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

Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates what is necessary to the security of a free State. Any questions?

 

the problem with the concept of an unorganized and unregulated Public Militia is this:

a. when do they become activated?

b. under what circumstances are they justified to overthrow local, city, state, or Federal power?

c. what if different militias in different states and cities disagree?

 

Supreme Court precedent

Repeatedly proven false

 

Want to look up any given Contract with those Terms?

- - - Updated - - -

Dude, ignorance of the law is no form of excuse for civil Persons in our republic. You may need to look up the Militia Acts to discover what may have been meant by keep and bear versus acquire and possess.

 

Our supreme law of the land is not reducible to mere fractions.

Any questions?

 

and you clearly didn't read my post and the quotes. they talked more then just to insure a free state they talked about giving its citizenry the capability to secure their safety for themselves, family, property, and liberty from threats foreign and domestic including threats from its own government. don't reply till you read completely what was posted

 

Daniel the troll cannot read what you want him to read, and even if he could, he would claim that since those exact words were not in the 2nd amendment it can be true and the SCOTUS got it all wrong. Jesus could come down to earth, stand if front of him and he still would not admit the facts. He is on ignore because I can't take his constant bluster claiming he is right and everyone else is wrong.

 

Personal rights to own and carry a firearm.

 

Rights in private property are not an issue for the Militia of the United States, well regulated, since they enjoy a literal reading of our Second Amendment. Thus, they may Infringe on civil Persons of the People who are not specifically connected with well regulated militia service in the United States; but, not deny or disparage their natural right to own, through acquisition and possession, private property in the class called Arms.

 

Only our Second Amendment is Part of our supreme law of the land.

 

and documents like the federalist paper are used in courts to help decide the interpretation and spirit of amendments

"Many scholars of the Supreme Court and many justices assert the importance of the Federalist Papers. They provide important evidence of original meaning and interpretation of the Constitution, and there is evidence that there is an increase in citations to the Federalist Papers in Supreme Court opinions"

http://www.questia.com/library/jour...-supreme-court-and-opinion-content-the-use-of

 

There will always be ignorant people who refuse to accept the truth, whether it is about or rights to keep and bear arms as it is clearly stated in the 2nd amendment, or that capitalism makes the economy far more prosperous than socialism.

The 2nd amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (200, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding that the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions limiting the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government, ie the individual has the right to keep and bear arms without any relationship to a militia. The "militia" theory is garbage spewed by nuts, anti-gun nuts.

 

Repeatedly proven false

 

It is a literal reading of our Second Amendment; it can't be false under our Constitutional form of government.

 

You prove my point since it expressly explained the rationale and meaning of the social Power enumerated in our Second Amendment.

 

Repeatedly proven false

 

Our Second Amendment can't be false.

 

Yes you have repeatedly told him he was wrong, why he was wrong, and why he will always be wrong. He is still touting that literal reading, yet even though the 2nd amendment literally tells us that THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, his ignorance just won't let it penetrate.

 

The people in the militia. Not every nutcase with two hands.

 

Sure I can cite it, its right next to the one about the governments right to infringe upon the american people. If that is your argument, then i agree that you should go to the sandbox.

 

There are 2 handed nutcases in militias too, so lets take away all the militias guns...and there are some in the military who have committed war crimes with guns so lets take away their guns too. One rotten apple does not spoil the bunch, their are nutcases everywhere in all walks of life. However, the majority of those who are armed are the nicest, sanest and most patriotic people you will ever meet. The second amendment has two rights written in it, One for the states and the other for the people. A state has a right to a militia, and the people have the right to bear arms.

 

Hi,
I am new. That is all.
Lucidd

 

Regardless as to weather or not we have the rights to bear arms according to our constitution, I believe that this issue is greater than some words that are put on paper.
We have a history that traces back to beyond the stone age in which man has had some form of struggle to protect ourselves. We did this first by using our minds and putting to use what our environment gave us and then by putting it to good use. It does not matter what it was, we found a use for it to provide for ourselves as well as defend ourselves.
And here we are, having simple ideas about what our rights are. I know what it is to be free. Do you? The right to bear arms is not the issue here. The issue is within ourselves and to do what is right by ourselves, our family and all of us who are like minded. If anyone should limit our ability to live by creating laws in the name of civility, we should also have the individual right to action without restriction if for some reason we wish to disband those laws. "When in the course of human events, it may become necessary to dissolve the political bands that have been connected to another..." What if just talking and voting don't work out for us as a people any more? How do we protect ourselves against on oppressive force?
This is not just politics folks. This is about defending ourselves at all costs against something that stands in direc opposition to what we want to achieve. Are we to be limited ort

 

thank you for the Bitish socialist point of view...another fine US Constitutional expert...wow, it's a wonder why you aren't on our Supreme Court............on wait, you're a Brit.
It seems like you are holding a grudge since we sent y'all packing in 1812. That's a long time to hold a grudge.

 

your interpretation is