True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?

How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?

1st Amendment - Right of the People
3rd Amendment - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment - No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "accused"
7th Amendment - Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

ALL of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people. Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia. You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!

The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be unalienable by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.

/-----/ So James Madison was only kidding when he included “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” He was really talking about the State.

lol. special pleading is what the right wing does best. The security of a free State, is what our Second Amendment is about.

 

[danielpalos]

Still on the natural rights? State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution. That is a simple fact of the way our republic works. Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right. And no state constitution can change that.

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

Back to that standard canard again? No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance. When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.

You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning. So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.

I can't help but ask, however, what do you get out of maintaining that ignorance?

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.

 

[danielpalos]

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?

How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?

1st Amendment - Right of the People
3rd Amendment - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment - No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "accused"
7th Amendment - Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

ALL of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people. Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia. You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!

The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be unalienable by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.

There is no quibbling. You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.

natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

We have a Tenth Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Still on the natural rights? State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution. That is a simple fact of the way our republic works. Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right. And no state constitution can change that.

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

Both militia and people are specifically enumerated. That is true. And the separate terms were used for specific reasons.

Plural? Yes. Collective? No.

plural means not singular, if we have to quibble.

I have never argued that it meant singular. But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does. The right is for the citizens of the nation. There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.

it must also be collective, if applied to the militia. Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

/----/ It seems your only rebuttal to these well thought out points with references is name calling.
View attachment 184431

dude; I know how to use a dictionary. natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

So? The state constitutions, natural rights and all, do not override the US Constitution. Bringing up that same point doesn't apply to this thread any more than it did the last.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

All this about the 2nd amendment. We need to look at history when it was written. I wrote up something.

Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

 

[WinterBorn]

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

Both militia and people are specifically enumerated. That is true. And the separate terms were used for specific reasons.

Plural? Yes. Collective? No.

plural means not singular, if we have to quibble.

I have never argued that it meant singular. But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does. The right is for the citizens of the nation. There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.

it must also be collective, if applied to the militia. Only the right wing, never gets it.

It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms. That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part. It is an individual right not a collective one.

 

[WinterBorn]

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?

How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?

1st Amendment - Right of the People
3rd Amendment - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment - No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "accused"
7th Amendment - Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

ALL of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people. Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia. You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!

The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be unalienable by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.

/-----/ So James Madison was only kidding when he included “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” He was really talking about the State.

lol. special pleading is what the right wing does best. The security of a free State, is what our Second Amendment is about.

No it is not.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

/----/ It seems your only rebuttal to these well thought out points with references is name calling.
View attachment 184431

dude; I know how to use a dictionary. natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

So? The state constitutions, natural rights and all, do not override the US Constitution. Bringing up that same point doesn't apply to this thread any more than it did the last.

like what, for example? natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

All this about the 2nd amendment. We need to look at history when it was written. I wrote up something.

Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

Both militia and people are specifically enumerated. That is true. And the separate terms were used for specific reasons.

Plural? Yes. Collective? No.

plural means not singular, if we have to quibble.

I have never argued that it meant singular. But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does. The right is for the citizens of the nation. There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.

it must also be collective, if applied to the militia. Only the right wing, never gets it.

It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms. That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part. It is an individual right not a collective one.

it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.

 

[danielpalos]

If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?

How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?

1st Amendment - Right of the People
3rd Amendment - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment - No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "accused"
7th Amendment - Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

ALL of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people. Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia. You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!

The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be unalienable by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.

/-----/ So James Madison was only kidding when he included “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” He was really talking about the State.

lol. special pleading is what the right wing does best. The security of a free State, is what our Second Amendment is about.

No it is not.

Yes, it is. It says so, in the first clause. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Only the right wing, likes to blame less fortunate illegals, in Public Venues.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The Second says you're full of it

The Supreme Court says not all firearms are protected by the Second Anendnent.

AR15s are not protected.

They can be and should be banned as similar to weapons of war.

 

[WinterBorn]

Both militia and people are specifically enumerated. That is true. And the separate terms were used for specific reasons.

Plural? Yes. Collective? No.

plural means not singular, if we have to quibble.

I have never argued that it meant singular. But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does. The right is for the citizens of the nation. There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.

it must also be collective, if applied to the militia. Only the right wing, never gets it.

It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms. That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part. It is an individual right not a collective one.

it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.

Plural? Yes. Not collective. There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.

 

[danielpalos]

plural means not singular, if we have to quibble.

I have never argued that it meant singular. But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does. The right is for the citizens of the nation. There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.

it must also be collective, if applied to the militia. Only the right wing, never gets it.

It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms. That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part. It is an individual right not a collective one.

it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.

Plural? Yes. Not collective. There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.

convicts are People, too?

 

[WinterBorn]

I have never argued that it meant singular. But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does. The right is for the citizens of the nation. There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.

it must also be collective, if applied to the militia. Only the right wing, never gets it.

It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms. That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part. It is an individual right not a collective one.

it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.

Plural? Yes. Not collective. There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.

convicts are People, too?

I never said there could be no regulations for individuals.

 

[Humorme]

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?

How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?

1st Amendment - Right of the People
3rd Amendment - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment - No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "accused"
7th Amendment - Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

ALL of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people. Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia. You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!

The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be unalienable by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.

/-----/ So James Madison was only kidding when he included “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” He was really talking about the State.

lol. special pleading is what the right wing does best. The security of a free State, is what our Second Amendment is about.

You're wrong as usual

 

[Humorme]

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

Back to that standard canard again? No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance. When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.

You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning. So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.

I can't help but ask, however, what do you get out of maintaining that ignorance?

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.

Totally wasted words regarding your ignorance. You should read more and pontificate less about things you don't have a clue about.

Individual Rights... The Right of the people.

 

[hunarcy]

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

Both militia and people are specifically enumerated. That is true. And the separate terms were used for specific reasons.

Plural? Yes. Collective? No.

plural means not singular, if we have to quibble.

I have never argued that it meant singular. But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does. The right is for the citizens of the nation. There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.

it must also be collective, if applied to the militia. Only the right wing, never gets it.

It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms. That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part. It is an individual right not a collective one.

If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?

How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?

1st Amendment - Right of the People
3rd Amendment - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment - No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "accused"
7th Amendment - Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

ALL of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people. Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia. You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!

The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be unalienable by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.

/-----/ So James Madison was only kidding when he included “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” He was really talking about the State.

lol. special pleading is what the right wing does best. The security of a free State, is what our Second Amendment is about.

You're wrong as usual

Trolls like that one are wrong on purpose. He just wants to waste your time.

 

[Humorme]

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?

How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?

1st Amendment - Right of the People
3rd Amendment - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment - No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "accused"
7th Amendment - Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

ALL of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people. Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia. You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!

The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be unalienable by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.

There is no quibbling. You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.

natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

We have a Tenth Amendment.

STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS