CDZ The second amendment allows for multiple use under the keep and bear doctrine.

[Open Bolt]

"By the way, you do realize that the consequences of connecting the militia to the right to keep and bear arms is that everyone has the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons??"
Not at all. You have to understand that the constitution right, isn't a right at all. It's a limit on federal powers (and state now). This means that as long as people have access to certain types of arms, the right is safe. The government is not infringing on your right to keep arms if it prevents you from having nukes, bazookas, full-automatic weapons, if you have easily get your hands on pistols.

That is incorrect. Tying the militia to the right to keep and bear arms means that we have the right to have the sorts of arms that the militia needs to fulfil their duties.

The duties of the militia include repelling foreign invasions, so that means we have the right to have weapons that are suitable for repelling a foreign invasion. That means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

No militia is going to be able to repel a foreign invasion using only pistols.

Though only state governments had clauses that got anywhere near defending "himself" and whether you think "themselves" is about individuals or not, it's not in the Second Amendment.
The right is the right to bear arms. And as shown, the Founding Fathers saw this as bearing arms for the militia. Not for personal self defense.

That's OK. Self defense is a natural right that is innately possessed by everyone everywhere.

All we need the Second Amendment for is to protect our right to have guns. So long as we have those guns, we will always have the right to defend ourselves with those guns.

I'll answer the rest later when I have more time.

 

[Open Bolt]

Go to the LIBRARY
MAYBE THEY CAN FIND YOU A TUTOR

No thank you. I do not need a tutor.

Plus, people at a library might expose me to Covid.

 

[Open Bolt]

No, being required to have guns, and having a right to guns, are two complete opposites.
One is, you have no choice, the other is, you have the choice.
How can someone fulfill the requirement if they don't have the right? Easily. Plenty of times people have forced people to keep arms. It's a simple "you have to do it or we tax you more, take your children" etc etc.

If someone is not allowed to have arms, how would they go about fulfilling a requirement that they have arms, even if they faced harsh penalties for not doing so?

What are we talking here when we talk about "rights"?
The term "right" is used for all sorts of things. Kids say they have the right to be on the sidewalk (from a book I'm currently reading). Is it really a "human right"? No, it's not. We use the term for many things, including for things which we can do.
We're discussing the US constitution, so the rights we're talking about are "human rights", rights that are literally "above the law".
So did England have "rights"? For their time, yes. For our time, no.

It's not really a matter of time periods. England still has the same system even today.

It's just a matter of us having a different system than they have. Their rights are only as provided by law, and can be altered or removed as laws are altered or removed.

"That in fact happened. England abolished their freedom in 1920.
But they had 1300 years of freedom between 605 and 1920."
This silly statement doesn't even deserve a reply.

I do not share the opinion that relevant facts are silly.

It's OK with me though when my factual statements stand unchallenged.

Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Catholics were banned a lot more than you seem to think
"The 1662 Act for ordering the Forces in the several Counties of the Kingdom[a] enabled and authorized by warrant, local government personnel, to search for and seize all arms in the custody or possession of any person of persons whom the government judged dangerous to the peace of the kingdom."
Yeah, that sounds like a right. This was under Charles II's reign. He was protestant, more or less. Though religion seemed to be a thing of convenience for him, he wanted help from France, he said he'd convert to Catholicism.

Penal law (British) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Clarendon Code was the protestants fighting back against the Catholics at this time.

You're referring to the period of Stuart tyranny.

People responded to Stuart tyranny by beheading one of the Stuart kings and by running the last Stuart king out of the country. They reestablished the right to keep and bear arms immediately after he left.

Maybe not all Catholics would have had their firearms taken off them, but the possibility was there, which means firearms were a privilege rather than a right.

After the period of Stuart tyranny, Catholics were only prevented from having arsenals. Catholic households were allowed to have a gun to defend their home from criminals.

Yep, Protestants were prevented from having arms at a certain period and then had the "right to keep arms" at other times, but again, the "right" was no a right as we consider them now.

