is that "bear" can mean "carry" therefore it MUST mean carry even though there are 5 different definitions for the term "bear" and that if you ignore all of my evidence, then there's no evidence to suggest that "bear arms" means carry arms.

Would you care to join this discussion or not?

 

[westwall]

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.

Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia? Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.

Article 1, Section 8:

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;

So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority. Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right? That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).

If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!

The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right. Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state. But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.

It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.

I am not going to re-quote all the founders again. You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot. You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.

I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning. If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.

I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Dear danielpalos
do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?

When people TODAY don't even "all agree"

What makes you think they would have agreed back
then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!

The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.

They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.

So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?

No, silly person. It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.

Run along little sheep, run along.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

You have already been schooled on this repeatedly. You are wrong. You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes. Time for you to get some new material.

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.

sorry R2D2 militias don't have rights, people do. the right of individual people cannot be infringed.

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

 

[turtledude]

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.

Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia? Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.

Article 1, Section 8:

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;

So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority. Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right? That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).

If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!

The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right. Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state. But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.

It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.

I am not going to re-quote all the founders again. You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot. You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.

I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning. If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.

I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Factually wrong as you have been shown REPEATEDLY. It truly is amazing how divorced from reality you are. I find it amusing the mental gymnastics you must contort yourself into that you can even begin to think that the Bill of Rights enumerates all of these INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, but then they keep one for the government. As completely laughable a position as you can get.

dude; You do not know what you are talking about.

The subject of Arms is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8. It really is that simple.

chip's not working. you haven't a clue of what your maker programmed you to say

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia? Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.

Article 1, Section 8:

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;

So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority. Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right? That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).

If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!

The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right. Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state. But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.

It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.

I am not going to re-quote all the founders again. You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot. You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.

I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning. If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.

I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Except for the word people...

The People, not the Person. There are no Individual rights. The People are the Militia.

Yep. You don't understand the English language. That is abundantly clear. Of course you are a self described Federalist, and they were for an authoritarian government. it was because of them that the 2nd was a REQUIREMENT, as a part of the Bill of Rights, for the COTUS to be accepted.

Irrelevant to the current topic. The People are the Militia. The subject of Arms for the militia is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.

 

[turtledude]

You have already been schooled on this repeatedly. You are wrong. You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes. Time for you to get some new material.

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.

sorry R2D2 militias don't have rights, people do. the right of individual people cannot be infringed.

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

yep, you must have read Cruikshank and my buddy St George Tucker

 

[turtledude]

Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia? Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.

Article 1, Section 8:

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;

So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority. Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right? That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).

If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!

The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right. Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state. But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.

It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.

I am not going to re-quote all the founders again. You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot. You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.

I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning. If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.

I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Except for the word people...

The People, not the Person. There are no Individual rights. The People are the Militia.

Yep. You don't understand the English language. That is abundantly clear. Of course you are a self described Federalist, and they were for an authoritarian government. it was because of them that the 2nd was a REQUIREMENT, as a part of the Bill of Rights, for the COTUS to be accepted.

Irrelevant to the current topic. The People are the Militia. The subject of Arms for the militia is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.

where did the founders ever use the term "socialized"

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia? Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.

Article 1, Section 8:

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;

So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority. Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right? That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).

If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!

The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right. Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state. But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.

It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.

I am not going to re-quote all the founders again. You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot. You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.

I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning. If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.

I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Dear danielpalos
do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?

When people TODAY don't even "all agree"

What makes you think they would have agreed back
then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!

The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.

They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.

So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?

No, silly person. It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.

Run along little sheep, run along.

Nothing but diversion, right wingers?

The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.

It really is that simple, except to the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

You have already been schooled on this repeatedly. You are wrong. You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes. Time for you to get some new material.

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.

sorry R2D2 militias don't have rights, people do. the right of individual people cannot be infringed.

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia? Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.

Article 1, Section 8:

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;

So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority. Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right? That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).

If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!

The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right. Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state. But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.

It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.

I am not going to re-quote all the founders again. You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot. You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.

I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning. If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.

I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Dear danielpalos
do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?

When people TODAY don't even "all agree"

What makes you think they would have agreed back
then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!

The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.

They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.

So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?

No, silly person. It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.

Run along little sheep, run along.

Dear westwall to be as fair and understanding as I can be,
I'd say the reason behind their views is they really truly BELIEVE
this to be the truth. Just like Christians KNOW God to be true
and just can't understand anything else or less. And how atheists
or secular nontheists just KNOW you don't need a God or Jesus,
and the religions that insist on that just must be wrong because
otherwise it leaves people out who just don't think that way.

Both sides truly believe they are expressing the truth, and
the other ways are projecting something else that isn't universal or
absolute truth.

Honestly westwall they just can't help but seeing it that way.
Just like atheists can't help it.
Or Christians can't help it.

The people who can't wrap their minds around same sex marriage
or see gender as anything by genetically chromosomal
can't help that.

The people who see gender as internally relative
and culturally subjective can't help that either.

When it comes to deep seated beliefs, insulting or attacking
people for whatever reason they have those view or whatever
ways they are able or UNABLE to explain why they do,
none of that helps or changes anything.

