The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,

The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.

The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.

That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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

The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.

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

Amendment 14.

Irrelevant.

 

[hadit]

The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,

The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.

The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.

That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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

The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.

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

Amendment 14.

You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?

 

[Bezukhov]

What about my right to arm bears?

 

[Rigby5]

The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,

The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.

The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.

That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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

The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.

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

Amendment 14.

You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?

I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.

 

[InspectorDetector]

Where does it state that?

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 or 16

"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

That's good enough for me, skippy.......

 

[Rigby5]

Where does it state that?

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 or 16

That only allows the federal government to tax in order to pay for arms if needed for something big, like defense from an invasion. It does not imply that the federal government was the normal source of arms for the militia before it was called for federal duty, and that implies each individual was to arm themselves. Which is the only logical interpretation since there were no significant police back then, and there were things like native uprisings, etc.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Keep

 

[Rigby5]

Keep

Correct.
{... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed ...}
It does not say the Organized Militia can be provisioned by the federal armories.
It says the individual people have a right to keep arms, which implies they own them and are in their homes.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

If the second was intended to insure the preservation of the militia’s arms, it would have been worded: the militias rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Instead the Bill of Rights, which is all about INDIVIDUAL rights, not collective rights, say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Lesh]

Keep

Correct.
{... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed ...}
It does not say the Organized Militia can be provisioned by the federal armories.
It says the individual people have a right to keep arms, which implies they own them and are in their homes.

Actually it does. It says that because of their need in militia duty they should be protected.

 

[danielpalos]

The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,

The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.

The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.

That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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

The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.

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

Amendment 14.

You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?

I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context. Our Second Amendment is clear.

What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?

 

[danielpalos]

The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,

The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.

The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.

That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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

The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.

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

Amendment 14.

You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?

I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.

This is a State's sovereign right:

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]

Where does it state that?

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 or 16

"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

That's good enough for me, skippy.......

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Where does it state that?

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 or 16

That only allows the federal government to tax in order to pay for arms if needed for something big, like defense from an invasion. It does not imply that the federal government was the normal source of arms for the militia before it was called for federal duty, and that implies each individual was to arm themselves. Which is the only logical interpretation since there were no significant police back then, and there were things like native uprisings, etc.

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;

 

[danielpalos]

Keep

Correct.
{... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed ...}
It does not say the Organized Militia can be provisioned by the federal armories.
It says the individual people have a right to keep arms, which implies they own them and are in their homes.

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;

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[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.

If the second was intended to insure the preservation of the militia’s arms, it would have been worded: the militias rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Instead the Bill of Rights, which is all about INDIVIDUAL rights, not collective rights, say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The People are the Militia. Only well regulated Militias of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary to the security of our free States.

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

 

[hadit]

The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,

The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.

The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.

That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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

The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.

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

Amendment 14.

You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?

I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context. Our Second Amendment is clear.

What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?

That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.

 

[Lesh]

The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,

The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.

The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.

That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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

The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.

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

Amendment 14.

You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?

I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context. Our Second Amendment is clear.

What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?

That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.

In the context of a well regulated militia. Yes. Very clear

 

[hadit]

The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,

The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.

The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.

That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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

The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.

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

Amendment 14.

You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?

I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context. Our Second Amendment is clear.

What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?

That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.

In the context of a well regulated militia. Yes. Very clear

That's a reason they gave for the freedom being protected, but it's not restrictive. IOW, they might as well have said, "Because we need to be warm in the winter, the right to wear a coat shall not be infringed". That doesn't mean your right to wear a coat only exists in the winter but not in the fall or spring. It merely defines a reason for your freedom to wear a coat.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,

The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.

The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.

That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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

The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.

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

Amendment 14.

You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?

I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.

Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.

The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion. It really screws up all else.