The Second Amendment ONLY applies to Americans in the military (full-time or reserves)

[Rucker61]

So...from this sentence:

'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.'

You and brainbot believe that the subject of this sentence is 'the people'.
And not 'a well regulated militia.'

Diagram the sentence and see what you get.

Okaaaaaaaaaay.
If the subject of the sentence is 'the people's right to bear arms'?
Why the 'f' would they even mention the Militia?
For fun?

What "shall not be infringed"?

You two obviously need the following...desperately:

Academic Guides: Grammar: Sentence Structure and Types of Sentences

This guide includes instructional pages on grammar.

academicguides.waldenu.edu

Bye now.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

 

[VanceMack]

As stated before, gun control advocates hammer at the idea that the Militia is an organized entity such as the National Guard. However, the fact that the National Guard wasn’t even created until over a century after the adoption of the Bill of Rights seriously comprises the idea that such a limited system is what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind.


To resolve this issue further, one must turn to the courts for advice. And fortunately, the courts have stated how the “Militia” should be interpreted, both historically, and today. In the Supreme Court decision Presser vs. Illinois (1886), for example, Mr. Justice Woods in a bold statement proclaimed that,


“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United states, as well as that of the states; and in view of this prerogative of the general government as well as of its general powers, the States’ cannot, even laying the constitutional provisions in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.”

Further...

“. . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.


“The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” [emphasis added]
It is interesting to note that Miller was an individual, and not a member of the National Guard. The Court never questioned whether Miller was part of the militia and focused on the type of weapon he possessed. The mere fact that the there was a question over which arms he received protection for “keeping and bearing” indicated that the right is for individuals, not the states."

What Is The "Militia"? And Who Are "The People"? | Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

by Dave LaCourse

www.ccrkba.org

 

[Rucker61]

As I have already typed...

...I do not even BEGIN to CARE what you or anyone else think the Founders 'meant'.
Or how the SCOTUS decides to interpret.

ALL I care about - in this regard - is what is the written LAWS of America AS WRITTEN.

What part of

Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves...

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves...

Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves...
..
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself...

Are you missing? Every single one of these indicate an individual right.

 

[VanceMack]

As I have already typed...

...I do not even BEGIN to CARE what you or anyone else think the Founders 'meant'.
Or how the SCOTUS decides to interpret.

ALL I care about - in this regard - is what is the written LAWS of America AS WRITTEN.

Ah...so what you are saying is that you base your beliefs solely on what you want them to be, what the facts are, and that your opinions shouldnt be given the time of day.

Seriously dood....if you had led with that, I would have known to not take anything you have written seriously.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So...from this sentence:

'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.'

You and brainbot believe that the subject of this sentence is 'the people'.
And not 'a well regulated militia.'



Okaaaaaaaaaay.
If the subject of the sentence is 'the people's right to bear arms'?
Why the 'f' would they even mention the Militia?
For fun?


You two obviously need the following...desperately:

Academic Guides: Grammar: Sentence Structure and Types of Sentences

This guide includes instructional pages on grammar.

academicguides.waldenu.edu

Bye now.

A generous serving of milk, being necessary for maximum enjoyment of one’s breakfast, the right of the people to eat cereal, shall not be infringed.

Is the subject milk or a right of the people?

 

[The Work Outing]

Picky? facts are facts....not 'picky'

The citizens ARE the militia. There is no question to that fact. It was cited by the framers of the Constitution. Washington himself not only referenced the citizen soldier but also described the at least minimum standards the citizen soldier were to supply himself with.

You asked "what does well regulated" mean? "Well regulated" in 1770 vernacular meant well apportioned, supplied, kept in good working order. Citizens were expected to be trained in the use of their personal firearms...were expected to keep their weapons in good working order...and each citizen was expected to keep at a minimum 20 rounds of ball, cap, and powder for the emergency use if/when called upon. Then it was the musket. Today, the AR IS the Modern Day Musket.

The militia are citizen soldiers. Always have been. Always will be. What the US Code does TODAY is codifies those who MUST be ready for a call to arms. It does not limit those that MAY heed the call to arms.

I do not much care what you - or anyone else thinks the laws mean or should mean.

I only care about what the Constitution and the Laws of the land are written in this regard NOW.

And - as written - whether you like it or not.

The 2'nd Amendment ONLY refers to the organized militia. Which ONLY refers to the full/part time military).

Period.

 

[joko104]

2'nd 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.'

So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'?

The Militia Act of 1903

'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia.
The third section defines the " organized militia " as the regu- larly enlisted, organized, and uniformed militia which shall here- after participate in the annual militia appropriation (heretofore only one million a year). It gives the President authority to fix the minimum number of enlisted men in each company.'

The Militia Act of 1903 : Parker, James : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Militia Act of 1903 is an article from The North American Review, Volume 177. View more articles from The North American Review.View this article on...

archive.org

So...there are two kinds of militia - according to US law.
The organized and the unorganized.

And since the 2'nd Amendment refers SOLELY to 'a well regulated Militia'?
Than, the 2'nd Amendment cannot POSSIBLY include the 'unorganized militia'.
It is not possible for a 'well regulated Militia' to be 'unorganized'.

