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

[Federalist]

And, how do they "conspire" to any common End?

They conspire to tell us that "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."

 

[Joe Steel]

Examples from the online dictionary of the use of the word "persons."

What's your point? You haven't proved the words are synonyms You just substituted one for the other. And even if you could show the words frequently are interchanged now, you'd still have to prove they mean the same thing in the Constitution. Can you do that?

 

[TurtleDude]

What's your point? You haven't proved the words are synonyms You just substituted one for the other. And even if you could show the words frequently are interchanged now, you'd still have to prove they mean the same thing in the Constitution. Can you do that?

part of being a gun banners is to engage in strange and obscure attempts to change the plain meaning of obvious words

 

[danielpalos]

another complete abomination to the English Language.

Nothing but non sequiturs for your Cause?

Only a well regulated Militia of the People is expressly enumerated as necessary in our Second 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.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nothing but non sequiturs for your Cause?

Only a well regulated Militia of the People is expressly enumerated as necessary in our Second Amendment.

how many times are you going to spam the 2A

IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CRAP YOU VOID ON THIS BOARD.

Look, we get the fact that English appears to be a foreign language for you but your posts are outright idiotic

 

[danielpalos]

how many times are you going to spam the 2A

IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CRAP YOU VOID ON THIS BOARD.

Look, we get the fact that English appears to be a foreign language for you but your posts are outright idiotic

Only a well regulated Militia of the People is expressly enumerated as necessary in our Second Amendment.

And, it is current practice in our republic.

Only civil Persons who are Specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated, are subject to paragraph (2) of DC v Heller).

Simply because;

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.

 

[danielpalos]

part of being a gun banners is to engage in strange and obscure attempts to change the plain meaning of obvious words

Dude, I am not talking gun Prohibition, but Only gun Regulation.

 

[danielpalos]

how many times are you going to spam the 2A

IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CRAP YOU VOID ON THIS BOARD.

Look, we get the fact that English appears to be a foreign language for you but your posts are outright idiotic

sure it does; why do you believe you have to resort to fallacy for your Cause?

 

[Joe Steel]

part of being a gun banners is to engage in strange and obscure attempts to change the plain meaning of obvious words

Strange? What's "strange" about demanding some effort to find the appropriate meaning of a word. The Constitution is nothing but words. If we want to understand it, don't you think we should its words?

 

[TurtleDude]

Strange? What's "strange" about demanding some effort to find the appropriate meaning of a word. The Constitution is nothing but words. If we want to understand it, don't you think we should its words?

understand it yes, but the anti gunners UNDERSTAND the 2A blocks their disgusting schemes so they engage in obfuscation and mutation of the words to pretend the 2A says something that the founders never intended. Look at this thread.

 

[Federalist]

understand it yes, but the anti gunners UNDERSTAND the 2A blocks their disgusting schemes so they engage in obfuscation and mutation of the words to pretend the 2A says something that the founders never intended. Look at this thread.

"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."

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A perfectly understandable idea.

 

[American]

Nothing but non sequiturs for your Cause?

Only a well regulated Militia of the People is expressly enumerated as necessary in our Second Amendment.

The militia is organized by the state for its security. It consists of ordinary citizens of a particular state.

 

[Federalist]

Only a well regulated Militia of the People is expressly enumerated as necessary in our Second Amendment.

Nobody denies that the 2nd amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. However, how does that negate "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

 

[Joe Steel]

understand it yes, but the anti gunners UNDERSTAND the 2A blocks their disgusting schemes so they engage in obfuscation and mutation of the words to pretend the 2A says something that the founders never intended. Look at this thread.

Open-up a dictionary. The word "people" has multiple meanings. How do you know which one the Founders intended?

 

[Joe Steel]

Nobody denies that the 2nd amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. However, how does that negate "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Rules of construction demand the text be regarded as a comprehensive whole and that each part be interpreted in a manner consistent with the other parts. We can't ignore anything and everything has to be used. That means the right to keep and bear arms must be understood in conjunction with a well regulated militia.

 

[Joe Steel]

The militia is organized by the state for its security. It consists of ordinary citizens of a particular state.

The Second Amendment considers the militia to be the citizens of the United States in their capacity to perform military service. It is not a particular group of individuals but the citizens regarded in a certain way.

 

[Joe Steel]

"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."

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A perfectly understandable idea.

It's not even close to "perfectly understandable." We've been arguing about the meaning for decades and have managed to change it from what it was for most of the years since it was written. Any phrase so malleable is not perfectly understandable.

 

[Federalist]

Rules of construction demand the text be regarded as a comprehensive whole and that each part be interpreted in a manner consistent with the other parts. We can't ignore anything and everything has to be used. That means the right to keep and bear arms must be understood in conjunction with a well regulated militia.

Yes, it's a comprehensive whole. It tells us that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and it forbids the gov't from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. This whole is perfectly consistent, for how could the people possibly for a militia is they don't have the appropriate arms?

 

[Joe Steel]

Yes, it's a comprehensive whole. It tells us that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and it forbids the gov't from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. This whole is perfectly consistent, for how could the people possibly for a militia is they don't have the appropriate arms?

A militia is defined by the nature of its members not the ownership of its weapons. It is a army of common citizens not a bunch of guys with their own guns. The Second Amendment, then, is to be understood as promoting a citizen army not gun ownership. That understanding best reflects the words of the text.

 

[Federalist]

A militia is defined by the nature of its members not the ownership of its weapons. It is a army of common citizens not a bunch of guys with their own guns. The Second Amendment, then, is to be understood as promoting a citizen army not gun ownership. That understanding best reflects the words of the text.

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

 

[danielpalos]

understand it yes, but the anti gunners UNDERSTAND the 2A blocks their disgusting schemes so they engage in obfuscation and mutation of the words to pretend the 2A says something that the founders never intended. Look at this thread.

the only ones doing what you claim are those of your point of view. every time the going gets tough, your side merely resorts to fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

"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."

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A perfectly understandable idea.

How does that work with paragraph (2) of DC v Heller?

 

[danielpalos]

The militia is organized by the state for its security. It consists of ordinary citizens of a particular state.

Only a well regulated militia is enumerated as necessary not the entirety of the militia available.

 

[TurtleDude]

the only ones doing what you claim are those of your point of view. every time the going gets tough, your side merely resorts to fallacy.

your posts are idiotic and make no sense and have gained the support of no one who understands the issue

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody denies that the 2nd amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. However, how does that negate "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Yes, it does; only those necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed; not the entirety of the militia available.