2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..." (1 Viewer)

[Bodi]

Dood...thats just so incredibly goofy. They did not write the Bill of Rights to protect a government entity. They wrote it to limit the rights of government and ensure the rights of 'The People'. Who is 'the militia? The people. We all are.

The militia mean all able bodied WHITE males between 18 and 45, originally.

 

[Bodi]

Your comment was flippant merely because it was flippant. "See post x", Post x "See the Constitution". Except...when you "see the Constitution", it doesnt mean what you think it means.

As for WW2...not really sure what your silly rhetoric is trying to accomplish there. But I can tell you that any reasoned world leader might be compelled to think twice and then maybe a third time just to be safe if they would consider a land assault in the US with approx 120 million armed citizens in addition to the organized militia and active duty forces.

The 120 million gun owners would have been destroyed because they were not organized in the slightest. The Japanese would have been to Kansas before any militia could have stopped them and even then, you think a bunch of guys with shotguns and pistols are going to defeat an army?

 

[OpportunityCost]

I did. A couple of times.

“Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

The Ablative Absolute shows that the Founders wrote it in this manner to protect the Militia.

Which is nothing more nor less than your assertion. No evidence, no proof, no support for your argument. That is not enough.

I honestly don't see what the damn problem is. I am not arguing that people can't own guns. In fact I think that they should... so that we have a ****ing awesome kick ass militia. What is the damn problem with gun owners that they don't want to own a gun to help protect their country? Selfish.

Nah... they think the Founders intended that they could own a gun to shoot clay pigeons and paper targets. :roll:

The damn problem is you are making the right of self defense symbiotic with the government when it is not and was never intended to be. The Founders had no intent regarding firearms, other than to make sure citizens could use them as they wished so long as the use didn't interfere with the rights of another except in self defense.

Do you have any concept of what an Appeal to Authority means? No, I can see that you do not.

You are arguing intent by removing the stated intent of the people that did the writing and the voting. That's stating the facts because we know their intent, they recorded it.

Prior to the end of slavery there were no rulings that agreed with Abolitionists. By your logic they should never have bothered expressing their views. You would have told them that they were wrong and that slavery was just fine... right?

You know there were multiple writings about the misgivings of slavery from the same people that you are dismissing so blithely?

Your entire argument is your assertion. You have no logic, no proof, no evidence, and no argument; just your opinion.

 

[Aberration]

2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

Wrong on pretty much all accounts.

The Second IS the contract.

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are two SEPARATE RIGHTS.

Freedom of Religion has nothing to do with contacting a church any more than Freedom of Speech means contacting the Press.

If I am wrong can you bold the parts of the 2A that mention this contract when you purchase arms?

So the 1A isnt a contract but the 2A is a contract. How does that work? I know perfectly well that exercising religion does not contract one to a church and that speaking does not contract one to the press. Then again I also know that buying a firearm does not contract one to a militia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bodi]

Which is nothing more nor less than your assertion. No evidence, no proof, no support for your argument. That is not enough.

Dude, there is no evidence for anybody. It is ALL INTERPRETATION. Since I can read English my interpretation is as valid as anybody on SCOTUS.

The damn problem is you are making the right of self defense symbiotic with the government when it is not and was never intended to be. The Founders had no intent regarding firearms, other than to make sure citizens could use them as they wished so long as the use didn't interfere with the rights of another except in self defense.

If it never was intended to be then they should have not written the Second stating that it is...

You are arguing intent by removing the stated intent of the people that did the writing and the voting. That's stating the facts because we know their intent, they recorded it.

The should have included Spark Notes on what they intended instead then...

You know there were multiple writings about the misgivings of slavery from the same people that you are dismissing so blithely?

Your entire argument is your assertion. You have no logic, no proof, no evidence, and no argument; just your opinion.

The point was not slavery or the Founders view on it but rather your Appeal to Authority that SCOTUS is correct because it is SCOTUS.

It now seems clear that you do not, in fact, understand the Logical Fallacy.

 

[Bodi]

Re: 2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

If I am wrong can you bold the parts of the 2A that mention this contract when you purchase arms?

After you point out the part that states that you do not have to be in the militia when for owning a gun.

So the 1A isnt a contract but the 2A is a contract. How does that work? I know perfectly well that exercising religion does not contract one to a church and that speaking does not contract one to the press. Then again I also know that buying a firearm does not contract one to a militia.

