The words "to bear arms" is a military term

[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.

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

Nope. Your silly opinion has no force in law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Giving up? Your silly opinion has no force in law.

 

[LostAmerican]

Did John Brown use "a well-regulated militia" to attack Harper's Ferry?

If I walk into the Mexican Embassy and open fire with my .45, demanding that all illegals leave the US and Mexico pay damages to the American people, am I a well regulated militia?

 

[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.

Giving up? Your silly opinion has no force in law.

Maybe you should go back to the OP IT STARTS OUT LIKE THIS. This study is original historical research and analysis prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Did John Brown use "a well-regulated militia" to attack Harper's Ferry?

If I walk into the Mexican Embassy and open fire with my .45, demanding that all illegals leave the US and Mexico pay damages to the American people, am I a well regulated militia?

Why do I have to repeat myself?

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."

On a side note you are being like Jessie James or any other mid to late 19th century American west gang. What happen to them?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

People not in a militia or not actively defending the country do not have a "right" to bear arms.

You're conflation of the 2nd amendment is hilarious by the way.

Which goes back to the question who is the militia? The people are the militia.

That's correct.

But we now have a professional standing army under federal control. That was never original intent.

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."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

You would not know intellectual dishonesty if it slapped you in the face. I posted the relevant portion to prove there is nothing ambiguous about the words.

As passed by the Congress:

<b>

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
​

</b>.
​

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.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

Newsflash.

Even if you are 100% correct in your analysis, the fact is that you lose the argument because the clear, on the record, intent of Congress when it passed the 14th Amendment was to ensure that every person in the US had the right to own a weapon, and keep it for self defense. Until you admit that we have nothing else to discuss, because you loose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, my, watch the far right weirdo wacks running in circles. Here, guys, is the 14th; please read it for the first time, obviously,

14th Amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Even if you are 100% correct in your analysis, the fact is that you lose the argument because the clear, on the record, intent of Congress when it passed the 14th Amendment was to ensure that every person in the US had the right to own a weapon, and keep it for self defense. Until you admit that we have nothing else to discuss, because you loose.

Read the 14th because . . . "the clear, on the record, intent of Congress when it passed the 14th Amendment was to ensure that every person in the US had the right to own a weapon, and keep it for self defense", above, please, and point that out.

The 2nd Amendment takes care of your concern about own a personal weapon.

You don't get a naval guided-missile frigate for your bath tub, though.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.”


Historically speaking it has always been used as a military term as in military grade weapons. This study is original historical research and analysis prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson
Figurative v. Literal Usage
"Figurative" and "literal" grammatical and rhetorical terms need some explanation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, which bases its definitions on historical usage since the 12th century and provides historical examples for the major variations in usage, a literal meaning is one in which is "free from figures of speech, exaggeration, or allusion;" that is, one that is used in its literal sense. For example, to "carry arms" in its literal sense means to transport or convey weapons from one place to another. On the other hand, a figurative meaning is one "based on, or involving the use of, figures [of speech] or metaphors; metaphorical, not literal. For example, to "deliver up arms" was a figurative expression for disarming a defeated enemy, often on the field of battle, but only in the broadest sense is the concept of delivering or transferring weapons from the custody of the defeated forces to that of the victors of significance to the meaning of the overall expression.
Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...

It plainly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." It has always meant the citizens of the U.S. not the military. You have to be able to read with comprehension to understand.

 

[AmericanFirst]

How about this taken literally:

Three-fifths compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stick on topic, hater.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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

Where do you get military grade guns? WRONG!!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

When have we had a knight or king in the United States of America?

What does that have to do with your claim that it has always applied to military service?

When did I mention military service? I said 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

Now I understand, sorry for any previous misunderstanding.

 

[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.”


