Is the 2nd Amendment the Right to Self Defense?

[American]

If the 2nd amendment was about arming state militias, then why didn't they just say so?

 

[vegas giants]

I guess we need more arms and funding.

And clearly more training....do you disagree?

 

[TurtleDude]

It would seem the founders disagree with you. They felt the reason to have arms is to have a well regulated militia. Well regulated by definition means well trained and in good working order. Ours is not.

you, of course, are lying again, every document we can find from that time strongly shows the founders believed that the citizens had a natural right to be armed. your interpretation is fraudulent and its contrary to common sense. if people couldn't bear arms until they joined the militia, the militia could not function properly.

secondly, since you want to play word games with me-tell me where it says THE RIGHT OF THE MILITIA shall not be infringed?

or for that matter where in the Constitution the founders delegated gun control power to the federal government

another massive dishonest FAIL on your part

 

[TurtleDude]

And clearly more training....do you disagree?

lets see, you are on record wanting to disarm the law abiding citizenry. so your claim is hypocritical

 

[vegas giants]

you, of course, are lying again, every document we can find from that time strongly shows the founders believed that the citizens had a natural right to be armed. your interpretation is fraudulent and its contrary to common sense. if people couldn't bear arms until they joined the militia, the militia could not function properly.

secondly, since you want to play word games with me-tell me where it says THE RIGHT OF THE MILITIA shall not be infringed?

or for that matter where in the Constitution the founders delegated gun control power to the federal government

another massive dishonest FAIL on your part

Our unorganized militia is untrained. That is a fact.

I seem to remember a case called Wickard....LOL

 

[vegas giants]

lets see, you are on record wanting to disarm the law abiding citizenry. so your claim is hypocritical

Why would i want to disarm them? The militia needs to be armed. That makes no sense

 

[American]

And clearly more training....do you disagree?

Depends on when you form the militia, but we're wondering from the 2nd Amendment now. You need to have a point.

 

[TurtleDude]

Why would i want to disarm them? The militia needs to be armed. That makes no sense

you fraudulently claim that that only those who are enrolled in and actually serving in the militia have the right. its like saying the police have a right to be armed but until you enter the police academy and are sworn in, you, a private citizen does not

nice try, complete FAIL

 

[TurtleDude]

Our unorganized militia is untrained. That is a fact.

I seem to remember a case called Wickard....LOL

and Heller-so you dishonestly switched the goal posts again. You claim that the second amendment only applies to militias, which is a dishonest incorrect reading of the second and then pretend that the Wickard Case actually added language to the commerce clause

this is the problem that you constitutional revisionists run into. we on the correct side take that language as its written. The commerce clause talks about the states, not individuals. the Second talks about the peoples' rights not the militia. so we can consistently conclude that there is an individual right that the federal government both negatively and affirmatively, has no power to interfere with

you have to change your standards constantly because of all the contradictions in your dishonest argument

 

[vegas giants]

Depends on when you form the militia, but we're wondering from the 2nd Amendment now. You need to have a point.

The militia should not be trained now? What if they need to overthrow our own tryannical government?

 

[vegas giants]

you fraudulently claim that that only those who are enrolled in and actually serving in the militia have the right. its like saying the police have a right to be armed but until you enter the police academy and are sworn in, you, a private citizen does not

nice try, complete FAIL

I have no idea what you are even talking about....but carry on. LOL

 

[vegas giants]

and Heller-so you dishonestly switched the goal posts again. You claim that the second amendment only applies to militias, which is a dishonest incorrect reading of the second and then pretend that the Wickard Case actually added language to the commerce clause

this is the problem that you constitutional revisionists run into. we on the correct side take that language as its written. The commerce clause talks about the states, not individuals. the Second talks about the peoples' rights not the militia. so we can consistently conclude that there is an individual right that the federal government both negatively and affirmatively, has no power to interfere with

you have to change your standards constantly because of all the contradictions in your dishonest argument

Ahhh....the "correct" side. Says it all. Sounds like you have an opinion

 

[Slingshot Bob]

you, of course, are lying again, every document we can find from that time strongly shows the founders believed that the citizens had a natural right to be armed. your interpretation is fraudulent and its contrary to common sense. if people couldn't bear arms until they joined the militia, the militia could not function properly.

secondly, since you want to play word games with me-tell me where it says THE RIGHT OF THE MILITIA shall not be infringed?

or for that matter where in the Constitution the founders delegated gun control power to the federal government

another massive dishonest FAIL on your part

Any who believe that the second refers to militia in colonial America is delusional. Hunting was one major way to put food on the table and I would think that every household had at least one gun and a hunter.