The first IS A contract. That people can say what they want to in the United States... or practice their religion. What you are conflating for some reason is Freedom of Religion. The 1st states nothing about any Church so your repeated comments that we are part of a church, or whatever, is way off, as is your comment about Speech and the Press... TWO SEPARATE entities that have SEPARATE RIGHTS>

 

[ecofarm]

Since I can read English my interpretation is as valid as anybody on SCOTUS.

No. You massively lack conceptual understanding and thus context.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Dude, there is no evidence for anybody. It is ALL INTERPRETATION. Since I can read English my interpretation is as valid as anybody on SCOTUS.

Since you haven't touched on Natural Rights at all, I Have to say you haven't a clue.

If it never was intended to be then they should have not written the Second stating that it is...

Your argument is that every other right in the Bill of Rights enumerates a right but the 2nd which enumerates a government symbiosis? Logic fail, writ large.

The should have included Spark Notes on what they intended instead then...

They did, its called the Federalist papers. Your remark indicates you have no grounding in what you are talking about.

The point was not slavery or the Founders view on it but rather your Appeal to Authority that SCOTUS is correct because it is SCOTUS.

It now seems clear that you do not, in fact, understand the Logical Fallacy.

Not that SCOTUS is correct every time but that it is probably not WRONG every time in regards to the 2nd. Which it would have to be for you to be correct.

 

[VanceMack]

The militia mean all able bodied WHITE males between 18 and 45, originally.

Awesome...so we are agreeing that the militia did not mean an organized military construct...right? that it was in fact..."the people". Right?

 

[VanceMack]

The 120 million gun owners would have been destroyed because they were not organized in the slightest. The Japanese would have been to Kansas before any militia could have stopped them and even then, you think a bunch of guys with shotguns and pistols are going to defeat an army?

1...its foolish speculation on your part. 2...you still dont get the intent of the militia. As citizens we are responsible to own weapons and munitions and be trained in their use. If needed, we wouldnt rush out into the street like 120 million individuals. We would join in and become organized. and 3...study your history and learn what armed citizens managed to accomplish militarily.

 

[exoplanet]

I would not argue that it is restricted, because that has such negative connotations... but gun ownership is dependent.

At least that is how it is written in the Second Amendment.

The right of gun ownership would be dependent. Freedoms do not have to be specifically listed by the constitution to be allowed. This is important for far more than gun ownership.

It is interesting to me that they saw fit to put a purpose to bearing arms, whereas the first amendment, for example, has no such language. To me it seems as though they felt that it was important to place a context for gun ownership, and that if that context did not apply, then the government would have the capacity to step in.

 

[exoplanet]

But the people, nonetheless...correct? Not the Army, not the National Guard....citizens. The people.

Awesome.

Um, sure if you don't think women, non-whites, or old or handicapped people are covered by the second amendment. That is a far bigger restriction than currently exists.

 

[VanceMack]

Um, sure if you don't think women, non-whites, or old or handicapped people are covered by the second amendment. That is a far bigger restriction than currently exists.

We can get to that part later. First we need to establish that all the rhetorical bull**** about the 2nd Amendment being written to protect governments or militias is just that and that it was in fact written for "the people'.

Tracking...right?

 

[Aberration]

2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

I would not argue that it is restricted, because that has such negative connotations... but gun ownership is dependent.

At least that is how it is written in the Second Amendment.

Not by an standard of the English language. No where does the 2A say anything about the right of a militia. It merely says its necessary to a free State. Its states the purpose to protecting the right to keep and bear arms. You have the dependency reversed. It is the free State which is dependent on a well regulated militia, which is dependent on the right to keep and bear arms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bodi]

Awesome...so we are agreeing that the militia did not mean an organized military construct...right? that it was in fact..."the people". Right?

It has to have a minimal level of organization... meaning members at least need to be signed up.

 

[exoplanet]

We can get to that part later. First we need to establish that all the rhetorical bull**** about the 2nd Amendment being written to protect governments or militias is just that and that it was in fact written for "the people'.

Tracking...right?

I'm not sure why you think James Madison was engaging in rhetorical BS. He had some pretty clear reasons for writing that. I mean, if he wanted to simply say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" he could have done that and left it at that. Easy peasy. I doubt he had to make a word count or anything. So why is it not just a militia, but well regulated militia? Could it be that they wanted to distinguish between mere rabble running around with guns? I think so. A well regulated militia represents the collective will of the people to secure a free state. Somebody with a gun is just that and nothing more.

 

[Bodi]

Re: 2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

Not by an standard of the English language. No where does the 2A say anything about the right of a militia. It merely says its necessary to a free State. Its states the purpose to protecting the right to keep and bear arms. You have the dependency reversed. It is the free State which is dependent on a well regulated militia, which is dependent on the right to keep and bear arms.

, which is dependent on gun owners being a part of the militia...

 

[Bodi]

The right of gun ownership would be dependent. Freedoms do not have to be specifically listed by the constitution to be allowed. This is important for far more than gun ownership.

It is interesting to me that they saw fit to put a purpose to bearing arms, whereas the first amendment, for example, has no such language. To me it seems as though they felt that it was important to place a context for gun ownership, and that if that context did not apply, then the government would have the capacity to step in.

The government HAS stepped in... on both accounts, placing limitations on the people's rights.

 

[VanceMack]

It has to have a minimal level of organization... meaning members at least need to be signed up.

Come on dood...now you are just fabricating ****. Its like you arent even trying to be convincing.

 

[VanceMack]

I'm not sure why you think James Madison was engaging in rhetorical BS. He had some pretty clear reasons for writing that. I mean, if he wanted to simply say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" he could have done that and left it at that. Easy peasy. I doubt he had to make a word count or anything. So why is it not just a militia, but well regulated militia? Could it be that they wanted to distinguish between mere rabble running around with guns? I think so. A well regulated militia represents the collective will of the people to secure a free state. Somebody with a gun is just that and nothing more.

And yet we know historically that well regulated simply meant having the ability to function. We know historically that there was a loose command structure and that citizens responded. We know historically that they did NOT have an organized and structured militia when the BoR was written so we pretty much know everything you might say to imply thats what they REALLY meant is kinda silly. We know the intent of the founders was to ensure that 'the people' were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. SO if we all agree that the Bill of Rights was written and included to ensure the rights of the people and to limit the power of the government then we can say that we are making progress.

 

[Bodi]

Come on dood...now you are just fabricating ****. Its like you arent even trying to be convincing.

Ablative Absolute.

 

[exoplanet]

Re: 2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

Not by an standard of the English language. No where does the 2A say anything about the right of a militia. It merely says its necessary to a free State. Its states the purpose to protecting the right to keep and bear arms. You have the dependency reversed. It is the free State which is dependent on a well regulated militia, which is dependent on the right to keep and bear arms.

So why mention the purpose? We don't need a purpose anywhere else in the Bill of Rights. It seems to stand out quite a bit if it is merely explanatory language.

 

[Aberration]

Re: 2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

, which is dependent on gun owners being a part of the militia...

Which is why elsewhere in the Constitution it says all able bodied men between 18 and I think 45 are part of the irregular militia.

Which has nothing at all to do with the claim that buying a firearm creates a contract.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[exoplanet]

And yet we know historically that well regulated simply meant having the ability to function. We know historically that there was a loose command structure and that citizens responded. We know historically that they did NOT have an organized and structured militia when the BoR was written so we pretty much know everything you might say to imply thats what they REALLY meant is kinda silly.

A command structure, no matter how loose, is not some dude with a gun. A functioning militia is not just a bunch of people with guns.

We know the intent of the founders was to ensure that 'the people' were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.

And there was a very specific reason for this. We don't need a reason for the free practice of religion or of the press or to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. The right to bear arms has one purpose spelled out specifically and clearly for us.

There are generally accepted First Amendment limitations for example, some speech is considered dangerous and therefore it is limited. Even though the Constitution clearly states that free speech will not be abridged. This is not controversial at all. Arms, being inherently dangerous, needed a purpose to begin with so that reasonable restrictions could have a guideline that would keep them from endangering the security of the free state.

 

[Aberration]

Re: 2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

So why mention the purpose? We don't need a purpose anywhere else in the Bill of Rights. It seems to stand out quite a bit if it is merely explanatory language.

Because the Framers obviously felt it necessary to point out. They must have felt strongly about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk