The words "to bear arms" is a military term

[bigrebnc1775]

Your assessment of what a militia is has never been right at any time in our history. Even the Minute Men

Militias were "well regulated"
They had rules on who could join and who had to join
They had set rosters
They had set training schedules
They had established rules and regulations
They were answerable to the state

And to understand what regulated meant when the second amednment was written you must use their terminolgoy for that word. It meant to put in order in common place or natural state of being.

Even when you try to change the meaning of regulated you still lose. To put in order means to control how it is organized and how it operates. Common place means at a regular meeting place. Regulated still means controlled

Really? OK you asked for it.
Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."
The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Militias fall under the jurisdiction of the Congress. Additionally..there are no provisions for anyone to attack the government. Indeed the Constitution has provision to suppress revolt and insurrection.

Your analysis is utterly wrong.

The second amendment was to prevent an oppressive government form taking control. End of story not else to add for you or anyone that disagrees.

Erm.

No.

It's a "fantasy" of the right.

There are no provisions in the Constitution to mount an armed assault against the Federal Government.

See my reply to right winger.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bigrednec...you continuously amaze me at how you can re-interpret the links that you yourself post up.
Once again you have read, at most, a paragraph and then somehow stretched that into a conclusion that the Second Amendment means that it is everyone's right to own and use military style weapons.

If you go straight to the Summary you'll get to the nub of the whole document.

...the "bear arms" expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service, especially in the militia.... the linked words were never used to describe hunting or other non-military use of weapons....in early America...virtually every militia act used the word "keep" or a close synonym to describe the requirement to own or have custody of a weapon and maintain it for military use...

So, my reading of that is that the Second Amendment allowed, or maybe even required, citizens to keep weapons in case they were called up for military service - it conferred no right to use them for any other purpose.

What amazes me is that you're a New Zealander and think you can interpret something you do not have a RIGHT TO HAVE. Or do you have a constitutional right to keep an bear arms?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

“When a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 28.)

 

[idb]

Bigrednec...you continuously amaze me at how you can re-interpret the links that you yourself post up.
Once again you have read, at most, a paragraph and then somehow stretched that into a conclusion that the Second Amendment means that it is everyone's right to own and use military style weapons.

If you go straight to the Summary you'll get to the nub of the whole document.

...the "bear arms" expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service, especially in the militia.... the linked words were never used to describe hunting or other non-military use of weapons....in early America...virtually every militia act used the word "keep" or a close synonym to describe the requirement to own or have custody of a weapon and maintain it for military use...

So, my reading of that is that the Second Amendment allowed, or maybe even required, citizens to keep weapons in case they were called up for military service - it conferred no right to use them for any other purpose.

What amazes me is that you're a New Zealander and think you can interpret something you do not have a RIGHT TO HAVE. Or do you have a constitutional right to keep an bear arms?

What a cop out!!
I think that's code for "You've beaten me with the overwhelming weight of your logic...I give up!"

We won't be expecting to see you posting anything to do with any events in any other countries, or anything else you don't have direct experience of for that matter.
That's going to quieten you down a bit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bigrednec...you continuously amaze me at how you can re-interpret the links that you yourself post up.
Once again you have read, at most, a paragraph and then somehow stretched that into a conclusion that the Second Amendment means that it is everyone's right to own and use military style weapons.

If you go straight to the Summary you'll get to the nub of the whole document.

...the "bear arms" expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service, especially in the militia.... the linked words were never used to describe hunting or other non-military use of weapons....in early America...virtually every militia act used the word "keep" or a close synonym to describe the requirement to own or have custody of a weapon and maintain it for military use...

So, my reading of that is that the Second Amendment allowed, or maybe even required, citizens to keep weapons in case they were called up for military service - it conferred no right to use them for any other purpose.

What amazes me is that you're a New Zealander and think you can interpret something you do not have a RIGHT TO HAVE. Or do you have a constitutional right to keep an bear arms?

The right to keep and bear arms does not come from the Constitution, everyone in the world has it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bigrednec...you continuously amaze me at how you can re-interpret the links that you yourself post up.
Once again you have read, at most, a paragraph and then somehow stretched that into a conclusion that the Second Amendment means that it is everyone's right to own and use military style weapons.

If you go straight to the Summary you'll get to the nub of the whole document.
So, my reading of that is that the Second Amendment allowed, or maybe even required, citizens to keep weapons in case they were called up for military service - it conferred no right to use them for any other purpose.

What amazes me is that you're a New Zealander and think you can interpret something you do not have a RIGHT TO HAVE. Or do you have a constitutional right to keep an bear arms?

The right to keep and bear arms does not come from the Constitution, everyone in the world has it.

I do not think so. It's not a right to gun ownership in most countries, it considered a privilege. Privilege are not equal to rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bigrednec...you continuously amaze me at how you can re-interpret the links that you yourself post up.
Once again you have read, at most, a paragraph and then somehow stretched that into a conclusion that the Second Amendment means that it is everyone's right to own and use military style weapons.

If you go straight to the Summary you'll get to the nub of the whole document.

So, my reading of that is that the Second Amendment allowed, or maybe even required, citizens to keep weapons in case they were called up for military service - it conferred no right to use them for any other purpose.

What amazes me is that you're a New Zealander and think you can interpret something you do not have a RIGHT TO HAVE. Or do you have a constitutional right to keep an bear arms?

What a cop out!!
I think that's code for "You've beaten me with the overwhelming weight of your logic...I give up!"

We won't be expecting to see you posting anything to do with any events in any other countries, or anything else you don't have direct experience of for that matter.
That's going to quieten you down a bit.

I'm better than you I'm an American. Deal with it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What amazes me is that you're a New Zealander and think you can interpret something you do not have a RIGHT TO HAVE. Or do you have a constitutional right to keep an bear arms?

The right to keep and bear arms does not come from the Constitution, everyone in the world has it.

I do not think so. It's not a right to gun ownership in most countries, it considered a privilege. Privilege are not equal to rights.

You think a piece of paper can give you rights? Or take them away? Read the Declaration of Independence sometime.

 

[idb]

What amazes me is that you're a New Zealander and think you can interpret something you do not have a RIGHT TO HAVE. Or do you have a constitutional right to keep an bear arms?

What a cop out!!
I think that's code for "You've beaten me with the overwhelming weight of your logic...I give up!"

We won't be expecting to see you posting anything to do with any events in any other countries, or anything else you don't have direct experience of for that matter.
That's going to quieten you down a bit.

I'm better than you I'm an American. Deal with it.

That attitude explains a lot.
It's why Americans generally receive no respect around the world.
You wouldn't know about the rest of the world though...it's past California in one direction and also the other side of New York

 

[LogicMoose]

Is it just me or is this a semantics game?
Why not look past the letter of the constitution and look to the spirit?
What was the purpose of the 2nd amendment?
If the purpose necessarily follows for America to be considered a formidable opponent, even when our soldiers are engaged in a conflict, then you must ask yourself (from the eyes of the enemy) which America would you rather invade? One where everyone has a firearm, or one where the officers and sanctioned militia have the weapons?

 

[LostAmerican]

[
You think a piece of paper can give you rights? Or take them away? Read the Declaration of Independence sometime.

Only the threat of an enraged America will keep evil at bay!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The right to keep and bear arms does not come from the Constitution, everyone in the world has it.

I do not think so. It's not a right to gun ownership in most countries, it considered a privilege. Privilege are not equal to rights.

You think a piece of paper can give you rights? Or take them away? Read the Declaration of Independence sometime.

Why are all those protestors in all those other countries throwing rocks and molotov cocktail's? Why and how was Stalin able to have so many people killed and or imprisoned?

A piece of paper, it's a reminder to the U.S. Federal government that if it become like certain world governments the people will defend themselves with something other than rocks and molotov cocktail's.

 

[rightwinger]

So are you saying that only those connected to the military should be able to bear arms and not private citizens?

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
“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.”

It's a military term, and is talking about military grade weapons. Which means the people have the right to own military style weapons. You know the kind those black mean looking rifle's

Ahhh, I see now. I thought you were making sense. I was wrong, you went in the opposite direction.

Was there ever any doubt?

Big reb wants a country like Somalia.....RPGs for everyone

 

[rightwinger]

Is it just me or is this a semantics game?
Why not look past the letter of the constitution and look to the spirit?
What was the purpose of the 2nd amendment?
If the purpose necessarily follows for America to be considered a formidable opponent, even when our soldiers are engaged in a conflict, then you must ask yourself (from the eyes of the enemy) which America would you rather invade? One where everyone has a firearm, or one where the officers and sanctioned militia have the weapons?

No nation on earth has the capability to invade the US

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Is it just me or is this a semantics game?
Why not look past the letter of the constitution and look to the spirit?
What was the purpose of the 2nd amendment?
If the purpose necessarily follows for America to be considered a formidable opponent, even when our soldiers are engaged in a conflict, then you must ask yourself (from the eyes of the enemy) which America would you rather invade? One where everyone has a firearm, or one where the officers and sanctioned militia have the weapons?

No nation on earth has the capability to invade the US

No nation can physically invade America, but what about those political views. Do you think America as been invaded by the threat of socialism pushed by progressives? It has been a slow stealth progress. To have an oppressive government is just as bad as being physically invaded.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
“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.”

It's a military term, and is talking about military grade weapons. Which means the people have the right to own military style weapons. You know the kind those black mean looking rifle's

Ahhh, I see now. I thought you were making sense. I was wrong, you went in the opposite direction.

Was there ever any doubt?

Big reb wants a country like Somalia.....RPGs for everyone

You want equality, so do I.

 

[LostAmerican]

Is it just me or is this a semantics game?
Why not look past the letter of the constitution and look to the spirit?
What was the purpose of the 2nd amendment?
If the purpose necessarily follows for America to be considered a formidable opponent, even when our soldiers are engaged in a conflict, then you must ask yourself (from the eyes of the enemy) which America would you rather invade? One where everyone has a firearm, or one where the officers and sanctioned militia have the weapons?

No nation on earth has the capability to invade the US

Mexico is doing a good job.

 

[rightwinger]

Is it just me or is this a semantics game?
Why not look past the letter of the constitution and look to the spirit?
What was the purpose of the 2nd amendment?
If the purpose necessarily follows for America to be considered a formidable opponent, even when our soldiers are engaged in a conflict, then you must ask yourself (from the eyes of the enemy) which America would you rather invade? One where everyone has a firearm, or one where the officers and sanctioned militia have the weapons?

No nation on earth has the capability to invade the US

No nation can physically invade America, but what about those political views. Do you think America as been invaded by the threat of socialism pushed by progressives? It has been a slow stealth progress. To have an oppressive government is just as bad as being physically invaded.

We are an open society where people are allowed to explore all political views. Have you read any of the Constitution beyond the second amendment?

 

[rightwinger]

Ahhh, I see now. I thought you were making sense. I was wrong, you went in the opposite direction.

Was there ever any doubt?

Big reb wants a country like Somalia.....RPGs for everyone

You want equality, so do I.

Even the NRA is smart enough not to advocate full military firepower being covered by the second amendment. They know that if that were to happen that the second amendment would be changed