England just has a different system than the US has. Their rights are only as provided by law, and can be altered or removed as laws are altered or removed.

"Encyclopedia Britannica isn't credible in their own right??"
Not really, no. Even dictionaries come up with a wide variety of definitions for things. A few people have to write, at a quick pace, certain encyclopedias, they didn't delve in depth into these matters.

Britannica is known for being pretty scholarly. But anyway I provided a second source showing that free people had the right to keep and bear arms after the Anglo Saxons took over.

"But it is true that the Assizes of Arms were statements of the right to keep and bear arms."
Well, again, not in the terms we're using for "rights" now in the present day.

England has a different system than we do. Their rights are only as provided by law, and can be altered or removed as laws are altered or removed.

No, no one needs rights to be protected.

If our rights were not protected, then we would be like England, where a mere change in the law could remove our rights.

I prefer to continue having protections for my rights.

All you have to do is think you have rights and you have rights. Then it's just governments infringing your rights.

I prefer that my rights not be infringed.

If the 1541 is a "right", but they banned things, then, again, it's not a right as we see rights today.

England just has a different system than we have. Their rights are only as provided by law, and can be altered or removed as laws are altered or removed.

And note again that they responded to Stuart tyranny by beheading one of those Stuart kings and then later running the last Stuart king out of town on a rail. As soon as he was gone, they immediately reinstated the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[ralfy]

Not in any meaningful sense.


--------------------------------------------------------------

No I'm not. "Establishing that the gun control movement only cares about abolishing freedom" isn't "babbling."

Stop embarrassing yourself. First, you argued that the country never had a standing army. Then, you argued that it had one but "[n]ot in any meaningful sense."

What a maroon.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That is incorrect. Tying the militia to the right to keep and bear arms means that we have the right to have the sorts of arms that the militia needs to fulfil their duties.

The duties of the militia include repelling foreign invasions, so that means we have the right to have weapons that are suitable for repelling a foreign invasion. That means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

No militia is going to be able to repel a foreign invasion using only pistols.



That's OK. Self defense is a natural right that is innately possessed by everyone everywhere.

All we need the Second Amendment for is to protect our right to have guns. So long as we have those guns, we will always have the right to defend ourselves with those guns.

I'll answer the rest later when I have more time.

The problem here is that back in the day, there weren't many weapons considered "militia weapons". People had guns. Those guns were pretty much military grade. The Founding Fathers didn't even conceive the idea that a militia would need anything beyond what the average farmer had.

Yes, there were cannons, but no farmer was going to be able to afford such a thing, or want such a thing.

Well, look at Vietnam. They repelled the US with what? Mostly with weaponry given to them. The militia in such a scenario would be given military grade weaponry. i.e., the National Guard.

However this isn't an issue at all. The reality is that the 2A protects an individual's right to weaponry by preventing the US federal government from stopping individuals from owning guns.

This was done in order to protect the militia. The militia needs guns in order to be a militia. Without them it is nothing. Having handguns or hunting guns, makes it a militia. Their chances of taking on the US military would be pretty small even if people were allowed to buy tanks and SAMs and all that kind of stuff. So it's immaterial really.

What is needed is the ability for people to get together as a militia. The militia has survived, with people being able to own normal guns and not tanks and other kinds of weaponry.
It is not a right to own ANY weaponry, it's not a right for the militia to be fully stocked in case of war.

Yes, I'd say in the theory of rights, self defense is considered one of the most fundamental rights. Doesn't mean it was stuck in an amendment about the militia.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If someone is not allowed to have arms, how would they go about fulfilling a requirement that they have arms, even if they faced harsh penalties for not doing so?



It's not really a matter of time periods. England still has the same system even today.

It's just a matter of us having a different system than they have. Their rights are only as provided by law, and can be altered or removed as laws are altered or removed.



I do not share the opinion that relevant facts are silly.

It's OK with me though when my factual statements stand unchallenged.



You're referring to the period of Stuart tyranny.

People responded to Stuart tyranny by beheading one of the Stuart kings and by running the last Stuart king out of the country. They reestablished the right to keep and bear arms immediately after he left.



After the period of Stuart tyranny, Catholics were only prevented from having arsenals. Catholic households were allowed to have a gun to defend their home from criminals.



England just has a different system than the US has. Their rights are only as provided by law, and can be altered or removed as laws are altered or removed.



Britannica is known for being pretty scholarly. But anyway I provided a second source showing that free people had the right to keep and bear arms after the Anglo Saxons took over.



England has a different system than we do. Their rights are only as provided by law, and can be altered or removed as laws are altered or removed.



If our rights were not protected, then we would be like England, where a mere change in the law could remove our rights.

I prefer to continue having protections for my rights.



I prefer that my rights not be infringed.



England just has a different system than we have. Their rights are only as provided by law, and can be altered or removed as laws are altered or removed.

And note again that they responded to Stuart tyranny by beheading one of those Stuart kings and then later running the last Stuart king out of town on a rail. As soon as he was gone, they immediately reinstated the right to keep and bear arms.

I think you need to realize that if someone is forcing you to have arms, you don't need a right to have arms.

A right doesn't exist. It's not a physical object. If all humans died, nothing would know what a right is, the thought process of what it is would die out.

Rights function only when people accept what they are. Rights don't function in China because the govt there doesn't allow talk about rights (except when demanding Chinese people have a right to a hotel room in Sweden the night before they've actually booked it, yeah, it happened. Why Sweden and China have fallen out so badly).

No one is going to prevent you from keeping weapons and then demand you keep weapons. End of.

England still has common law. It's changed a lot. However "rights" are rather vague in the UK. Under EU law there were rights, but you kind of got the feeling EU judges didn't really understand what rights were in the US sense.

Anyway, the UK isn't in the EU, so what rights the British have... who knows? You could go to court and you'd have to argue you have a right. In the US it's slightly more simply because it's been properly codified.

Either way, rights then were different to what US rights are now.

"
I do not share the opinion that relevant facts are silly.

It's OK with me though when my factual statements stand unchallenged."
Again, making silly statements is not going to improve your argument. Saying something like "oh, you couldn't challenge me, so I win" is just going to make me go away. Your choice.

Yep, they had a tyrannical leader who took whatever "rights" existed and flushed them down the toilet. So much for "rights" then. Then when they wrote down the "right", they wrote it down only for Protestants. Not a right, a privilege.

 

[Open Bolt]

The problem here is that back in the day, there weren't many weapons considered "militia weapons". People had guns. Those guns were pretty much military grade. The Founding Fathers didn't even conceive the idea that a militia would need anything beyond what the average farmer had.
Yes, there were cannons, but no farmer was going to be able to afford such a thing, or want such a thing.
Well, look at Vietnam. They repelled the US with what? Mostly with weaponry given to them. The militia in such a scenario would be given military grade weaponry. i.e., the National Guard.

The National Guard is not a militia. They are sworn members of a standing army.

However this isn't an issue at all. The reality is that the 2A protects an individual's right to weaponry by preventing the US federal government from stopping individuals from owning guns.
This was done in order to protect the militia. The militia needs guns in order to be a militia. Without them it is nothing. Having handguns or hunting guns, makes it a militia.

A militia that was armed with handguns and hunting weapons would be much less effective at repelling a foreign invasion.

The Second Amendment protects having the sorts of weapons that are most effective at repelling foreign invasions.

Their chances of taking on the US military would be pretty small even if people were allowed to buy tanks and SAMs and all that kind of stuff. So it's immaterial really.

It's not about taking on the US military. It's about doing such a good job of defending the country that there is no need to raise a standing army.

What is needed is the ability for people to get together as a militia.

That is incorrect. What is needed are the sorts of weapons that are most effective for repelling foreign invasions.

The militia has survived, with people being able to own normal guns and not tanks and other kinds of weaponry.

That is a violation of the Second Amendment.

It is not a right to own ANY weaponry,

It is a right to own the sorts of weapons that are most effective at repelling a foreign invasion.

it's not a right for the militia to be fully stocked in case of war.

It is pretty close to that.

It is a right of the people to be fully stocked in case of war.

Yes, I'd say in the theory of rights, self defense is considered one of the most fundamental rights. Doesn't mean it was stuck in an amendment about the militia.

It doesn't have to be. We have it regardless.

 

[Open Bolt]

Stop embarrassing yourself. First, you argued that the country never had a standing army. Then, you argued that it had one but "[n]ot in any meaningful sense."

Pointing out that you are wrong does not embarrass me.

What a maroon.

Your need to rely on name-calling should tell you that your position is indefensible.

You should consider changing to a position that can be defended using facts and logic.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The National Guard is not a militia. They are sworn members of a standing army.



A militia that was armed with handguns and hunting weapons would be much less effective at repelling a foreign invasion.

The Second Amendment protects having the sorts of weapons that are most effective at repelling foreign invasions.



It's not about taking on the US military. It's about doing such a good job of defending the country that there is no need to raise a standing army.



That is incorrect. What is needed are the sorts of weapons that are most effective for repelling foreign invasions.



That is a violation of the Second Amendment.



It is a right to own the sorts of weapons that are most effective at repelling a foreign invasion.



It is pretty close to that.

It is a right of the people to be fully stocked in case of war.



It doesn't have to be. We have it regardless.

Dick Act 1903, otherwise known as the Militia Act, created the National Guard.

Essentially there was the "organized militia", which was the National Guard and the "unorganized militia" which was everyone else.

The reason for this was that the militia had shown itself to be incapable of being an effective fighting force in the Spanish-American war.

The National Guard is still run by the states, though it has duel status. They're in the federal army and the militia at the same time.

Top-10-Most-Important-National-Guard-Events/

"Later laws in 1908, and especially in 1916, further contributed to the Guard’s status as a versatile state and federal military force."

The problem with your argument is that there is no requirement about what "arms" are allowed. Just as you don't have to be in the militia to have the RKBA, the 2A also doesn't dictate what arms the 2A protects.
Because the amendment is about the MILITIA, and not self defense, people presume it means normal militia weaponry, which is things that people are liable to have at home. That was always the case. People don't have bazookas as normal weaponry at home.

Mostly though the right is that people have access to weaponry, which mostly means it has to be affordable. If 80% of the population couldn't afford to buy "arms", then the 2A is being infringed upon. Which essentially means the weaponry is NOT bazookas, SAMs etc.

The weaponry does not have to fit a requirement of being able to "repel an invasion", what one weapon would do this?

Actually taking on the US military is one of the things the militia could be expected to do. They were fearful of the US federal government. It's all over their writings.

 

[Open Bolt]

Dick Act 1903, otherwise known as the Militia Act, created the National Guard.
Essentially there was the "organized militia", which was the National Guard and the "unorganized militia" which was everyone else.
The reason for this was that the militia had shown itself to be incapable of being an effective fighting force in the Spanish-American war.
The National Guard is still run by the states, though it has duel status. They're in the federal army and the militia at the same time.

Top-10-Most-Important-National-Guard-Events/

"Later laws in 1908, and especially in 1916, further contributed to the Guard’s status as a versatile state and federal military force."

The Dick Act does not overrule the US Constitution.

Since the National Guard is part of a standing army, it does not meet the Framers' intentions for the militia (which was to make a standing army unnecessary).

The problem with your argument is that there is no requirement about what "arms" are allowed. Just as you don't have to be in the militia to have the RKBA, the 2A also doesn't dictate what arms the 2A protects.

Connecting the right to keep and bear arms to the militia creates such a requirement. It means that we have the right to have the sorts of weapons that are most effective for militia duties.

Militia duties include repelling foreign invasions.

Because the amendment is about the MILITIA, and not self defense, people presume it means normal militia weaponry,

They are right to presume this.

which is things that people are liable to have at home. That was always the case.

That is incorrect. Normal militia weaponry is whatever weapons are most effective for carrying out militia duties (which includes repelling foreign invasions).

People don't have bazookas as normal weaponry at home.

