The Right To Bear Arms

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The only way to protect the citizens from their own fucking government is to arm every man, woman, child, and it, with state of the art infantry weapons and disarm the government.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.

You can't be this stupid.

Or maybe you can, Saul.

 

[jc456]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

Nope

 

[M14 Shooter]

It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection...

This is a lie, as the Framers gave Congress the power to create a standing army for these purposes.

he right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.

This is a lie. as the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people.
Not the state.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia
But, the people

 

[woodwork201]

Has there ever been any government that has not gone completely corrupt within 400 years or so?

Let me fix that for ya:

Has there ever been any government that has not gone completely corrupt within 400 minutes or so?

 

[woodwork201]

The actual only possible interpretation of the Bill of Rights is that the first federal gun control law in 1927, and all federal firearm laws that followed, are simply illegal.
The federal government was clearly denied any firearm jurisdiction at all.

Which law is that?

 

[woodwork201]

This is a lie, as the Framers gave Congress the power to create a standing army for these purposes.

Wrong. State militias were absolutely the Founders vision of the first defense against insurrection and invasion. The Founders were very much against the idea of a standing army. They knew it could be important at times but they limited the Standing Army t o 2-years maximum unless explicitly reauthorized.

Don't let the anti-gunners suck you into their twist of history to tie the 2nd Amendment to the right to keep and bear arms solely to national defense.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong. State militias were absolutely the Founders vision of the first defense against insurrection and invasion. The Founders were very much against the idea of a standing army. They knew it could be important at times but they limited the Standing Army t o 2-years maximum unless explicitly reauthorized.

Don't let the anti-gunners suck you into their twist of history to tie the 2nd Amendment to the right to keep and bear arms.

God you anti firearms types will say anything even when patently false.

 

[woodwork201]

God you anti firearms types will say anything even when patently false.

You're an idiot. I'm the most pro-right to keep and bear arms person on this forum. I'm an absolutist about "shall not be infringed". That is why the argument about using the militia for defense against invasion and the phrase in the 2nd Amendment are so important. It's not the only protection in the 2nd, not just for militia use, but if you allow that the militia is not a purpose then you allow the antis the argument that gun ownership is no longer required.

 

[jc456]

This is a lie, as the Framers gave Congress the power to create a standing army for these purposes.

This is a lie. as the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people.
Not the state.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia
But, the people

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

Text​

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the version passed by Congress and put on display and the versions ratified by the states.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] These differences have been a focus of debate regarding the meaning of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of what the courts have called the prefatory clause.[31][32]

The final, handwritten original of the Bill of Rights as passed by Congress, with the rest of the original prepared by scribe William Lambert, is preserved in the National Archives.[33] This is the version ratified by Delaware[34] and used by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller:

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.[35]

Heller 2008 stated individuals right to bear arms for self defense.

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Second Amendment​

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

 

[jc456]

You're an idiot. I'm the most pro-right to keep and bear arms person on this forum. I'm an absolutist about "shall not be infringed". That is why the argument about using the militia for defense against invasion and the phrase in the 2nd Amendment are so important. It's not the only protection in the 2nd, not just for militia use, but if you allow that the militia is not a purpose then you allow the antis the argument that gun ownership is no longer required.

heller 2008 insures that can't happen. Not sure what you're referring to. I posted the original hand written version.

'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'

Not the militia, the people. The people can protect the state as a militia if necessary. Heller ensured an individual can protect one's home with a gun.

I would take a step further now and say the states can organize a militia to protect the United States over demofks who are trying to take over.

Again, why there can never be an insurrection.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You're an idiot. I'm the most pro-right to keep and bear arms person on this forum. I'm an absolutist about "shall not be infringed". That is why the argument about using the militia for defense against invasion and the phrase in the 2nd Amendment are so important. It's not the only protection in the 2nd, not just for militia use, but if you allow that the militia is not a purpose then you allow the antis the argument that gun ownership is no longer required.

What makes you think the militia is not necessary now, even with a standing army?

A militia is necessary, REGARDLESS of a standing army and ESPECIALLY if there is a standing army.

There MUST be a balance of power.

 

[jc456]

What makes you think the militia is not necessary now, even with a standing army?

A militia is necessary, REGARDLESS of a standing army and ESPECIALLY if there is a standing army.

There MUST be a balance of power.

EXACTLY

national guard ensures states rights.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL

You're an idiot. I'm the most pro-right to keep and bear arms person on this forum. I'm an absolutist about "shall not be infringed". That is why the argument about using the militia for defense against invasion and the phrase in the 2nd Amendment are so important. It's not the only protection in the 2nd, not just for militia use, but if you allow that the militia is not a purpose then you allow the antis the argument that gun ownership is no longer required.

the right was and is intended to be FOR the PEOPLE, as in a right to all citizens, explain in great detail why every other amendment that use the term "the people" is understood to mean an INDIVIDUAL right but some how the 2nd is not?

 

[woodwork201]

heller 2008 insures that can't happen. Not sure what you're referring to. I posted the original hand written version.

'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'

Not the militia, the people. The people can protect the state as a militia if necessary. Heller ensured an individual can protect one's home with a gun.

I would take a step further now and say the states can organize a militia to protect the United States over demofks who are trying to take over.

Again, why there can never be an insurrection.

Can't you read? This is why we're losing the gun rights battle; those who claim to be on our side are ignorant and illiterate.

Did I say that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right? I said what the Constitution says: that one of the key considerations is that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a security of a free state. It's right there in the Constitution and yet some of the so-called, self-proclaimed, gun rights supporters here deny that it means what it says.

