What does it mean to INFRINGE upon the Right to Keep and Bear arms

[TurtleDude]

Yes, he was. He was also a soldier in WWII.

decorated SAILOR I believe. My father, a hard core GOP committee Chairman was a navy officer (didn't see combat due to the "Sullivan Rule" after is Brother-a Naval aviator was KIA in 45) respected Kennedy for saving, despite severe pain, one of the enlisted men on PT 109. Most men who voted for Nixon, respected Kennedy as a hero and a patriot.

 

[Tetelestai]

In fact, no individual is a militia, well regulated and necessary or otherwise.[/QUOTE

One reason for the people to have the right to keep and own guns is so that, in the event the country goes south on us (as it's doing), we can from a militia to take our country back from our oppressors. If we disarm the public, just like in Germany before WWII, we would be doomed to total control by our government. Look how this admin. is acting. He is trampling on the Constitution, usurping power from the Congress and running the country by executive fiat. If there were no armed citizens, he would be a lot more aggressive and lawless than he already is. Anybody who advocates the disarmament of our citizenry is lacking in their understanding.

 

[danielpalos]

In fact, no individual is a militia, well regulated and necessary or otherwise.

Several may comprise a Part of a well regulated Militia.

 

[Joe Steel]

How can the citizens form a militia unless they have the necessary weapons?

As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, that's not important. The text is concerned with nature of the military. The Founders feared a standing or professional army and wanted to ensure the People could create an army of common citizens. Such an army was presumed to be loyal to the People not the government. The Second Amendment declares the People's right to create a citizen army, a militia.

 

[Joe Steel]

because I am a constitutional scholar and I have read all the relevant documents. They used the term several states to mean the various states. This is another example of gun banners trying to reverse engineer or work backwards from the obvious meaning in order to find support for their gun banning garbage

As a constitutional scholar, you certainly know the word "people" is a term of art and has a particular meaning in political writing, as our Constitution is. In the Constitution, both the word "people" and the world "person" are used. What's the difference in intended meaning?

 

[TurtleDude]

As a constitutional scholar, you certainly know the word "people" is a term of art and has a particular meaning in political writing, as our Constitution is. In the Constitution, both the word "people" and the world "person" are used. What's the difference in intended meaning?

for the purposes of the second amendment, the term "the people" refers to the individual citizens

 

[haymarket]

In fact, no individual is a militia, well regulated and necessary or otherwise.[/QUOTE

One reason for the people to have the right to keep and own guns is so that, in the event the country goes south on us (as it's doing), we can from a militia to take our country back from our oppressors. If we disarm the public, just like in Germany before WWII, we would be doomed to total control by our government. Look how this admin. is acting. He is trampling on the Constitution, usurping power from the Congress and running the country by executive fiat. If there were no armed citizens, he would be a lot more aggressive and lawless than he already is. Anybody who advocates the disarmament of our citizenry is lacking in their understanding.

Ah yes - the Glorious Day of Right Wing Jubilee when they can take all their firepower in their arsenals and slaughter other Americans in the streets over public policy differences.

Yup - forget about hunting..... forget about sport .... forget about home defense ..... forget about self defense ..... forget about protecting your business ..... forget about collecting and hobby use .... the real reason we need firearms is to prepare for the day of wiping out the government and its supporters. :doh:shock::roll:

It is pompous pronouncements like this that alienate people for normal gun ownership.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-nra-vs-america-20130131

 

[TurtleDude]

Ah yes - the Glorious Day of Right Wing Jubilee when they can take all their firepower in their arsenals and slaughter other Americans in the streets over public policy differences.

Yup - forget about hunting..... forget about sport .... forget about home defense ..... forget about self defense ..... forget about protecting your business ..... forget about collecting and hobby use .... the real reason we need firearms is to prepare for the day of wiping out the government and its supporters. :doh:shock::roll:

It is pompous pronouncements like this that alienate people for normal gun ownership.

The NRA vs. America | Politics News | Rolling Stone

what are you obsessing about Haymarket? you are the ONE who constantly thinks that all of us pro right advocates want to launch a jihad against the left wing scum that ruin our nation. We want to be left alone and we want the Dem war on our rights to STOP. Its the gun banners who fantasize about armed storm troopers rounding up guns and shooting down those who resist. Rolling Stone-LOL-now that is really credible. "MIlitary grade" weapons is a moronic term. Does that mean 1917 era bolt action Mausers? You cannot buy any military grade assault rifle made after 1986. That article is nothing more than a lie filled propaganda piece

I wonder why you appear so fearful to honest patriots being armed. But by suggesting that idiotic RS article and apparently supporting it-you pretty well flushed down the toilet (for those not paying attention) your specious claims of supporting the Second Amendment. Military grade (real military rifles) are exactly the same weapons citizens should be able to own

 

[haymarket]

what are you obsessing about Haymarket?

Obsessing!?!?!?!?

All I did was response to the post from another poster who openly talked about needing firearms to destroy the US Government.

Rolling Stone-LOL-now that is really credible.

Instead of attacking the messenger - perhaps you could actually speak to the issues raised and attempt to refute them with some verifiable evidence for once? :roll:

 

[sawdust]

Obsessing!?!?!?!?

All I did was response to the post from another poster who openly talked about needing firearms to destroy the US Government.



