The Right To Bear Arms

[Markle]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:

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.

And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State. It really is that simple.

Thanks for posting the full Amendment.

Note that it points out the reason it exists "A Well Regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Let's chart that out, for the English language illiterate......

View attachment 479640

So good, I had to steal it!

I hated diagraming sentences in high school but it did help me along in life!

 

[danielpalos]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.

You are very confused.

Who has a right to assemble? Is that a right held individually or by a group?

You don't know the answer.

There is if you understand the context. Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.

How can one person peaceably assemble? Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?

It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.

I am not sure what you mean.

Here is the express law:

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.

There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.

how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?

In Daniel's world you don't.

Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.

just answer the question

There is no such Thing as a Militia of One under our Constitutional form of Government.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.

You are very confused.

Who has a right to assemble? Is that a right held individually or by a group?

You don't know the answer.

There is if you understand the context. Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.

How can one person peaceably assemble? Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?

It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.

I am not sure what you mean.

Here is the express law:

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.

There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.

how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?

In Daniel's world you don't.

Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.

just answer the question

There is no such Thing as a Militia of One under our Constitutional form of Government.

"People" is made up of individuals. A "Militia" may be necessary, but the people (and each person) retains the right to keep and bear arms.

You are a fool to tie it to the Militia. It was a preexisting individual right. The 2A take authority away from the Federal Government.

 

[Rigby5]

Course there is no militia anymore so...

Wrong.
There many uses for the militia.
The federal and state government are two, but they prefer now to use the National Guard instead.
However, the municipalities still need and authorize posses, which are also the militia.
And every home owner has a legitimate use of the militia when they protect themselves from home invasion.
So the federal government gets no say in who the militia is or what it does.
All the federal government can do is call on the militia for help if it wants to.
It can not disband or disarm it.
Neither can the state.

 

[Rigby5]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:

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.

And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State. It really is that simple.

Thanks for posting the full Amendment.

Note that it points out the reason it exists "A Well Regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

I posted instructions for danielpalos to learn about commas, I mistakenly presumed that you would learn from it too. Apparently, neither of you could learn from that one, how about this one?

Are you really so ignorant about punctuation in the English language or are you pretending to be ignorant? How can we tell?

Did someone tell you that a comma negates what comes before it?

That clause is there for a reason. It tells you WHY the entire sentence exists

Wrong.
I agree with the idea that the first half of the sentence is giving a reason why the federal government is to be prohibited from infringing on gun rights, but when you list a reason, that in no way implies it is the ONLY reason.
If you reworded it slightly to:

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state, then the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

That in no way implies that the need for a well regulated militia is the ONLY reason why the federal government is banned from any gun laws, and it would not matter what it implied because it still means a total ban on any federal weapons legislation.

If what you are trying to imply is that the 2nd amendment was only to ensure the National Guard was armed, that would make no sense. That would be something silly like:

Because the National Guard is necessary for national defense, the federal government shall not disarm the National Guard.

And clearly that is not the intent. The key words are that armed are necessary for a "free state", and that meant each state had its own need for an armed population. The need for an armed force by the federal government was not at all primary.

 

[WinterBorn]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.

You are very confused.

Who has a right to assemble? Is that a right held individually or by a group?

You don't know the answer.

There is if you understand the context. Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.

How can one person peaceably assemble? Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?

It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.

I am not sure what you mean.

Here is the express law:

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.

There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.

how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?

In Daniel's world you don't.

Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.

just answer the question

There is no such Thing as a Militia of One under our Constitutional form of Government.

Says who? Show me a single constitutional requirements for the number of people it takes to form a militia.

 

[Rigby5]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.

You are very confused.

Who has a right to assemble? Is that a right held individually or by a group?

You don't know the answer.

There is if you understand the context. Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.

How can one person peaceably assemble? Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?

It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.

I am not sure what you mean.

Here is the express law:

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.

There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.

how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?

In Daniel's world you don't.

Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.

just answer the question

There is no such Thing as a Militia of One under our Constitutional form of Government.

Nonsense.
Almost every state constitution has the definition of its militia, as being every able bodied male.

For example, this is from the Constitution of the State of Virginia.
{...
§ 44-1. Composition of militia.
The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age. The militia shall be divided into three classes: the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; and the unorganized militia.

...}

Title 44. Military and Emergency Laws

law.lis.virginia.gov

 

[frigidweirdo]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.

You are very confused.

Who has a right to assemble? Is that a right held individually or by a group?

You don't know the answer.

There is if you understand the context. Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.

How can one person peaceably assemble? Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?

It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.