So let me walk those of you with reading comprehension disabilities through the conversation:

M14 shooter said that the Founders intended that a standing army protect our country from invasion and insurrection. M14 Shooter clearly has not read the Constitution. The Constitution clearly empowers the Congress to call out the militia to fight invasion and insurrection. It doesn't say Congress can call out the National Guard or that, in the case of invasion at home, the Congress can order the "National" Guard home from Afghanistan or wherever else the Federal Government has sent them. The Founders wrote, and included in the Constitution, that the intended way to defend against invasion and insurrection was the militia - that very same militia mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. M14 Shooter was demonstrably wrong and I corrected him on it.

Then RetiredGySgt, also suffering from a reading comprehension disability, said that I was an anti-gunner and that what I said was patently false. RetiredGySgt likes guns. He even likes a limited right to keep and bear arms, but he most definitely is not a supporter of an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms as described in the 2nd Amendment. He's stated in the past that he supports the government's claim of authority to ban whole categories of people from owning guns. He is a gun controller at heart. I've proven that my response to M14 Shooter is correct and, therefore, I've also proven that RetiredGySgt's claim that I'm anti-gun like he is, and his statement that my post was patently false, are both... well... patently false.

Then, jc456, you started strong with post 10,410. You were exactly correct. But then you must have hit the bong or something because 10,411 is completely off track. Nowhere did I say that the right to keep and bear arms is not a protected right of the people. It's right there in the Constitution - a document that it appears that only you and I, from this thread, may have read.

But let me clarify the point about the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment. We all know that the Founders wrote about the right to defend oneself from danger - bears or burglars, it's the same. We know that they wrote about using arms to defend against tyrannical government; they even wrote about it in The Declaration of Independence.

There is zero doubt by judges, justices, lawyers, legislators, leftists, socialists and communists, even those posting on this board and in this thread, know for certain that original intent was that the right to keep and bear arms was for all of these purposes and was intended to be absolute and is an individual right. We all know for certain that those who claim otherwise are lying to support their political objectives. We get it. But the problem is this: The only reason for keeping and bearing arms mentioned in the Constitution is that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

So, back to your first post - in any form of commas, etc.: 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..

Let me repeat it again for the hard-of-reading: 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.

Nowhere in there does it say or suggest that a person must be a member of the militia to keep and bear arms. The Founders understood, as you suggested, that the militia may be formed, expanded, or built up in response to insurrection or invasion so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the right were stripped, how could a militia be called up?

The next argument the anti-gunners, including M14 Shooter (actually an anti-gunner as well) makes is that since, as they and M14 Shooter claim, the militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state, then, according to all of them, the single mention in the Constitution of one reason the right is protected no longer valid and the anti-gunners use their belief in that invalidity to claim that the 2nd Amendment simply no longer applies or matters.

The anti-gunners claim they don't even need to repeal the 2nd Amendment because it simply doesn't matter since we have a standing army. But they're wrong. The 2nd Amendment makes a statement: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. The government, including Congress, cannot repeal that statement. The 2nd Amendment didn't argue that a well regulated militia might be necessary to the security of a free state and Congress can't replace the militia with the Army Reserves and they can't defend the homeland from invasion or insurrection with a bunch of National Guard solders half-way around the world fighting foreign wars.

The Founders didn't say that as long as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state then the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They made a very clear statement in the Constitution of the United States: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. Therefore, for as long as the Constitution stood (it's questionable whether it stands today), A well regulated militia IS and WILL BE necessary to the security of a free state so,constitutionally, a well regulated militia will remain necessary to the security of a free state until such a time as that statement is removed from the Constitution by amendment according to Article V.

So when idiots claim that the militia has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms, even though it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, they help the left to take the very best argument for the 2nd Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

And to bring it all the way around, yes, the Founders intended, and rightly so - even today, that the militia, not the standing army, be the first response to insurrection and invasion in the United States.

 

[woodwork201]

LOL

the right was and is intended to be FOR the PEOPLE, as in a right to all citizens, explain in great detail why every other amendment that use the term "the people" is understood to mean an INDIVIDUAL right but some how the 2nd is not?

Quote where I said otherwise.

 

[woodwork201]

What makes you think the militia is not necessary now, even with a standing army?

A militia is necessary, REGARDLESS of a standing army and ESPECIALLY if there is a standing army.

There MUST be a balance of power.

Quote where I said otherwise. It is the whole point of my response to M14 Shooter, and RetiredGySgt. Read my long post a couple up from here where I make an irrefutable argument proving that the militia is absolutely necessary and only constitutional amendment can even attempt to make it otherwise.

 

[j-mac]

It is only fascist neo progressives that the American populace be disarmed. Then they feel no one could fight their tyrannical dreams.

 

[woodwork201]

There MUST be a balance of power.

Where do you get that idea? It was the intention of the Founders that the people have so much more firepower than the government that there would never be a question of tyranny; it would simply not be possible.

Unfortunately, so-called, self-proclaimed, patriots and gun rights supporters, including most on this thread, have surrendered the right to keep and bear arms, supporting the government in its infringements by banning entire classes of arms and restricting entire classes of the population, keeping and bearing arms. The days of the people having overwhelming power over government are behind us.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where do you get that idea? It was the intention of the Founders that the people have so much more firepower than the government that there would never be a question of tyranny; it would simply not be possible.

Unfortunately, so-called, self-proclaimed, patriots and gun rights supporters, including most on this thread, have surrendered the right to keep and bear arms, supporting the government in its infringements by banning entire classes of arms and restricting entire classes of the population, keeping and bearing arms. The days of the people having overwhelming power over government are behind us.

You are an idiot. the second amendment does not rest only on the militia. It stands alone as an individual right, In fact the anti gunners argue that if it rests on a militia that it is no longer needed due to a militia no longer existing,