The main thing is neither should govt or laws be abused
to penalize people for beliefs they just can't help.
If that's what they believe, they have equal right to exercise
and express their views without penalty or discrimination by govt,
THEY JUST CAN'T ABUSE GOVT TO IMPOSE THEM EITHER.

I don't get it, I really hoped people could at least
SEE that both sides have their own beliefs.
But by their beliefs, they really believe their way is historically
true and can't see how the other sides beliefs have any validity.

And that is part of their beliefs!
Similar to the right to health care folks who can't see it
any other way but it must be through govt in order to
be established equally for all people. That's their belief, too.

They think that is natural, similar to how ChrisL was
arguing the right to bear arms is natural.

These political beliefs are something else!

 

[danielpalos]

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Except for the word people...

The People, not the Person. There are no Individual rights. The People are the Militia.

Yep. You don't understand the English language. That is abundantly clear. Of course you are a self described Federalist, and they were for an authoritarian government. it was because of them that the 2nd was a REQUIREMENT, as a part of the Bill of Rights, for the COTUS to be accepted.

Irrelevant to the current topic. The People are the Militia. The subject of Arms for the militia is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.

where did the founders ever use the term "socialized"

irrelevant to the discussion; the right wing has nothing but diversion and want to be taken seriously.

 

[emilynghiem]

Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia? Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.

Article 1, Section 8:

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;

So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority. Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right? That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).

If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!

The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right. Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state. But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.

It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.

I am not going to re-quote all the founders again. You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot. You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.

I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning. If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.

I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Dear danielpalos
do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?

When people TODAY don't even "all agree"

What makes you think they would have agreed back
then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!

The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.

They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.

So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?

No, silly person. It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.

Run along little sheep, run along.

Nothing but diversion, right wingers?

The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.

It really is that simple, except to the right wing.

Dear danielpalos
It's the liberals I have found who can't separate state and federal govt
but treat all govt the same.

The conservatives tend to distinguish federal from state, and state from people (though they do generally trust the states to be closer to the people than the federal govt which is more about governing relations across all states)

The same Constitutional BELIEFS that rights are inherent among PEOPLE FIRST, as HUMAN BEINGS under natural laws, clearly distinguish PEOPLE
from either state or federal govt.

so danielpalos you would have to understanding THIS concept,
to include the belief or concept of natural rights that people are born with
in order to understand the distinction here that you are dismissing.

 

[danielpalos]

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Dear danielpalos
do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?

When people TODAY don't even "all agree"

What makes you think they would have agreed back
then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!

The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.

They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.

So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?

No, silly person. It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.

Run along little sheep, run along.

Nothing but diversion, right wingers?

The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.

It really is that simple, except to the right wing.

Dear danielpalos
It's the liberals I have found who can't separate state and federal govt
but treat all govt the same.

The conservatives tend to distinguish federal from state, and state from people (though they do generally trust the states to be closer to the people than the federal govt which is more about governing relations across all states)

The same Constitutional BELIEFS that rights are inherent among PEOPLE FIRST, as HUMAN BEINGS under natural laws, clearly distinguish PEOPLE
from either state or federal govt.

so danielpalos you would have to understanding THIS concept,
to include the belief or concept of natural rights that people are born with
in order to understand the distinction here that you are dismissing.

The right wing talks a good game, but they are just socialists and don't know it.

At least, some on the left are trying to be poets, and know it.

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

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?

If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?

Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.

Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."

Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning ******* "KEEP" but some other nonsense.


You communists are so predictable. You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now. We will ******* smoke your commie asses. In fact, please try. Please.

So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?

The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"

Is this one right or is this two rights?

For example, the First Amendment

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.

The 4A

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.

Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.

Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.

The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".

No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.

Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.

"The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.

"bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".

KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP

Heller confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.

You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that, the Heller holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.

The mental gynastics is glorious.

Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.

Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.

The founders and Constitution say otherwise if you were a real American.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

sorry R2D2 militias don't have rights, people do. the right of individual people cannot be infringed.

But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.

yep, you must have read Cruikshank and my buddy St George Tucker

I've read Cruikshank, I'm just waiting for your argument on it.

Go read Harry Potter, somewhere in one of those books there's some evidence for my argument. When you've found that piece of evidence, I'll tell you what my argument is......

Are you up for that? Because that's what shit you're sending to me.

 

[danielpalos]

Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."

Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning ******* "KEEP" but some other nonsense.


You communists are so predictable. You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now. We will ******* smoke your commie asses. In fact, please try. Please.

So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?

The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"

Is this one right or is this two rights?

For example, the First Amendment

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.

The 4A

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.

Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.

Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.

The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".

No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.

Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.

"The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.

"bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".

KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP

Heller confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.

You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that, the Heller holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.

The mental gynastics is glorious.

Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.

Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.

The founders and Constitution say otherwise if you were a real American.

Where? Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I have danielpalos on ignore. Let me guess:

"Only Congress can determine the wellness of regulation of the milipeople or rhe peoplitia. Clueless and Causeless right wing morons fail to understand my reasoning which is backed soley by my buzzwors."

Did I get it right?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I have danielpalos on ignore. Let me guess:

"Only Congress can determine the wellness of regulation of the milipeople or rhe peoplitia. Clueless and Causeless right wing morons fail to understand my reasoning which is backed soley by my buzzwors."

Did I get it right?

The right is inherent. The Constitutiondoes not grant the right, but protects the people from the federal government.