This is because the Second Amendment is being violated.

Mostly though the right is that people have access to weaponry, which mostly means it has to be affordable. If 80% of the population couldn't afford to buy "arms", then the 2A is being infringed upon. Which essentially means the weaponry is NOT bazookas, SAMs etc.

Affordability is not a major issue. Some people are wealthy enough to buy expensive weapons.

However, bazookas are perfectly affordable. An AT4 costs about $1500.

AT4 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The weaponry does not have to fit a requirement of being able to "repel an invasion", what one weapon would do this?

Who said anything about one weapon?

The weapons that are covered are the weapons that are most useful for carrying our militia duties, which includes repelling foreign invasions.

Actually taking on the US military is one of the things the militia could be expected to do. They were fearful of the US federal government. It's all over their writings.

They feared what the US government would do if it raised a standing army.

The point of ensuring that people have effective militia weapons is to make it unnecessary for the government to raise a standing army.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Dick Act does not overrule the US Constitution.

Since the National Guard is part of a standing army, it does not meet the Framers' intentions for the militia (which was to make a standing army unnecessary).



Connecting the right to keep and bear arms to the militia creates such a requirement. It means that we have the right to have the sorts of weapons that are most effective for militia duties.

Militia duties include repelling foreign invasions.



They are right to presume this.



That is incorrect. Normal militia weaponry is whatever weapons are most effective for carrying out militia duties (which includes repelling foreign invasions).



This is because the Second Amendment is being violated.



Affordability is not a major issue. Some people are wealthy enough to buy expensive weapons.

However, bazookas are perfectly affordable. An AT4 costs about $1500.

AT4 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Who said anything about one weapon?

The weapons that are covered are the weapons that are most useful for carrying our militia duties, which includes repelling foreign invasions.



They feared what the US government would do if it raised a standing army.

The point of ensuring that people have effective militia weapons is to make it unnecessary for the government to raise a standing army.

It's not about the Framers's intentions. It's about WHAT THEY WROTE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Which was.... "militia".

Nothing more.
The courts disagree with you, I disagree with you. Boom, you're out.


There is no connection between the militia and the right to keep arms.


Militia duties might also include peeling potatoes. Does this mean there's a right to peel potatoes in the 2A???? You're clutching at straws.

No, the 2A is NOT being violated.

The 2A is a LIMIT on the powers of government. The government may not prevent people from "keeping arms". It can limit people from having certain types of arms. If you can't get a bazooka, does that mean you can't "keep arms"? Er.. NO.

 

[Open Bolt]

It's not about the Framers's intentions. It's about WHAT THEY WROTE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

That is incorrect. If you do not interpret their words the way they intended those words, then you are interpreting wrong.

Which was.... "militia".
Nothing more.

That is incorrect. They wrote a bit more than that.

The courts disagree with you, I disagree with you. Boom, you're out.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies.

There is no connection between the militia and the right to keep arms.

So you are reversing your position and now siding with the Heller ruling?

Militia duties might also include peeling potatoes.

The job of the militia is to enforce the law, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

Does this mean there's a right to peel potatoes in the 2A????

The right to keep and bear arms is about protecting access to weapons.

You're clutching at straws.

"Pointing out what the law says" is not clutching at straws.

No, the 2A is NOT being violated.

Yes it is. The government is violating the first part of the Second Amendment by not having a well-regulated militia.

The government is violating the second part of the Second Amendment by not letting people have the sorts of weapons that are most appropriate for militia duties.

Some state governments are even violating the Heller ruling by imposing unjustifiable bans on pistol grips and flash suppressors.

The 2A is a LIMIT on the powers of government. The government may not prevent people from "keeping arms". It can limit people from having certain types of arms.

But not if there is no justification for such a restriction. And not if the weapon in question is the most effective weapon for carrying out militia duties.

If you can't get a bazooka, does that mean you can't "keep arms"? Er.. NO.

It does however mean that you are prevented from having the sorts of arms that are most effective for carrying out militia duties, which means that the Second Amendment is being violated.