The right to bare arms..... questioning the understanding.

In my opinion, women should be able to win the right to go as bare breasted as men in public as a natural and civic right in our republic and as citizens in the several States.

 

Are you kidding me? If you really believe that the Heller case was "not a Second Amendment issue," then there is nothing that I can possibly say that will further this debate, since it appears you are not living in reality.

 

It did not involve a well regulated militia of the United States. The Second Amendment merely exempts a well regulated militia from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws).

 

You are purposely misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment to suit your ideology. In reality, the 2nd Amendment grants that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government. It's as simple as that. You do not need to be a member of a militia to enjoy the 2nd Amendment, just like you do not have to be a member of the press to enjoy the 1st Amendment.

 

No. That is what gun lovers did when they "defined" the suits in those venues. What you are describing is a natural right to acquire and posses, keep and bear, forms of private property which may include Arms. That right is secured in State Constitutions. The point of view advanced by gun lovers is disingenuous since the Second Amendment simply and merely exempts a well regulated militia from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws). It is not specifically about rights in private property which may include Arms, as gun lovers keep advocating since any militia must be comprised of the People who keep and bear Arms.

This is the End for which the means are plainly enumerated: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

This is the Means to accomplish the End for which our Second Amendment was created: " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It is easy to see why the Means must give way to the End whenever there is any conflict.

 

The “gun lovers” didn’t define anything. The people’s right to keep and bear arms is stated clearly in the 2nd Amendment had been previously defined in great detail in the Federalist Papers. It has since been explained by the SCOTUS under the recent cases Heller v D.C and Mcdonald v Chicago.

The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution does not illustrate any other property besides firearms. Hence, you are clearly trying to redefine this right to suit your own warped definition.

No. It is secured by the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

This is another one of your distortions. The Second Amendment simply explains that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and it uses the example of a militia to explain why this right is necessary for the “security of a free state.” Like all of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, it is a negative right and it states what the government is not allowed to do.

If the 2nd Amendment read, “A well educated electorate, being necessary to the prosperity of a free state, the right of the people to read not be infringed,” do you think it would mean that only voters are allowed to read or that any reading done must be directly related to voting?

Your interpretation is quite unique, but, unfortunately for you, it is not in agreement with the authors of the 2nd Amendment and Federalist Papers, nor is it in agreement with the majority of the Supreme Court Justices.

 

.......another, not from the United States, trying to define our Constitution. It is evident that you have no familiarity because you are talking about having naked appendages.
However, given your lack of exposure from political science, as in evidence of your point of view, I would advise that you start from the beginning and read it all, including the Declaration of Independence. There are many in here that argue that our Bill of Rights are purely subjective, as in your post, and not cut in stone.
At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers believed that the Right to carry firearms was neccessary to defend Life and Country from despotic rule and that Right was bestowed upon us from God. The Right to defend, or even in the Declaration of Independence where it states to cast off despotic rule, was, and still is, the natural or God-given, right of Man and the 2nd Amendment was recogonized as a neccessary tool to achieve that end. It is also our duty to do so, as we did with Great Britain, twice.

 

What you are claiming can be considered a fallacy of composition since what is being dealt with is a right to acquire, posses, keep and bear forms of private property which may include Arms. Simply resorting to the Second Amendment due to a specific enumeration of a specific form of private property is disingenuous and clearly not within the scope of the Second Amendment, which clearly enumerates the End for which the Means may be necessary.

The Federalist Papers do not disagree with my point of view; it is only gun lovers "venue" shopping for a particular result and a complicit judiciary that should have declined to hear those cases since it did not involve a well regulated militia of the United States.

 

there is no militia of the united states

 

The various militia acts, beg to differ.

 

They can beg all they want. There is no militia of the united states like you claimed

 

According to "10 USC, subsection 311: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

 

You couldn't be more wrong.

The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home.

 

Simply put, the people are the militia to be called by the States if needed.

 

like I said, there is no militia of the united states, like you claimed.

 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
George Mason

 

10 USC, subsection 311: (a), specifically enumerates what you claim does not exist in the US.

 

I support the right to bare arms.

I really don't like long-sleeved shirts. I would have to completely revamp my wardrobe.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) thats ignorant.

Go read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

 

The same could be said of private property which may include Arms: Heller only affirmed the natural right to acquire, posses, keep and bear forms of private property, which may include Arms.

It was not a Second Amendment issue, simply because it did not involve a well regulated militia of the United States.

 

there is no militia of the united states.

 

no it doesn't. there is no militia of the united states.

 

it was of course a second amendment issue. there is no militia of the united states. that's why you can keep and bear arms and not be part of any militia.

 

You keep repeating this inane statement which is not fact. In case you missed it, the second amendment is not incorporated because of Heller so of course it was a second amendment issue.

 

That United States code claims otherwise. Your perception may be due to a simple lack of better implementation of the fact in law, already enumerated.