And since the ONLY organized militia refers ONLY to the military?
The 2'nd Amendment does NOT include ANYONE whom is not in the military.
By law.

A nonsensical message. Generally, for laws they state the intention. However, the intention is not what matters. Rather, it is the actual regulation language. In any criminal trial, the defense or prosecution trying to make WHY the language of the law exists, claiming therefore the actual language itself doesn't apply, would never even be allowed. "The right to bear arms shall not" is not subjective language in law to then claim they didn't mean the words they worth and made part of the Constitution, unlike your claim. Shall not means shall not. It does not say "except if you are not in an organized militia." That is all something you are just trying to extrapolate and that's not how law works.

 

[The Work Outing]

Ah...so what you are saying is that you base your beliefs solely on what you want them to be, what the facts are, and that your opinions shouldnt be given the time of day.

Seriously dood....if you had led with that, I would have known to not take anything you have written seriously.

Do even know what 'reading comprehension' is?

You just made a COMPLETELY ridiculous assumption based on absolute nonsense.

But if you want to take a hike and stop wasting my time with your ignorant ramblings?
Be my guest.

Bye now.

 

[joko104]

A generous serving of milk, being necessary for maximum enjoyment of one’s breakfast, the right of the people to eat cereal, shall not be infringed.

Is the subject milk or a right of the people?

He's arguing that only people who enjoy milk may have milk for their cereal and that no one may have milk unless they put it on cereal as his reasoning. Under the same logic, it could be claimed that since we are no longer subject to King George then no one has the right to vote and the entire Constitution and Bill Of Rights is void since the Declaration of Independence says King George was the reason for the US Constitution.

 

[VanceMack]

I do not much care what you - or anyone else thinks the laws mean or should mean.

I only care about what the Constitution and the Laws of the land are written in this regard NOW.

And - as written - whether you like it or not.

The 2'nd Amendment ONLY refers to the organized militia. Which ONLY refers to the full/part time military).

Period.

The Consittuion is our founding document. What it says and why it was written is PARAMOUNT. The 2nd Amendment was written as part of the Bill of Rights of CITIZENS and references the LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT. The PEOPLE. If you arent smart enough to understand that, none of the other twisted version of rhetoric you offer matter.

 

[VanceMack]

Do even know what 'reading comprehension' is?

You just made a COMPLETELY ridiculous assumption based on absolute nonsense.

But if you want to take a hike and stop wasting my time with your ignorant ramblings?
Be my guest.

Bye now.

Yes...Comprehension is something you have abandoned as you try to torture words to fit your opinion. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. The People ARE the militia...even as codified in the US Code.

 

[The Work Outing]

A nonsensical message. Generally, for laws they state the intention. However, the intention is not what matters. Rather, it is the actual regulation language. In any criminal trial, the defense or prosecution trying to make WHY the language of the law exists, claiming therefore the actual language itself doesn't apply, would never even be allowed. "The right to bear arms shall not" is not subjective language in law to then claim they didn't mean the words they worth and made part of the Constitution, unlike your claim. Shall not means shall not. It does not say "except if you are not in an organized militia." That is all something you are just trying to extrapolate and that's not how law works.

Blah blah blah.
Well that was a post full of blather.

1) If the message were truly 'nonsensical'. Then you would have not understood it enough to accurately comment on it.
So...what the heck are you commenting on it...if you did not understand it?


2) I am not going by 'intention'.
DUH.
I am going by the laws as written AND the dictionary.
Again...DUH.

Bye now.


Oh...and a little advice before you type on here again?

Learn what 'exactitude' means.
And do not assume you are more intelligent than you really are.

Bye bye now.

 

[The Work Outing]

The 2A purpose was to maintain a militia. Now that, that is an obsolete relic of the 18th century, so is the 2A.

It is still the law of the land.

Bye now.

 

[ttwtt78640]

He's arguing that only people who enjoy milk may have milk for their cereal and that no one may have milk unless they put it on cereal as his reasoning. Under the same logic, it could be claimed that since we are no longer subject to King George then no one has the right to vote and the entire Constitution and Bill Of Rights is void since the Declaration of Independence says King George was the reason for the US Constitution.

Maybe, but maybe not. His interpretation may be that the right to eat cereal (or any other breakfast food?) is void unless one adds a (properly?) generous serving of milk to it.

 

[Rucker61]

Blah blah blah.
Well that was a post full of blather.

1) If the message were truly 'nonsensical'. Then you would have not understood it enough to accurately comment on it.
So...what the heck are you commenting on it...if you did not understand it?


2) I am not going by 'intention'.
DUH.
I am going by the laws as written AND the dictionary.
Again...DUH.

Bye now.


Oh...and a little advice before you type on here again?

Learn what 'exactitude' means.
And do not assume you are more intelligent than you really are.

Bye bye now.

Did the federal government ever limit the right to keep and bear arms to military organizations?

 

[The Work Outing]

A generous serving of milk, being necessary for maximum enjoyment of one’s breakfast, the right of the people to eat cereal, shall not be infringed.

Is the subject milk or a right of the people?

The sentence is meaningless.

First you talk about milk helping one enjoy cereal.
Then you talk about the people's right to eat cereal.

That is two, distinctive subjects in the same sentence.


I mean think, please.

If the Amendment is to give everyone the right to bear arms?
Why bother mentioning the Militia at all?
Just make it: 'The Right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed'.

Why the Hell would you even mention the militia at all?
For fun?

Sheesh!

Bye bye now.

 

[joko104]

Blah blah blah.
Well that was a post full of blather.

1) If the message were truly 'nonsensical'. Then you would have not understood it enough to accurately comment on it.
So...what the heck are you commenting on it...if you did not understand it?


2) I am not going by 'intention'.
DUH.
I am going by the laws as written AND the dictionary.
Again...DUH.

Bye now.


Oh...and a little advice before you type on here again?

Learn what 'exactitude' means.
And do not assume you are more intelligent than you really are.

Bye bye now.

Your OP is nonsensical. You have a conclusion you want and ignore the actual effective language to to try to reach it, to instead argue about intentions asserting the founders wanted no one to have firearms but those in the organized militia. Exactly everyone knows the signers of the constitution did not want everyone not in the militia to be disarmed or they would have pursued exactly that in laws and did not do so. So it also is known your trying to mind read their intention is factually false as well.

There is no ambiguity in the statement "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." You try to create and add "only for people in an organized militia" and those words do not exist.

So, of course, now all you do is rant desperate to divert from your own topic. Typical.

 

[Rucker61]

The sentence is meaningless.

First you talk about milk helping one enjoy cereal.
Then you talk about the people's right to eat cereal.

That is two, distinctive subjects in the same sentence.


Look...you already showed that you do NOT understand, basic sentence structure.
Anyone who looks at the 2'nd Amendment and decides that the subject of that sentence is 'the People' and NOT 'a well trained militia'?
Has NO idea what they are talking about.

Bye bye now.

The words "well trained militia" don't even appear in the Second Amendment.

What is the predicate?

 

[Rucker61]

Your OP is nonsensical. You have a conclusion you want and ignore the actual effective language to to try to reach it, to instead argue about intentions asserting the founders wanted no one to have firearms but those in the organized militia. Exactly everyone knows the signers of the constitution did not want everyone not in the militia to be disarmed or they would have pursued exactly that in laws and did not do so. So it also is known your trying to mind read their intention is factually false as well.

There is no ambiguity in the statement "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." You try to create and add "only for people in an organized militia" and those words do not exist.

So, of course, now all you do is rant desperate to divert from your own topic. Typical.

Sounds like the "7 Minute Abs" guy in There's Something About Mary.

 

[bomberfox]

By the way.

I do not begin to care how the SCOTUS 'interpreted' the Constitution.

The SCOTUS is not allowed to do ANYTHING but base their verdicts on the Constitution AS WRITTEN.
They took an oath(s) to that effect.
So I do not BEGIN to care what SCOTUS decisions based on their inferences or beliefs are or were.


Nor do I much care what people think what the Founding Fathers meant when they drafted the 2'nd Amendment.

It is TOTALLY irrelevant to me what the Founding Fathers may have 'meant' or wrote or said about ANYTHING.
ALL that matters to me - in terms of the Constitution - is the Constitution AS WRITTEN.

Well gun bunnies?
Start foaming at the mouth.

You should care enough to intelligently refute those rulings….

 

[bomberfox]

Diagram the sentence and see what you get.


What "shall not be infringed"?


(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

For the purpose of a well regulated militia. You cant just ignore the prefatory clause. Its always defined the purpose of the clause. Otherwise you wouldnt have such clause like the first doesnt. You ask others to diagram the sentence then immediately skip to your favorite portion.

 

[VanceMack]

The sentence is meaningless.

First you talk about milk helping one enjoy cereal.
Then you talk about the people's right to eat cereal.

That is two, distinctive subjects in the same sentence.


Look...you already showed that you do NOT understand, basic sentence structure.
Anyone who looks at the 2'nd Amendment and decides that the subject of that sentence is 'the People' and NOT 'a well trained militia'?
Has NO idea what they are talking about.

Bye bye now.

Anyone that thinks the words 'well regulated' meant a government entity and not "kept in good working order" demonstrates a tragic lack of understanding of both the English language and history. What stands against you...
1-The Bill of Rights was written as a document to guarantee essential rights and civil liberties of the people
2-There WAS NO ORGANIZED MILITIA...the first militia acts were written years later.
3-The state militias were also a collective of THE PEOPLE.
4-The actual words of the people that wrote the document
5-Supreme Court rulings

What you have going for you
1-Your opinion

 

[The Work Outing]

You should care enough to intelligently refute those rulings….

What the heck are you talking about?

What rulings exactly?
And why should I refute them?

 

[bomberfox]

What the heck are you talking about?

What rulings exactly?
And why should I refute them?

Because the court’s rulings matter? Duh lol..

 

[Eriech]

For the purpose of a well regulated militia. You cant just ignore the prefatory clause.

Back in that day a man with a rifle was well regulated. A man with a rock was not. Both armed though.......