The Right To Bear Arms

[hadit]

The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?

Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State. And, you ignore this fact under the common law.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?

The People are the Militia. Only right wingers, never get it.

Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

 

[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.

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;

Which means that the government should be providing the arms people have the right to keep.

They do have a right to keep and bear Arms when necessary for the security of our free States or the Union. Otherwise, the Traditional police power of a State applies.

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

You're turning an explanatory clause into a command clause. The militia is but one reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it's not the only one. Ultimately, what is protected? Say it, you know you can.

 

[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

Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the terms employed in our Second Amendment. A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right and authority to draft their own militia from the body of the People.

The bottom line remains, then, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.

That means lgbtq individuals of the people may not be denied and disparaged when the security of our free States or the Union requires it.

Who is saying they should be? You know I just caught you trying to divert again. Remember now, YOU brought sexual orientation into this, not me or anyone else, that's all on YOU.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Course there is no militia anymore so...

Are you blind or dumb? There are now, and always have been in America, many many militias units. In addition they can form quickly as long as people have arms which is a primary virtue.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Daniel,

1. Has any nation with a well armed populace fallen to a tyrant?
2. Do tyrants typically reveal themselves as tyrants before or after they disarm the populace?

Appreciate you asking that for me, since I have his stupid butt on ignore.

 

[danielpalos]

What is necessary is for individuals to bear arms.

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;

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.

 

[danielpalos]

The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?

Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State. And, you ignore this fact under the common law.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?

The People are the Militia. Only right wingers, never get it.

Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

That makes so sense whatsoever. The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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;

Which means that the government should be providing the arms people have the right to keep.

They do have a right to keep and bear Arms when necessary for the security of our free States or the Union. Otherwise, the Traditional police power of a State applies.

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

You're turning an explanatory clause into a command clause. The militia is but one reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it's not the only one. Ultimately, what is protected? Say it, you know you can.

The intent and purposes clause cannot be ignored without appealing to ignorance of the law.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

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;

Which means that the government should be providing the arms people have the right to keep.

They do have a right to keep and bear Arms when necessary for the security of our free States or the Union. Otherwise, the Traditional police power of a State applies.

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

You're turning an explanatory clause into a command clause. The militia is but one reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it's not the only one. Ultimately, what is protected? Say it, you know you can.

The intent and purposes clause cannot be ignored without appealing to ignorance of the law.

What makes you think it is being ignored?

Millions of citizens are armed and ready to defend the homeland.

The operative clause cannot be ignored. To do so is purpose without action.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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;

Which means that the government should be providing the arms people have the right to keep.

They do have a right to keep and bear Arms when necessary for the security of our free States or the Union. Otherwise, the Traditional police power of a State applies.

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

You're turning an explanatory clause into a command clause. The militia is but one reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it's not the only one. Ultimately, what is protected? Say it, you know you can.

The intent and purposes clause cannot be ignored without appealing to ignorance of the law.

What makes you think it is being ignored?

Millions of citizens are armed and ready to defend the homeland.

The operative clause cannot be ignored. To do so is purpose without action.

Because all terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.

And, the means must be sacrificed to the end and not the opposite.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because all terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.

So, no individual has a right to be secure in his/her/its home from unreasonable searches?

All terms in the 4th Amendment are "collective" and plural.



Your collectivist argument falls to pieces every single time.

Look, if you don't like the 2A, AMEND. Otherwise, deal with it.

 

[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.

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;

Which means that the government should be providing the arms people have the right to keep.

They do have a right to keep and bear Arms when necessary for the security of our free States or the Union. Otherwise, the Traditional police power of a State applies.

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

You're turning an explanatory clause into a command clause. The militia is but one reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it's not the only one. Ultimately, what is protected? Say it, you know you can.

The intent and purposes clause cannot be ignored without appealing to ignorance of the law.

What makes you think it is being ignored?

Millions of citizens are armed and ready to defend the homeland.

The operative clause cannot be ignored. To do so is purpose without action.

Because all terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.

And, the means must be sacrificed to the end and not the opposite.

Thus you are only allowed free speech if you're part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest group. Which group are you part of?

 

[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.

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;

Which means that the government should be providing the arms people have the right to keep.

They do have a right to keep and bear Arms when necessary for the security of our free States or the Union. Otherwise, the Traditional police power of a State applies.

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

You're turning an explanatory clause into a command clause. The militia is but one reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it's not the only one. Ultimately, what is protected? Say it, you know you can.

The intent and purposes clause cannot be ignored without appealing to ignorance of the law.

No one's ignoring it. The people need to bear arms so the militia can be formed. And, based on what you keep posting, the government is supposed to arm the people for that purpose.

 

[hadit]

The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?

Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State. And, you ignore this fact under the common law.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?

The People are the Militia. Only right wingers, never get it.

Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

That makes so sense whatsoever. The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

 

[Markle]

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}.

Except for the fact that the government has been incapable of describing an assault weapon.

For instance, what is the difference in these two weapons?

 

[hadit]

What is necessary is for individuals to bear arms.

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;

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 you are, the government owes me some weapons. Note that word you underlined.

 

[hadit]

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}.

Except for the fact that the government has been incapable of describing an assault weapon.

For instance, what is the difference in these two weapons?

Liberals fear big and black, so any gun that's big and black will be an assault weapon they want to ban.

 

[Markle]

I'm having a hard time deciding who is the biggest Troll, danielpalos or Lesh. I think they're in a contest with each other to the bottom of the pond.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?

Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State. And, you ignore this fact under the common law.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?

The People are the Militia. Only right wingers, never get it.

So, the people have the right, not the militia?

Or does the militia have the right, and not the prople?

But, wait.....the people are the militia!!! But the people are not individuals, so individuals don't get the right....just the people...

I am so confused!!!



Dan, your "logic" blows donkey ass. To interpret things your way tortures the words and meanings.

The plain language is clear.

It's even more clear given the context and circumstances at the time it was ratified.

A militia is necessary, so the right of individuals (people) to obtain their own military arms, and keep those arms, and be ready to answer the call to arms, JUST LIKE THE MINUTE MEN AT THE TIME THE 2A WAS DRAFTED, shall not be infringed.

It is the only interpretation that makes sense.

 

[asaratis]

9500