Taking the right of the people who keep in their arms is what your criticism of the Second Amendment. You were presenting the ku Klux klans argument to deny gun ownership freed black people. It is an individual right to say it's not as to try and take that away you need to think before you type.
Right, you are agreeing with the KKK when they made the claim in court that The people didn't mean individuals. I tend not to agree with this because white supremacists don't tend to like the concept of individual rights.
I'll defer to you on what the KKK believes. I just know they're not bright enough to even understand my argument. BTW, looks like you didn't understand my argument either.... Hmmmm...
it's always good to defer to people with more knowledge than you. If you had this knowledge you probably wouldn't be parroting them right now. your argument was authored by them I don't know why you think you came up with this. They made exactly the same precise argument that you made in 1850. In this regard you are a klansman It's not that nuanced you just ripped off the ku Klux Klan seems like that would be something you wouldn't want to do but here we are. Look you can admire the ku Klux Klan all you want and agree with them all you want I just don't.
Just FYI any kind of gun regulation is all about racism it is an effort to keep black people from having guns that's its entire origin in the US the only people that ever supported it are all about restricting rights to black people. You really need to brush up on your history if you want to present yourself as anything but a white supremacist.
There are too many interesting discussions around this topic for me to waste my time in anything that ridiculous. So you're on your own....
Yeah runaway that's right. Your position is ripped off from the ku Klux Klan you can't run away from that.
That's not what it says. Read the 2nd A again. It says "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." Please notice I moved this to a more appropriate thread, so as not to derail yours. I strongly suggest you read the OP. This, and other threads I opened explain why the 2nd A doesn't confer, affirm, grant, ... (use any word you want)... or in any way address some individual right to "own weapons". It only addresses a right to "bear arms" in a military scenario because a well regulated militia, at the time the Bill of Rights was written, was necessary to the security of a free state. It doesn't deny it, it doesn't limit it, it ..... just doesn't address it. Hopefully you can stay on topic, not derail my thread, and carry on a civil debate.
Well with that admonishment not to do what you do constantly, let's have a go. First things first. The right belongs to whom? The Constitution is loaded with duties to the president, to the Congress and even to courts. The Constitution says nothing at all about duties of the citizen in the Bill of Rights. We the public were the party being protected by the Bill of Rights. We have state militias. We were promised our right to own weapons is not to be infringed. And you read that too. By the way, that is how you support the loyal Democrats, by supporting their arguments.
You’re wrong and here’s the only literature I need to post to prove it. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=wmborj
If "first things first", then we would need to start by what right. It's the right to bear arms. To bear arms against the king. To bear arms against an invading force. NOT to bear arms against a rabbit. Not even to bear arms against robbers. But if you want to go that route, I might have to move it to a more appropriate thread where that is addressed. This one is mainly to explain WHY there is a right. Grammatically, at the time the 2nd A was enacted, it could have been written as "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to...., the right to bear arms..." This is proven on the OP. But if we can agree on that, we can move on to the next question: the meaning of "keep and bear arms". What that meant in the minds of the framers when they framed the Bill of Rights. Of if you want to talk about the historical background, we can do that too.
If you have a case to make, YOU make it. Forum rules frown upon posters who just throw in a link and say "here! You find how to make my point for me".
The Second Amendment did not define bear arms. It just affirmed the common understanding of that term which had nothing to do with using guns for private purposes.
Tench Coxe and I make essentiall all of the same arguments. Thanks for introducing Tench Coxe to this forum. He is 100 percent accurate. I never could understand why any of the Bill of Rights awarded rights to either the Feds or any of the States. The nail in the lumber was when the amendment states clearly the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Authors of the day who were instrumental in the document told us all what it all means. Tench Coxe told us it means the citizens rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. EVER.... BY ANYBODY
States more than just a farmer here or there had to have protection means from our own Federal Government. Militias were not to fight with other nations armies, they were to defend against our own Federal Government. That was the nature of the fight by Lincoln with states. He refused them to use their militias to fight him. At least that was what his war was about.
Well you wake me up when you can read into the future and insure to us in the present that at no time will the government ever turn it's dependable standing army against the people in some form of...what's that word? Tyranny? Until then, no...we have yet to achieve that time. Thanks for playing.
Read the rest of the 2nd amendment. The words are still there. Focus on the final statement. Why did States have rights? Well they needed them against the Feds. Why did States have militias. To defend States from the Feds. Why did individuals also have rights to keep and bear arms. To ensure freedom was not lost due to our own Federal Government. Since you moved the topic here, you do understand the fear of the states was that the Feds might end their tenure. As was done to the South.
Someone should have told the states. The individual right was common enough to have been included in their constitutions. Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII. Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15). Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23. Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The constitutions and courts of the various states indicated an individual rights viewpoint at least 66 times.. http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
