The words "to bear arms" is a military term

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Your expressed opinion on how the NRA thinks is like tits on a bull.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

And this is why we are interpreting our rights away. That slow stealth progressivism I spoke of. The original intent of the second amendment has been twisted an perverted to something it does not mean. We need to get back to the basics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Because their governments infringed their rights, that does not mean they do not exist. The King of England was trying to take away the weapons the colonists used to defend themselves, and they stopped him, the people in those countries did not. You only get to keep your rights if you are willing to fight for them.

See the difference? It is not the piece of paper that gave us those rights, nor will that piece of paper keep them for us.

 

[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?

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.

Thank you for the expansion on my point. Not only foreign invaders, but invaders against what Americans think is correct. We should be able to take arms to our government at anytime if we feel what they do is incorrect. The people outnumber the military and organized militia.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Because their governments infringed their rights, that does not mean they do not exist. The King of England was trying to take away the weapons the colonists used to defend themselves, and they stopped him, the people in those countries did not. You only get to keep your rights if you are willing to fight for them.

See the difference? It is not the piece of paper that gave us those rights, nor will that piece of paper keep them for us.

You may think it's right and no need of it being written on a piece of paper, but try it in a country that does not recognize private gun ownership of it's people.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

And this is why we are interpreting our rights away. That slow stealth progressivism I spoke of. The original intent of the second amendment has been twisted an perverted to something it does not mean. We need to get back to the basics.

You must mean flint lock muskets then

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

And this is why we are interpreting our rights away. That slow stealth progressivism I spoke of. The original intent of the second amendment has been twisted an perverted to something it does not mean. We need to get back to the basics.

You must mean flint lock muskets then

Nope it would be military grade weapons as they are improved. Or should we do away with the first amendment because what we use now to express our views was not used at the creation of the first amendment. Should we do away with all new laws and legislation of the 20th and 21 st century because they were not written on parchment with a quill? Are you saying the internet is not protected vehicle of our first amendment rights?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Because their governments infringed their rights, that does not mean they do not exist. The King of England was trying to take away the weapons the colonists used to defend themselves, and they stopped him, the people in those countries did not. You only get to keep your rights if you are willing to fight for them.

See the difference? It is not the piece of paper that gave us those rights, nor will that piece of paper keep them for us.

You may think it's right and no need of it being written on a piece of paper, but try it in a country that does not recognize private gun ownership of it's people.

Like the US before 1776? Yet the people still had guns, and refused to surrender them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Because their governments infringed their rights, that does not mean they do not exist. The King of England was trying to take away the weapons the colonists used to defend themselves, and they stopped him, the people in those countries did not. You only get to keep your rights if you are willing to fight for them.

See the difference? It is not the piece of paper that gave us those rights, nor will that piece of paper keep them for us.

You may think it's right and no need of it being written on a piece of paper, but try it in a country that does not recognize private gun ownership of it's people.

Like the US before 1776? Yet the people still had guns, and refused to surrender them.

In 1776 they weren't trowing rocks either.

 

[Yurt]

I believe there was a gramatical error in the printing of the Amendment. The original authors never paid any attention to it because it was assumed that the right own and carry rifles and pistols was a given right in the Amendment.

Amendment II should read as such:
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.


Instead of a comma after state it should have a semicolon. But even with the comma instead of the semi colon the inferance of the sentence implies that a well regulated milita is necassary for the security of the individual states. This harkens back to states rights and the ability of the indivdual states to raise milita to fight Native Americans and other people who invade the state or against inusrrections.

The second part of the sentence concerns each individual citizens right to own and carry rifles, shotguns and pistols. The Amendment gives citizens the right to own and carry these for whatever purpose they choose.

IOW....you have to rewrite the constitution to make it say what you want it to say....

historical factors and case law disagree with you. if you read state constitutions back then, congressional papers etc..., you would find the 2nd amendment does in fact guarantee and individual right to bear arms.

 

[idb]

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?

And this is why we are interpreting our rights away. That slow stealth progressivism I spoke of. The original intent of the second amendment has been twisted an perverted to something it does not mean. We need to get back to the basics.

I find it hard to believe any interpretation that you put on a document...The Constitution included.
You seldom read more than a couple of sentences before you decide what the author is trying to say.
The text on which you have based this whole thread proves it yet again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

And this is why we are interpreting our rights away. That slow stealth progressivism I spoke of. The original intent of the second amendment has been twisted an perverted to something it does not mean. We need to get back to the basics.

I find it hard to believe any interpretation that you put on a document...The Constitution included.
You seldom read more than a couple of sentences before you decide what the author is trying to say.
The text on which you have based this whole thread proves it yet again.

I find it hard to understand why I am responding to you since I as an American am better than you good bye. second class want to be American.

 

[idb]

And this is why we are interpreting our rights away. That slow stealth progressivism I spoke of. The original intent of the second amendment has been twisted an perverted to something it does not mean. We need to get back to the basics.