Instead of attacking the messenger - perhaps you could actually speak to the issues raised and attempt to refute them with some verifiable evidence for once? :roll:

I wish the left would apply the same logic to Fox as you do to Rolling Stone. Fox does hard news and opinion entertainment programming. It's fine to disagree with the entertainment side but foolish to judge a news article just because one of their news casters reads it, especially since it's so easy to check news stories on the net. Trust but verify. Don't you agree?

 

[haymarket]

I wish the left would apply the same logic to Fox as you do to Rolling Stone. Fox does hard news and opinion entertainment programming. It's fine to disagree with the entertainment side but foolish to judge a news article just because one of their news casters reads it, especially since it's so easy to check news stories on the net. Trust but verify. Don't you agree?

Yes, I agree.

 

[danielpalos]

More idiocy. the people have the right, not the militia. You clearly are unable to understand natural rights and natural law. Natural rights precede organized society. A militia is the creation of an organized society. Your argument is that natural rights to not accrue or exist until there is an organized society is contrary to the entire foundation of the constitution.

You lose

Not at all; even paragraph (2) of DC v Heller supports my contention as current practice in the US regarding civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with militia service, well regulated.

 

[danielpalos]

This is what the DailyKOS feeds him every morning. He has to repeat himself because he doesn't know anything beyond the phrase he received in his email. Notice post after post, the same repetitive diction. He does not debate, nor provide a single original thought.

The only one's full of fallacy on this thread, are those Individuals of your point of view.

 

[American]

The only one's full of fallacy on this thread, are those Individuals of your point of view.

You're wrong, let me know when they're planning to infringe on my gun rights.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

You're wrong, let me know when they're planning to infringe on my gun rights.

The second ammendment does not define what infringing on the right to bear arms actually means.

 

[American]

The second ammendment does not define what infringing on the right to bear arms actually means.

Okay, and you want to explain the definition?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Okay, and you want to explain the definition?

I am not a lawyer or politican, but I do know that the second ammendment leaves a lot of qeations unanswered.

 

[Joe Steel]

for the purposes of the second amendment, the term "the people" refers to the individual citizens

So why does the Constitution also use the term "persons" instead of consistently using the word "people?" Why the variation?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Not at all; even paragraph (2) of DC v Heller supports my contention as current practice in the US regarding civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with militia service, well regulated.

What about impolite people, can't they have guns too?

 

[Federalist]

As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, that's not important. The text is concerned with nature of the military. The Founders feared a standing or professional army and wanted to ensure the People could create an army of common citizens. Such an army was presumed to be loyal to the People not the government. The Second Amendment declares the People's right to create a citizen army, a militia.

No, the second amendment declares the people's right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Tetelestai]

Ah yes - the Glorious Day of Right Wing Jubilee when they can take all their firepower in their arsenals and slaughter other Americans in the streets over public policy differences.

Yup - forget about hunting..... forget about sport .... forget about home defense ..... forget about self defense ..... forget about protecting your business ..... forget about collecting and hobby use .... the real reason we need firearms is to prepare for the day of wiping out the government and its supporters. :doh:shock::roll:

It is pompous pronouncements like this that alienate people for normal gun ownership.

The NRA vs. America | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Ah yes, the liberal mind set to take everything away from everybody that they don't agree with. To demonize anything and everything that isn't corrupt. Let's get this straight... NOBODY wants to kill or hurt anyone!!! Period, not the kind of period your master Obama says, LOL. That kind of violence would not be necessary if it were not for "big government libtards" (and that includes both R's and D's) that want to enslave the population. Did it ever occur to you that this is exactly what Hitler did when he became chancellor???? He outlawed guns! Why? you may ask.... So that the population could not rise up and stop him. Certain people are already trying to make this country a dictatorship. Obama is one of them, he has proven that. So, only if it gets to the point that we have to do so. Did it ever occur to you that the way you Dems are doing thing is dividing this nation? You guys don't want civil discourse at all. Obama says he is willing to work with congress, but in reality, he makes deals and then breaks them. He is a liar, and so are most other liberals... always bending the truth to fit their world view.

Normal gun ownership is clearly for the puposes of defending ourselves against a tyrannical government. Read that second amendment again there chief. Hunting, target shooting and collection are just offshoots of that right.

 

[TurtleDude]

So why does the Constitution also use the term "persons" instead of consistently using the word "people?" Why the variation?

because the "right of the persons" to keep and bear arms doesn't seem as proper.

are you really arguing that "the right of the people" does not apply to individuals?

I really tire of anti gun lefties playing stupid games trying to nuance language they KNOW prevents anti gun laws

 

[TurtleDude]

Not at all; even paragraph (2) of DC v Heller supports my contention as current practice in the US regarding civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with militia service, well regulated.

The rape of the English Language contained in your posts is amazing

 

[Unitedwestand13]

because the "right of the persons" to keep and bear arms doesn't seem as proper.

are you really arguing that "the right of the people" does not apply to individuals?

I really tire of anti gun lefties playing stupid games trying to nuance language they KNOW prevents anti gun laws

The second ammendment only says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. But that does not forbid the government from making gun laws.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am not a lawyer or politican, but I do know that the second ammendment leaves a lot of qeations unanswered.

Only to those who realize that the second amendment stands in the way of their schemes and they want to reinterpret it to allow infringements

Look

Combine the language of the Constitution with

1) the fact that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the people and the several states

2) the language of the second and ninth amendments

it is pretty obvious that the founders never intended the federal government to have the power to regulate what sort of arms the citizens, not in federal military service, could keep or bear. Does any honest person really believe that the commerce clause was intended by the founders to allow the federal government to do so? Of course not