Why we need the 2nd Amendment

[M14 Shooter]

Your claim that "placing a fraudulent definition in a statute somehow makes it not fraudulent" is wrong. Reality remains true even if a law or statute says otherwise.

Your claim that "a finite supply of 32,000 guns can somehow arm the vast majority of the American people" is also wrong. There are more than 300 million Americans.

Thanks for playing.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Well, that also depends on who's interpreting the Constitution, doesn't it?

What does the Second Amendment mean? I say it means something different because I've studied it. Others claim it gives them an unlimited right to arms at all times and all places no matter what.....

The Constitution also has an amendment process. If they try and change the constitution, does this make them an enemy? When it's perfectly legal and constitutional under the constitution.

The 2nd Amendment is clear in that it tells us that the people have the right to keep and bear (that means have on your premises and carry) firearms and not be infringed from doing so, so that they, if needed, can form a well-regulated militia to keep their states free, just as they did during the Revolutionary War.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The 2nd Amendment is clear in that it tells us that the people have the right to keep and bear (that means have on your premises and carry) firearms and not be infringed from doing so, so that they, if needed, can form a well-regulated militia to keep their states free, just as they did during the Revolutionary War.

No, you're wrong.

The founding fathers spoke about "bear arms" and "render military service" and "militia duty".

Nowhere, I mean, NOWHERE does it say the 2A is about carrying arms around whenever you like.

 

[LuckyDuck]

No, you're wrong.

The founding fathers spoke about "bear arms" and "render military service" and "militia duty".

Nowhere, I mean, NOWHERE does it say the 2A is about carrying arms around whenever you like.

You are wrong. The very first definition of "to bear arms," is to "carry arms," and I did say that you have them so that you "can" provide for a militia if needed. Our founding fathers recognized the contribution the citizen militias provided in helping defeat the British.
What it doesn't clarify is where and when you can carry said arms, hence the restrictions in such locations as courthouses and bars, et cetera and anything not covered specifically by the Constitution, can be determined upon by the individual states.
While not discussed, the determination of the types of "small-arms" that citizens may keep and bear, are by simply recognizing that the said citizens would provide for militias if needed, means that they would be able to keep and bear firearms (rifles/pistols) similar to the federal military.
The anti-gun crowd tends to fall into the following groups:
1. Families of victims of gun violence.
2. People unfamiliar with firearms and have a fear of them.
3. Leftists/Marxists that want the public disarmed to rule out armed resistance once they can come to power.
There are approximately 95,000,000 to 100,000,000 law-abiding gun owners in the U.S. owning an approximate 324,000,000 firearms. I'm one of them. I've not only been around them since I was eight years old, but spent 23 years in the military. We take the ownership seriously and don't run around committing crimes with them. Criminals with guns, for the most part, possess stolen firearms or ghost guns (it's not that difficult to make one now). Their preferred weapon is stolen or ghost pistol/revolver, rather than a rifle. Reason: It's far easier to conceal.
As to statistics, the numbers are inflated by the government by adding in suicides, which is different from a criminal act. Someone hell-bent on killing themselves can easily succeed without a firearm. Anyway, the left, for the most part, is hell-bent on confiscating the firearms from the law-abiding public that aren't the danger. They deliberately are soft on criminals committing crimes with firearms, to enhance people's fears and help them push for firearms confiscation. Why? Refer to #3.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You are wrong. The very first definition of "to bear arms," is to "carry arms," and I did say that you have them so that you "can" provide for a militia if needed. Our founding fathers recognized the contribution the citizen militias provided in helping defeat the British.
What it doesn't clarify is where and when you can carry said arms, hence the restrictions in such locations as courthouses and bars, et cetera and anything not covered specifically by the Constitution, can be determined upon by the individual states.
While not discussed, the determination of the types of "small-arms" that citizens may keep and bear, are by simply recognizing that the said citizens would provide for militias if needed, means that they would be able to keep and bear firearms (rifles/pistols) similar to the federal military.
The anti-gun crowd tends to fall into the following groups:
1. Families of victims of gun violence.
2. People unfamiliar with firearms and have a fear of them.
3. Leftists/Marxists that want the public disarmed to rule out armed resistance once they can come to power.
There are approximately 95,000,000 to 100,000,000 law-abiding gun owners in the U.S. owning an approximate 324,000,000 firearms. I'm one of them. I've not only been around them since I was eight years old, but spent 23 years in the military. We take the ownership seriously and don't run around committing crimes with them. Criminals with guns, for the most part, possess stolen firearms or ghost guns (it's not that difficult to make one now). Their preferred weapon is stolen or ghost pistol/revolver, rather than a rifle. Reason: It's far easier to conceal.
As to statistics, the numbers are inflated by the government by adding in suicides, which is different from a criminal act. Someone hell-bent on killing themselves can easily succeed without a firearm. Anyway, the left, for the most part, is hell-bent on confiscating the firearms from the law-abiding public that aren't the danger. They deliberately are soft on criminals committing crimes with firearms, to enhance people's fears and help them push for firearms confiscation. Why? Refer to #3.