I find it hard to believe any interpretation that you put on a document...The Constitution included.
You seldom read more than a couple of sentences before you decide what the author is trying to say.
The text on which you have based this whole thread proves it yet again.

I find it hard to understand why I am responding to you since I as an American am better than you good bye. second class want to be American.

Haha!!!!
Of all the people I've communicated with I think you are just about the least qualified to have a superiority complex.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I find it hard to believe any interpretation that you put on a document...The Constitution included.
You seldom read more than a couple of sentences before you decide what the author is trying to say.
The text on which you have based this whole thread proves it yet again.

I find it hard to understand why I am responding to you since I as an American am better than you good bye. second class want to be American.

Haha!!!!
Of all the people I've communicated with I think you are just about the least qualified to have a superiority complex.

You're just a second class want to be American.

 

[JakeStarkey]

First let’s look at the Second Amendment
“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.”

Then every citizen, by your reason, is conscripted to serve and obey the UCMJ and the president's directions to the senior officers over the conscripted citizens. bigrebnc, you don't get heavy weapons or a jet or a gunship or whatever. Be content with your short and long arms, because that is what the 2nd means and always will mean.

Some on the far libertarians and reactionary right have wet dreams of rising up against the government. What they don't understand is that their own citizens will form the equivalent of posse comitatus and put the rebels against the nearest wall and shoot them.

 

[editec]

Welll....that is the traditional debate between gun rights-ists and gun-moderates as it regards interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Was that right meant to give STATE MILITIAS the right to exist, or was it meant to give CITIZENS the right to bear arms?

The language of the 2nd Amednment really isn't clear enough to know.

But the SCOTUS ruled on this issue a long long time ago, and it ruled in favor of citizens having the right to bear arms.

And let's face it, they are the final arbitors of that debate.

Sure it is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." How can you possibly argue that that is ambiguous? It is true that the need for the militia is used as a reason for the right, but I fail to see that the militia is no longer needed, or that the right is tied to the existence of a militia in the first place.

If you are really having trouble with the logic involved here I point you to the 9th Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because you do not see it there, it does not mean the right does not exit. That is how we have the right to privacy, and all the other rights we have that are not specifically listed in the Constitution. If you support civil rights you should not try to twist words to suit a position just because you like it, because it allows everyone who opposes the positions you hold to point out that the things you like are not listed at all.

Some people are always willing to argue impossible positions, I enjoy it myself. That does not mean that I expect anyone to actually believe those positions, yet some idiots actually do. Free yourself from idiocy.

Try posting the ENTIRE SENTENCE, QW. Posting, as you just did, only the part of the sentence that suits your argument is intellectually dishonest.

As passed by the Congress:

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.
​

As ratified by the States:

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
​

.
​

Now if the whole point of the 2nd amendment was MERELY:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The Founding Fathers would have merely written THAT.

But cclearly they thought that the right of the people to bear arms had some additionally reason behind it.

Hence their introducing the concept of "A well regulated Militia"

And note the words WELL REGULATED?

What do THOSE words imply, sport?

Do you suppose that they meant that anybody, anywhere, anytime can do have own any arms that suits their gun queer little hearts?

I rather doubt that.

No the FFs were rather clear about why they believed that MILITIAs ought to be armed and WELL REGULATED, too.

But it doesn't matter what they wrote, does it? (because if it did you could not own a gun unless you were in a well regualted militia)

What matters today is what the SCOTUS decides matters.

And today the SCOTUS thinks you have the right to own SOME KINDS OF ARMS.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

First let’s look at the Second Amendment
“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.”

Then every citizen, by your reason, is conscripted to serve and obey the UCMJ and the president's directions to the senior officers over the conscripted citizens. bigrebnc, you don't get heavy weapons or a jet or a gunship or whatever. Be content with your short and long arms, because that is what the 2nd means and always will mean.

Some on the far libertarians and reactionary right have wet dreams of rising up against the government. What they don't understand is that their own citizens will form the equivalent of posse comitatus and put the rebels against the nearest wall and shoot them.

Nope the militia is not the full time Military nor is it the national guard. You would be a victim of a tyrantical government. To bear arms is a military term and is talking about military grade weapons. What ever the full time soldier is carring the private citizen should have.

the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

They said A well regulated Militia, 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."

 

[JakeStarkey]

But your OP, bigrebnc, is about "military term" and the "right to bear arms." This issue has been decided a long time ago and you don't get what the NG or the ARUS gets to play with.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But your OP, bigrebnc, is about "military term" and the "right to bear arms." This issue has been decided a long time ago and you don't get what the NG or the ARUS gets to play with.

Yes it was decided when the second amendment was created. Military term talking about military grade weapons for citizens.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Come on jake you like to brag about beating others, is that all you have to offer? Run away jake you have been beaten.