I am not sure what you mean.

Here is the express law:

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.

There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.

how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?

In Daniel's world you don't.

Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.

just answer the question

There is no such Thing as a Militia of One under our Constitutional form of Government.

Nonsense.
Almost every state constitution has the definition of its militia, as being every able bodied male.

For example, this is from the Constitution of the State of Virginia.
{...
§ 44-1. Composition of militia.
The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age. The militia shall be divided into three classes: the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; and the unorganized militia.

...}

Title 44. Military and Emergency Laws

law.lis.virginia.gov

Well, the militia of the US is every able bodied male, more or less, it's the "unorganized militia" as created by the Dick Act.

Designed to stop people demanding to be in the National Guard. Because the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia!

 

[Rigby5]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:

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.

And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State. It really is that simple.

Thanks for posting the full Amendment.

Note that it points out the reason it exists "A Well Regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

I posted instructions for danielpalos to learn about commas, I mistakenly presumed that you would learn from it too. Apparently, neither of you could learn from that one, how about this one?

Are you really so ignorant about punctuation in the English language or are you pretending to be ignorant? How can we tell?

Did someone tell you that a comma negates what comes before it?

That clause is there for a reason. It tells you WHY the entire sentence exists

You have forgotten your laws of logic and reasoning.
A single reason for something to be true does not imply there are not others.
If A then B does not imply Not A then Not B.
There can also be if C then B, and C can be true even though A is false.

 

[hadit]

Course there is no militia anymore so...

The Constitutional requirement, though, is that a militia is necessary, and the people need to be armed so it can be formed.

 

[hadit]

Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.

And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment

Right, which means that the militia is necessary, which in turn means that that people have to be armed so the militia can be formed if it's needed.

 

[Lesh]

Course there is no militia anymore so...

The Constitutional requirement, though, is that a militia is necessary, and the people need to be armed so it can be formed.

The idea that we have a militia is as outdated as slavery...which is also codified in the Constitution

 

[Lesh]

A single reason for something to be true does not imply there are not others.

"Other" reasons are NOT in the Constitution. Only a "need" for a militia...which no longer exists.

And if it did it would only "protect" that right for males 17-45 excepting Federal workers (and others)

 

[hadit]

Course there is no militia anymore so...

The Constitutional requirement, though, is that a militia is necessary, and the people need to be armed so it can be formed.

The idea that we have a militia is as outdated as slavery...which is also codified in the Constitution

The Constitution was amended to outlaw slavery. It has not been amended to outlaw the militia. That's the difference.

 

[hadit]

A single reason for something to be true does not imply there are not others.

"Other" reasons are NOT in the Constitution. Only a "need" for a militia...which no longer exists.

And if it did it would only "protect" that right for males 17-45 excepting Federal workers (and others)

It is necessary, though, that we be able to form it if we need it, and the people need to be armed so we can. Look, if you don't like the Constitution the way it's written, amend it.

 

[Lesh]

Again (because you ignored it) the Dick Amendment codified the militia as ONLY protecting gun rights for males 17-45 excepting government workers and numerous others.

Anyone else is subject to state and local laws.

You wanna go that way?

Scalia didn't so he rewrote the whole mess in Heller. He knew that was a losing argument so he decoupled the militia from the 2A

 

[Lesh]

The fact that we regulate machine guns (because of their danger to the public) means that we CAN regulate assault weapons as well for the same reason despite their "need" by the militia (which is a fantasy at this point}.

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 479370

How are terrorist militias considered "well regulated"? Who "regulates" them? How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"? We know who regulates the military and National Guard.

American militia movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You really are desperate, aren't you? Terrorist militias? Are you serious?

Obviously, like your good friend or sock Lesh, you believed that English grammar in school was a waste of good time. Allow me to help you both. Isn't it great that our Founding Fathers were NOT ignorant about punctuation?

Show us where is says you can use a comma to ignore any clause.

 

[danielpalos]

According to Collectivists, there should not be an individual 4th Amendment right.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

No person has an individual right to be secure in his/her person/papers, etc. It's only the the right of the people. Therefore, Government can search and seize without Warrant any individual, but not a collective group of people.

Right?

(yes. your argument is that stupid)

Our Constitution is express not implied in any way. That means, context means everything. There are no Individual or singular terms used in our Second Amendment and the whole and entire People are the militia. You are either, well regulated and necessary or unorganized and subject to the Traditional police power of a State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[danielpalos]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:

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.

And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State. It really is that simple.

And, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is declared protected and shall not be infringed.

It's even more simple.

Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia who keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union.