 

[TurtleDude]

I have no idea what you are even talking about....but carry on. LOL

that's probably because you don't have any idea what you are talking about. seriously. You cannot create an effective militia unless everyone who could be called up is skilled with arms and has their own arms to practice with while they are NOT serving

 

[TurtleDude]

Ahhh....the "correct" side. Says it all. Sounds like you have an opinion

yeah its one consistent with all known factual reality

 

[vegas giants]

that's probably because you don't have any idea what you are talking about. seriously. You cannot create an effective militia unless everyone who could be called up is skilled with arms and has their own arms to practice with while they are NOT serving

I agree. They should show up well trained....but most are not trained at all. Our militia is not well regulated

 

[vegas giants]

yeah its one consistent with all known factual reality

But just an opinion....one that is part of a tiny minority

 

[TurtleDude]

I agree. They should show up well trained....but most are not trained at all. Our militia is not well regulated

the militia does not need to be well regulated until its actually formed, and has elected officers.

its like saying jurors don't need to be charged with the law and swear to be impartial judges of the facts until they are picked for a jury and sworn by the court. Until then, they are merely citizens who might be called up either for the militia or the jury

 

[TurtleDude]

But just an opinion....one that is part of a tiny minority

wrong, most people actually understand that its an individual right. its those who are upset with the true meaning of the second amendment who pretend otherwise

 

[vegas giants]

the militia does not need to be well regulated until its actually formed, and has elected officers.

its like saying jurors don't need to be charged with the law and swear to be impartial judges of the facts until they are picked for a jury and sworn by the court. Until then, they are merely citizens who might be called up either for the militia or the jury

Then it can never defend against a tyrannical government as the founders intended.

 

[vegas giants]

wrong, most people actually understand that its an individual right. its those who are upset with the true meaning of the second amendment who pretend otherwise

I have agreed it is an individual right

 

[TurtleDude]

I have agreed it is an individual right

so at what point does the term "infringement" kick in? are you one of those people who claim as long as you can own one gun, the government can ban anything else?

you see, the second amendment is properly seen as a complete blanket ban on government (federal) action

that ban doesn't dissipate depending on how many guns you already own

it doesn't dissipate depending on how many guns you have bought that week, that day, that hour

it doesn't dissipate based on how fast a firearm you want to buy shoots or how many rounds it shoots

it doesn't dissipate based on whether you are Protestant, Jewish, Black, Latino, Gay or disabled

it doesn't dissipate based on whether you are a world class shooter like me, a former law enforcement officer, a veteran or a hairdresser

it only seeks to protect you when your constitutional rights have been abrogated through due process of law based on what you have done.

 

[Visbek]

Any who believe that the second refers to militia in colonial America is delusional.

Uh, hello? Read it lately?

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.

Yes, believing that words have meaning is crazy talk.

Hunting was one major way to put food on the table and I would think that every household had at least one gun and a hunter.

Really? Does that include the 40,000 people living in Philadelphia, 25,000 in New York, 15,000 in Boston, and so forth?

The "major way" to put food on the table in the era was farming, not hunting. The fur trade did most of the hunting, using traps (not firearms). And of course, the 2A says absolutely nothing about hunting.

Meanwhile, able-bodied white men were required to have arms in most states because... wait for it... they could be called up for militia service at any time.

 

[TurtleDude]

Uh, hello? Read it lately?

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.

Yes, believing that words have meaning is crazy talk.



Really? Does that include the 40,000 people living in Philadelphia, 25,000 in New York, 15,000 in Boston, and so forth?

The "major way" to put food on the table in the era was farming, not hunting. The fur trade did most of the hunting, using traps (not firearms). And of course, the 2A says absolutely nothing about hunting.

Meanwhile, able-bodied white men were required to have arms in most states because... wait for it... they could be called up for militia service at any time.

and you still evade, avoid and run away from the fact that it was clearly intended to guarantee a right that pre-existed government and thus government regulated or formed institutions. Meaning it was and always has been an individual right and service in the militia was just one reason for guaranteeing a right that all the founders believed man has had since the dawn of time

 

[vegas giants]

so at what point does the term "infringement" kick in? are you one of those people who claim as long as you can own one gun, the government can ban anything else?

you see, the second amendment is properly seen as a complete blanket ban on government (federal) action

that ban doesn't dissipate depending on how many guns you already own

it doesn't dissipate depending on how many guns you have bought that week, that day, that hour

it doesn't dissipate based on how fast a firearm you want to buy shoots or how many rounds it shoots

it doesn't dissipate based on whether you are Protestant, Jewish, Black, Latino, Gay or disabled

it doesn't dissipate based on whether you are a world class shooter like me, a former law enforcement officer, a veteran or a hairdresser

it only seeks to protect you when your constitutional rights have been abrogated through due process of law based on what you have done.

80 years of supreme court precedent disagree with your "proper" interpretation. LOL