What Exactly Were Our Founding Fathers' Intention With The "Right To Bear Arms"???

I've repeatedly refuted your claims with supreme court precedent. there's nothing left to do but keep reminding you when you troll gun threads

 

You are welcome to repost it.

How has this been proven false if it is current practice in our republic due to a literal reading of our Second Amendment as to which Body politic of Individuals of the People who may keep and bear Arms may not be Infringed?

Paragraph (2) clearly provides for Infringing on civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with well regulated militia service. It only applies to them since our Second Amendment clearly exempts well regulated militias from the provisions of that paragraph, but due only to a literal reading and only for well regulated militias.

 

OK, I communicated with the forum Administration. This guy is obviously a lost cause. It was suggested that we simply ignore him if he doesn't recognize that he has been repeating the same bogus stuff over and over. Reasoning with him is impossible. So I'm done.

 

Blessed peace!

 

I don't blame you. But until the mods take action against his trolling, I will continue to remind him he's been refuted

- - - Updated - - -

I've repeatedly refuted your claims with supreme court precedent. there's nothing left to do but keep reminding you when you troll gun threads

 

I tried to explain logic to you. One does not have to "Prove" a supposition, nor does the supposition have to be correct. When discussing logic one chooses a supposition whether the supposition is "true" or not as it is only a supposition. The following is a logical progression:

All legal gun owners are good. John is a legal gun owner, therefore John is good.

The following is also a logical progression:

All legal gun owners are bad. John is a legal gun owner, therefore John is bad.

For your information, I do not lie. I have no reason to lie to the likes of you.

- - - Updated - - -

The are not going to take action against his trolling. It is up to us to ignore him.

 

Yes, you did. Both unnecessarily and incorrectly.

You are doing it again! I did not say that it had to be correct! You did!! Your premise is logically false because it implies a false causal relationship between legality and morality through the proxy of guns. Therefore, your premise is not logical.

I'm done. You simply cannot accept when you are wrong. Instead you simply start lying and implying I have said things I have not said.

 

Here is another example of logical progression.

Truth is always white. This is truth, therefore this is white. Logical progression

Truth is always white. This is white, therefore this is truth. Logical fallacy.

We both know that there is not color to truth, so the statement, "truth is always white" is in and of itself not correct, yet the logical progression is correct.

 

I said it was logical progression. You said it was a syllogism. I very carefully explained to you that the premise does not have to be correct for logical progression. You do not understand logic which is nothing more than a progression of deduction based on the premise whether the premise is correct of not. I note you have called me a liar again. You have been reported again.

This is a perfectly proper statement of logical progression,"All legal gun owners are good. John is a legal gun owner. Therefore John is good." When you learn what logic is, you will know what I mean. Until then you are on your own. There is no relationship between the premise, the statement except by the logical progression.

 

Amen, brother.

 

fiat arguments inspire not enough confidence in your sincerity.

How has this been proven false if it is current practice in our republic due to a literal reading of our Second Amendment as to which Body politic of Individuals of the People who may keep and bear Arms may not be Infringed?

Paragraph (2) clearly provides for Infringing on civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with well regulated militia service. It only applies to them since our Second Amendment clearly exempts well regulated militias from the provisions of that paragraph, but due only to a literal reading and only for well regulated militias.

Thus,

 

No Daniel, I specifically explained that in the original context of the time, the militia was considered to be all the people, certainly all males. My remark about the irrelevancy of the "militia" phrase was directed to the present-day difference in the definition. Today, the Reserves and National Guard are usually considered militia. The rules of construction still apply, but since the accepted definition of "militia" is now different, courts cannot/should-not assume that changes the original intent of the words.

 

Yet we still do have a well regulated militia which has noting to do with the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
Current through Pub. L. 113-52. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
(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.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I notice you responded to our resident troll. You could get Jesus to come down from heaven to tell him he is wrong and he will still post his obnoxious nonsense. I have put him on ignore. Unfortunately I can still see his post when you refer to it with a quote.

 

Didn't we already cover this? Our Second Amendment specifically enumerates not just Any militia of Individuals of the People who may keep and bear Arms; but, expressly enumerates a well regulated militia as what is necessary to the security of a free State.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course; rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the express Terms, acquire and possess.

 

I've repeatedly refuted your claims with supreme court precedent. there's nothing left to do but keep reminding you when you troll gun threads

 

He's already stated in another post that he likes to stir up those against gun control...what do you suppose he is doing here?

 

you only keep claiming that and bearing the same non sequiturs. why not acquire and possess a valid argument, instead?

- - - Updated - - -

Resorting to fallacy for his Cause, regarding diagnosing the Body politic, as an ethic if not any form of moral.

 

I've repeatedly refuted your claims with supreme court precedent. there's nothing left to do but keep reminding you when you troll gun threads

 

Why do you believe our Founding Fathers enumerated, keep and bear, instead of acquire and possess?

 

Last time, kid! Listen and learn, or you will be ignored. I fully and clearly explained the meaning and original intent of the 2nd Amendment. You disagree with my interpretation, but the US Supreme Court AGREES with me, NOT with you!

The US Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller held that it’s the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for their self-defense, and that the right is NOT restricted to those serving in a militia.

The US Supreme Court agreed with the interpretation I described in my earlier post. The Court’s decision concluded that the 2nd Amendment clause, a “well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” was simply a prefatory clause intended to announce the Amendments purpose. Additionally, as I explained earlier, the Court concluded that the prefatory clause did NOT limit the operative clause of the Amendment, that being “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

In the Court’s decision the majority considered and referred to the “history” of the clause (original intent) just as I did when I described that history in this post. The Court understood, as do ALL historically informed US citizens, that the actual purpose of the Amendment was to prohibit the Federal government from disarming the citizenry, placing them at the mercy of an overpowering and unscrupulous government elite!

Accept FACTS or your opinions will no longer be given any serious consideration.

 

Why do you believe our Founding Fathers enumerated, keep and bear, instead of acquire and possess?

 

admin suggests you don't reply to his meaningless drivel. He will eventually go away if no one plays his game. He's not actually violating the rules, but he is trolling.

 

I have no idea how you reached your conclusion. However, non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies and that is more stupid than having valid arguments, each and every time any assertion becomes contested.

Why do you believe our Founding Fathers enumerated, keep and bear, instead of acquire and possess?

 

Why do YOU believe you know more about the 2nd Amendment than other posters here AND the US SUPREME COURT? THAT is the question! You don't appear to have ANY knowledge of the Constitution, so you must be either a progressive Democrat or a troll.

 

hey fellers, lay off..he knows what he's doing, just not what he's saying..he's baiting you. He'll get ya banned because you got pissy. That's his goal....