No, I'm not wrong.

The definition of "bear arms" is "render military service" and "militia duty".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Here's the main document I use to prove it.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

The clause they were talking about.

What Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

Pretty clear Mr Gerry sees "bear arms" and "militia duty" as the same thing.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Jackson said "render military service."

In fact the different versions of the 2A went back and forth.

June 8th 1789
"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789
"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

They weren't sure whether to use one or the other.

If we look at the original state RBA clauses we see:

"1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;"

The right to bear arms for the "defence of the State".

So, you're saying North Carolina envisaged people walking around with guns just in case someone invaded the state?

"1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;"

"1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

These are different versions and it wasn't until 1817 that "themselves" changed to "himself", ie, collective "common defence" equals "defence of themselves" changed to individual defence (after the 2A was written) with "defence of himself"

"1817 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State."

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783​

George Washington

In this document by a dude known as "George Washington", you might have heard of him, he said:


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

He said you could be "borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of "bear".

He also talked about "bear Arms" and "Military duties" in the same sentence.

Even in Heller they spoke about it:

"At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry.""

Yep, and it still does. "Stool" also means a "poop". Doesn't mean if the teacher says "sit on the stool" he's not meaning "sit on the poop". Words have different meanings. To suggest a word CAN mean something it MUST mean something is ridiculous in the English language.

"When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation."

This is important. It means "confrontation". They've used "confrontation" because it works with self defense and the meaning it actually has. It's a very political choice of word, because EVERYTHING ELSE they talk about doesn't point to self defense.

"In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia."

Yes, but not outside of a "militia". They're trying to be political again. They point to the state clauses I showed before. That you could "bear arms" for "common defence". It still doesn't mean "self defense". It means "collective defense" before 1817 in Mississippi, and therefore in the 2A.

"that "bear arms" was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia."

Here they use "carrying of arms" as in "being in the militia", rather than actually just carrying them around in every day life.

"The phrase "bear Arms" also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" or "to wage war.""

Here we go. This is the meaning that we see when the Founding Fathers were discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. Things can mean other things, but in the sense of the Second Amendment we KNOW what it means. Most people just choose to ignore it.

So, I'm not wrong.​

 

[2aguy]

No, you're wrong.

The founding fathers spoke about "bear arms" and "render military service" and "militia duty".

Nowhere, I mean, NOWHERE does it say the 2A is about carrying arms around whenever you like.

So you then oppose abortion....since that is definitely no where in the Constitution.......right?

 

[2aguy]

No, I'm not wrong.

The definition of "bear arms" is "render military service" and "militia duty".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Here's the main document I use to prove it.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

The clause they were talking about.

What Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

Pretty clear Mr Gerry sees "bear arms" and "militia duty" as the same thing.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Jackson said "render military service."

In fact the different versions of the 2A went back and forth.

June 8th 1789
"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789
"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

They weren't sure whether to use one or the other.

If we look at the original state RBA clauses we see:

"1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;"

The right to bear arms for the "defence of the State".

So, you're saying North Carolina envisaged people walking around with guns just in case someone invaded the state?

"1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;"

"1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

These are different versions and it wasn't until 1817 that "themselves" changed to "himself", ie, collective "common defence" equals "defence of themselves" changed to individual defence (after the 2A was written) with "defence of himself"

"1817 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State."

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783​

George Washington

In this document by a dude known as "George Washington", you might have heard of him, he said:


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

He said you could be "borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of "bear".

He also talked about "bear Arms" and "Military duties" in the same sentence.

Even in Heller they spoke about it:

"At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry.""

Yep, and it still does. "Stool" also means a "poop". Doesn't mean if the teacher says "sit on the stool" he's not meaning "sit on the poop". Words have different meanings. To suggest a word CAN mean something it MUST mean something is ridiculous in the English language.

"When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation."

This is important. It means "confrontation". They've used "confrontation" because it works with self defense and the meaning it actually has. It's a very political choice of word, because EVERYTHING ELSE they talk about doesn't point to self defense.

"In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia."

Yes, but not outside of a "militia". They're trying to be political again. They point to the state clauses I showed before. That you could "bear arms" for "common defence". It still doesn't mean "self defense". It means "collective defense" before 1817 in Mississippi, and therefore in the 2A.

"that "bear arms" was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia."

Here they use "carrying of arms" as in "being in the militia", rather than actually just carrying them around in every day life.

"The phrase "bear Arms" also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" or "to wage war.""

Here we go. This is the meaning that we see when the Founding Fathers were discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. Things can mean other things, but in the sense of the Second Amendment we KNOW what it means. Most people just choose to ignore it.

So, I'm not wrong.​

Yeah....Scalia takes apart your silly post in Heller...you should try reading it sometime....... He even cites Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the definition of "Bear," in Heller......

 

[Vrenn]

The 2nd Amendment is clear in that it tells us that the people have the right to keep and bear (that means have on your premises and carry) firearms and not be infringed from doing so, so that they, if needed, can form a well-regulated militia to keep their states free, just as they did during the Revolutionary War.

And exactly what IS a Well Regulated Militia?

 

[Vrenn]

No, you're wrong.

The founding fathers spoke about "bear arms" and "render military service" and "militia duty".

Nowhere, I mean, NOWHERE does it say the 2A is about carrying arms around whenever you like.

One of the interpretations of the 2A is limiting the Feds but leaving it open to the States. This is why it listed "A Well Regulated Militia"

 

[frigidweirdo]

One of the interpretations of the 2A is limiting the Feds but leaving it open to the States. This is why it listed "A Well Regulated Militia"

I mean, one of the interpretations of the 2A is that you can keep bear arms in your home.

The problem with "interpretations" is that the people making them are ignorant of reality.

 

[Open Bolt]

Thanks for playing.

I'm always happy to defend the truth.

 

[Open Bolt]

The founding fathers spoke about "bear arms" and "render military service" and "militia duty".
Nowhere, I mean, NOWHERE does it say the 2A is about carrying arms around whenever you like.

It doesn't have to say it.

The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.

That includes the part about people having guns to privately defend their homes.

I mean, one of the interpretations of the 2A is that you can keep bear arms in your home.
The problem with "interpretations" is that the people making them are ignorant of reality.

No ignorance. The right to keep and bear arms clearly includes people having guns for the private defense of their homes.

 

[Open Bolt]

And exactly what IS a Well Regulated Militia?

It is a militia that has trained to a sufficient degree that they can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

One of the interpretations of the 2A is limiting the Feds but leaving it open to the States.

The Fourteenth Amendment came along later and applied it to state and local governments.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It doesn't have to say it.

The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.

That includes the part about people having guns to privately defend their homes.



No ignorance. The right to keep and bear arms clearly includes people having guns for the private defense of their homes.

If it's so clear, you'll be able to show me, using sources from the time, that this is so.

I've shown you sources, and ALL of those sources make absolutely NO MENTION OF PRIVATE DEFENSE OF THEIR HOMES.

 

[Open Bolt]

If it's so clear, you'll be able to show me, using sources from the time, that this is so.
I've shown you sources, and ALL of those sources make absolutely NO MENTION OF PRIVATE DEFENSE OF THEIR HOMES.

Statute:
33 Hen. 8, c. 6, § 1, An Act Concernin Crossbows and Handguns (1541)
And be it further enacted by authority aforesaid, that no person or persons form the last day of June shall in anyways shoot in or with any handgun demyhake or hagbutt at any thing at large, within any city, borough, or market town or within one quarter of a mile of any city, borough or market town, except it be at a butt or bank of earth in place convenient, or for the defense of his person or house, upon pain to forfeit for every such shot ten pounds; the present act or anything therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/33-hen-8-c-6-§-1-an-act-concernin-crossbows-and-handguns-1541/

Court rulings:
Rex v. Gardner (1739):
"And they do not extend to prohibit a man from keeping a gun for his necessary defence, but only from making that forbidden use of it. And the word 'gun' being purposely omitted in this act, the defendant is not within the penalty."

https://books.google.com/books?id=8...ut+only+from+making+that+forbidden+use+of+it"

Mallock v. Eastley (1744):
"the mere having a gun was no offense within the game laws, for a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family."

TO PRESERVE LIBERTY--A LOOK AT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

Northern Kentucky Law Review; To Preserve Liberty--A Look at the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, by Richard E. Gardiner

guncite.com

Wingfield v. Stratford (1752):
"It is not to be imagined, that it was the Intention of the Legislature, in making the 5 Ann.c.14 to disarm all the People of England. As Greyhounds, Setting Dogs ... are expressly mentioned in that Statute, it is never necessary to alledge, that any of these have been used for killing or destroying the Game; and the rather, as they can scarcely be kept for any other Purpose than to kill or destroy the Game. But as Guns are not expressly mentioned in that Statute, and as a Gun may be kept for the Defence of a Man's House, and for divers other lawful Purposes, it was necessary to alledge, in order to its being comprehended within the Meaning of the Words 'any other Engines to kill the Game', that the Gun had been used for killing the Game."

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition

Hastings Const. Law Q.; The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition, by Joyce Lee Malcolm

guncite.com

 

[frigidweirdo]

Statute:
33 Hen. 8, c. 6, § 1, An Act Concernin Crossbows and Handguns (1541)
And be it further enacted by authority aforesaid, that no person or persons form the last day of June shall in anyways shoot in or with any handgun demyhake or hagbutt at any thing at large, within any city, borough, or market town or within one quarter of a mile of any city, borough or market town, except it be at a butt or bank of earth in place convenient, or for the defense of his person or house, upon pain to forfeit for every such shot ten pounds; the present act or anything therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/33-hen-8-c-6-§-1-an-act-concernin-crossbows-and-handguns-1541/

Court rulings:
Rex v. Gardner (1739):
"And they do not extend to prohibit a man from keeping a gun for his necessary defence, but only from making that forbidden use of it. And the word 'gun' being purposely omitted in this act, the defendant is not within the penalty."

https://books.google.com/books?id=8...ut+only+from+making+that+forbidden+use+of+it"

Mallock v. Eastley (1744):
"the mere having a gun was no offense within the game laws, for a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family."

TO PRESERVE LIBERTY--A LOOK AT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

Northern Kentucky Law Review; To Preserve Liberty--A Look at the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, by Richard E. Gardiner

guncite.com

Wingfield v. Stratford (1752):
"It is not to be imagined, that it was the Intention of the Legislature, in making the 5 Ann.c.14 to disarm all the People of England. As Greyhounds, Setting Dogs ... are expressly mentioned in that Statute, it is never necessary to alledge, that any of these have been used for killing or destroying the Game; and the rather, as they can scarcely be kept for any other Purpose than to kill or destroy the Game. But as Guns are not expressly mentioned in that Statute, and as a Gun may be kept for the Defence of a Man's House, and for divers other lawful Purposes, it was necessary to alledge, in order to its being comprehended within the Meaning of the Words 'any other Engines to kill the Game', that the Gun had been used for killing the Game."

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition

Hastings Const. Law Q.; The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition, by Joyce Lee Malcolm

guncite.com

What's your point here?

I'm not saying there isn't a right to self defense. I'm saying the SECOND AMENDMENT doesn't protect the right to self defense.

 

[Open Bolt]

What's your point here?

You asked for cites showing that having guns for private home defense was part of the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm not saying there isn't a right to self defense. I'm saying the SECOND AMENDMENT doesn't protect the right to self defense.

The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't protect only one small part of that right.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You asked for cites showing that having guns for private home defense was part of the right to keep and bear arms.



The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't protect only one small part of that right.

Yeah, and you DID NOT show that private home defense was a part of the right to keep and bear arms. So.... what's your point?

Yes, the 2A protects the "entire right to keep and bear arms".

The right to keep arms equals the right to own weapons.
The right to bear arms equals the right to be in the militia.

No individual self defense. Collective self defense, yes.

 

[Colin norris]

The 2nd Amendment exists so the people can defend themselves. Period. From the government,

When was the first time you ever defended yourself agai st the government?

foreign invaders,

Like who, pillaging hordes of communists that have never appeared?

criminals,

Yes, usually more people with guns like yourself but you've never done that either.

it doesn't matter.

I don't need to justify the number of guns I own. I have the right own a thousand guns, if I want.

I don't care if you did own a thousand guns, that doesn't justify anything because you have no use for them. Youre justification is a misinterpretation of the 2nd.
It clearly states a well armed militia. 60 million nut cases like you are not a well armed militia.

Youre silly justifications are tied to the propaganda spread by the nra and republicans and you know it.

 

[Open Bolt]

Yeah, and you DID NOT show that private home defense was a part of the right to keep and bear arms.

I showed a statute and several court rulings that establish people's right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.

Yes, the 2A protects the "entire right to keep and bear arms".
The right to keep arms equals the right to own weapons.
The right to bear arms equals the right to be in the militia.

People also have the right to use those weapons for the private defense of their homes.

No individual self defense. Collective self defense, yes.

Privately defending your home is individual self defense.