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

[Open Bolt]

There are two significant competing interpretations of the Second Amendment. The first is that it provides a collective right to states, not individuals, to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia.

That is a crackpot theory that has never been taken seriously.

I wouldn't call it a significant competing interpretation.

In the 18th century, at the time of ratification, American states did not have standing armies, so when a military force was needed the state would call up the militia, which would be able-bodied local men bringing their weapons to an assembly point. Without individual ownership of a firearm, there could be no militia.

America could have had a standing army from the start if we wanted to. Relying on the militia was a conscious choice.

 

[ding]

If the second amendment was written in reverse with the keep and bear doctrine contingent upon the militia doctrine I could understand the wussy crying of Lefty. But it's not written that way.

Because a well regulated militia is a necessary item for a free people to remain free they ..( the people).. are allowed to keep and bear arms. That in no way implies that the arms are limited to militia use.

Remember that a square is a rhombus but a rhombus is not a square.

Jo

Peaceable law abiding citizens are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

 

[justoffal]

Peaceable law abiding citizens are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Bingo

 

[sartre play]

Guess what, things change, that's why we have amendments in our constitution. Looking at these New situations regarding gun extremes, people right here on this board are admitting to arming up to kill other Americans! What the hell. PRO GUN ANTI GUN NUTS

 

[justoffal]

Guess what, things change, that's why we have amendments in our constitution. Looking at these New situations regarding gun extremes, people right here on this board are admitting to arming up to kill other Americans! What the hell. PRO GUN ANTI GUN NUTS

You mean people on the right are arming up to defend themselves from people who are threatening to kill them? That's a little bit different than the scenario you're painting.

 

[justoffal]

Guess what, things change, that's why we have amendments in our constitution. Looking at these New situations regarding gun extremes, people right here on this board are admitting to arming up to kill other Americans! What the hell. PRO GUN ANTI GUN NUTS

Nothing has changed left-wing progressives have always been violent and seek to spread their philosophy by destroying and attacking those who disagree with them even if that means killing them. Conservatives on the other hand have always held that they have the right to defend their way of life against such attacks in an armed manner of necessary. Nothing has changed.

 

[Pellinore]

I prefer the original text:

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.

This Amendment was a specific prohibition against the newly created federal government infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. I don't see how any Lefty can argue with this.

I can tell you the thinking behind it.

In other places in the Bill of Rights, the authors most often used terms such as "a person" or "the owner" when referring to a single person. The fact that they pluralized "the people" in the Second implies that they were probably referring to the collective right of all the people together; i.e. a Harpers Ferry-style armory in the center of town.

Furthermore, they were influenced largely by events going back to 16th century England under King James II; Parliamentary debates at the time were about whether towns and counties could retain local arms to resist the King's goons. (King James also housed soldiers in private homes, which became the focus of the Third Amendment.) The concept of personal ownership was never mentioned in any notes, and never raised during the debates over the Bill of Rights. This all points to the fact that they intended the Second Amendment to support collective ownership to ensure self-government, rather than anything personal.

However, that debate was settled in 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled on Heller vs. DC. However the Founding Fathers intended it, short of future statutes or Court rulings, it applies to personal ownership as a matter of legal interpretation. Gun control supporters just have to live with that.

 

[Open Bolt]

I can tell you the thinking behind it.
In other places in the Bill of Rights, the authors most often used terms such as "a person" or "the owner" when referring to a single person. The fact that they pluralized "the people" in the Second implies that they were probably referring to the collective right of all the people together; i.e. a Harpers Ferry-style armory in the center of town.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the fact that the right to keep and bear arms has always been an individual right.

Furthermore, they were influenced largely by events going back to 16th century England under King James II; Parliamentary debates at the time were about whether towns and counties could retain local arms to resist the King's goons. (King James also housed soldiers in private homes, which became the focus of the Third Amendment.)

After England kicked out King James II, Parliament made a point of ensuring that people would still have the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.

The concept of personal ownership was never mentioned in any notes, and never raised during the debates over the Bill of Rights. This all points to the fact that they intended the Second Amendment to support collective ownership to ensure self-government, rather than anything personal.

They knew that the right to keep and bear arms covers private self defense when they protected that right in the Second Amendment.

However, that debate was settled in 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled on Heller vs. DC. However the Founding Fathers intended it, short of future statutes or Court rulings, it applies to personal ownership as a matter of legal interpretation. Gun control supporters just have to live with that.

It has always been settled. The Supreme Court has always ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Note the 1939 Miller ruling for example.

 

[Failzero]

Guess what, things change, that's why we have amendments in our constitution. Looking at these New situations regarding gun extremes, people right here on this board are admitting to arming up to kill other Americans! What the hell. PRO GUN ANTI GUN NUTS

Far Left & Left are arming up for what again ???

 

[justoffal]

I can tell you the thinking behind it.

In other places in the Bill of Rights, the authors most often used terms such as "a person" or "the owner" when referring to a single person. The fact that they pluralized "the people" in the Second implies that they were probably referring to the collective right of all the people together; i.e. a Harpers Ferry-style armory in the center of town.

Furthermore, they were influenced largely by events going back to 16th century England under King James II; Parliamentary debates at the time were about whether towns and counties could retain local arms to resist the King's goons. (King James also housed soldiers in private homes, which became the focus of the Third Amendment.) The concept of personal ownership was never mentioned in any notes, and never raised during the debates over the Bill of Rights. This all points to the fact that they intended the Second Amendment to support collective ownership to ensure self-government, rather than anything personal.

However, that debate was settled in 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled on Heller vs. DC. However the Founding Fathers intended it, short of future statutes or Court rulings, it applies to personal ownership as a matter of legal interpretation. Gun control supporters just have to live with that.

Excellent Dissertation on the matter...thanks

JO

 

[Synthaholic]

Jamie Raskin destroys the RW fantasy about the Second Amendment. Let's see gun fanatics argue against this.

 

[Synthaholic]

Also excellent.

 

[Synthaholic]

But this is the one that no one can refute. I love it!

 

[2aguy]

But this is the one that no one can refute. I love it!

Yeah...except for all the actual writings by the actual guys who created and signed the the Declaration of Independence, and later created the Constitution......they stated why the 2nd Amendment was actually placed in the Bill of Rights....you idiot.....

 

[Synthaholic]

Yeah...except for all the actual writings by the actual guys who created and signed the the Declaration of Independence, and later created the Constitution......they stated why the 2nd Amendment was actually placed in the Bill of Rights....you idiot.....

If it was important enough to be in the Constitution they would have put it in the Constitution. Their wrong ideas were rejected when it mattered.

 

[2aguy]

If it was important enough to be in the Constitution they would have put it in the Constitution. Their wrong ideas were rejected when it mattered.

No, moron...they put the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights.......and you can read why they did that by actually looking at the reasons they gave for doing it.......

They didn't say people have the Right to be journalists....they simply put in Freedom of the Press.......I know you idiots are desperate to disarm your victims...but we aren't going to go quietly to the mass graves this time...

 

[flan327]

life must be tough for you,,

Nope

I’m HAPPY

EVER TRY THAT?

 

[flan327]

No, moron...they put the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights.......and you can read why they did that by actually looking at the reasons they gave for doing it.......

They didn't say people have the Right to be journalists....they simply put in Freedom of the Press.......I know you idiots are desperate to disarm your victims...but we aren't going to go quietly to the mass graves this time...

Melodramatic much?!

🗣🗣🗣

 

[progressive hunter]

Nope

I’m HAPPY

EVER TRY THAT?

so it took you almost 2 months to figure out youre happy???

thats sad,,

 

[flan327]

so it took you almost 2 months to figure out youre happy???

thats sad,,

,,,,,no fool,,,,

I actually have a LIFE

Is there a time limit for responding to YOUR posts?