Historically speaking it has always been used as a military term as in military grade weapons. This study is original historical research and analysis prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson
Figurative v. Literal Usage
"Figurative" and "literal" grammatical and rhetorical terms need some explanation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, which bases its definitions on historical usage since the 12th century and provides historical examples for the major variations in usage, a literal meaning is one in which is "free from figures of speech, exaggeration, or allusion;" that is, one that is used in its literal sense. For example, to "carry arms" in its literal sense means to transport or convey weapons from one place to another. On the other hand, a figurative meaning is one "based on, or involving the use of, figures [of speech] or metaphors; metaphorical, not literal. For example, to "deliver up arms" was a figurative expression for disarming a defeated enemy, often on the field of battle, but only in the broadest sense is the concept of delivering or transferring weapons from the custody of the defeated forces to that of the victors of significance to the meaning of the overall expression.
Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...

It plainly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." It has always meant the citizens of the U.S. not the military. You have to be able to read with comprehension to understand.

Talk about none comprehension. I have repeated this reply numerous times through out this thread.

“When did I mention military service? I said 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 “

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even if you are 100% correct in your analysis, the fact is that you lose the argument because the clear, on the record, intent of Congress when it passed the 14th Amendment was to ensure that every person in the US had the right to own a weapon, and keep it for self defense. Until you admit that we have nothing else to discuss, because you loose.

Read the 14th because . . . "the clear, on the record, intent of Congress when it passed the 14th Amendment was to ensure that every person in the US had the right to own a weapon, and keep it for self defense", above, please, and point that out.

The 2nd Amendment takes care of your concern about own a personal weapon.

You don't get a naval guided-missile frigate for your bath tub, though.

Funny thing, I am talking about the clear intent of Congress, and you stoop to insults. Since I alreadyt stated, in this thread, that I do not want my neighbor thinking he can own something to take out a tank, you loose.

As for the 14th, I highlighted the part I am talking about.

Oh, my, watch the far right weirdo wacks running in circles. Here, guys, is the 14th; please read it for the first time, obviously,

14th Amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now we will go on to what the intent of Congress was. History disagrees with you, and so does the Congressional record. But feel free to try and claim that I am the one that is off the wall here, I know it makes your statist heart sing to think that you get to tell everyone what to do.

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Right To Keep and Bear Arms: The Intent of the Framers

 

[JakeStarkey]

The clear intent of Congress and the nation and the 2nd and 14th Amendments is that Americans get to own personal weapons.

No intent can be determined at all, either by strict or loose construction, that QPW gets a guided-missile frigate and bigrebnc gets a gunship.

Guys, I am not calling names, I am calling it as it is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The clear intent of Congress and the nation and the 2nd and 14th Amendments is that Americans get to own personal weapons.

No intent can be determined at all, either by strict or loose construction, that QPW gets a guided-missile frigate and bigrebnc gets a gunship.

Guys, I am not calling names, I am calling it as it is.

When you point out anywhere I said anything about wanting nuclear weapons, guided missile frigates, or anything else like that you might have a point. Until then you are just an idiot, even if you admit I am right.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The clear intent of Congress and the nation and the 2nd and 14th Amendments is that Americans get to own personal weapons.

No intent can be determined at all, either by strict or loose construction, that QPW gets a guided-missile frigate and bigrebnc gets a gunship.

Guys, I am not calling names, I am calling it as it is.

Jake 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?
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]

I am glad to see QWB agrees with me, finally, on the intent of 2nd Amendment. The rest of what he is writing seems to be that he wants to take a far left activist view of the Constitution, which is surprising, for him. People do change, though.

bigrebnc is dithering on as usual when his OP has gone epic fail. Hey, bub, when you get to buy a heavy weapons system as your own personal weapon, let us know.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am glad to see QWB agrees with me, finally, on the intent of 2nd Amendment. The rest of what he is writing seems to be that he wants to take a far left activist view of the Constitution, which is surprising, for him. People do change, though.

bigrebnc is dithering on as usual when his OP has gone epic fail. Hey, bub, when you get to buy a heavy weapons system as your own personal weapon, let us know.

PROVE MY POST WRONG MORON
Jake 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?
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."