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

You can't cite any Anarchy or Mob of the People as being Necessary to the security of a free State simply because a well regulated Militia is already enumerated.

- - - Updated - - -

According to our Second Amendment, only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State and have the means at their disposal to accomplish the end with which they may be tasked.

 

nope; it is a literal reading, no interpretation required.

 

the literal reading is different than your interpretation.

 

"a well-regulated militia, being necessary for the preservatio of a free state; the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

in modern language=

a well-supervised and regulated citizen army, so as to protect society against tyranny in government, shall be armed by all able-bodied citizens whos' right to possess firearms at home and bear them during time of social crisis, shall not be infringed upon.

 

nope; none of the words are changed from a mere reading.

 

Correct! But don't expect Daniel to accept wise paraphrase.

Having along with several others, we have pointed out the truth of that statement but we have quoted and linked him to the USSC decisions which guarantee the absolute right of private citizens to keep and bear (acquire, possess and bear) arms, with or without the other literal statement, "a well regulated militia.

Some people choose not to believe that the words "keep and bear" can be defined as possess and carry. But Daniel doesn't care what the myriad support sites to include the USSC, tell us that clearly because all he wants to do is post the same garbage over and over without even considering how often his is categorically wrong.

 

the literal reading is different than your interpretation.

 

then you better tell yer (*)(*)(*)(*)(*){Pelosi] that she has to give up her guns

 

none of the words are changed from a mere reading.

 

the literal reading is different than your interpretation.

 

you missed the Well Regulated Militia part.

 

Nope! The SCOTUS verified that what was actually written in the 2nd amendment gives THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court answered a long-standing constitutional question about whether the right to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right unconnected to service in the militia or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.

The prefatory clause (“well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State&#8221 comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia as being necessary to deny Congress the power to abridge the individual right to keep and bear arms.

And while the reason for codifying the prefatory clause “was to ensure the preservation of a well-regulated militia, this does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the right to bear arms; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting” (Id., at 2801).

the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment is supported by scholars, courts, and legislators. Also, none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's individual right interpretation. He rejects Stevens' notion that that Miller (United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)) held that the Second Amendment “protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature's power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons” (Heller, at 2814). Miller “did not hold that and cannot possible be read to have held that. . . It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what is said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment” (Id., at 2814). Rather, the Miller holding is consistent with and “positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia&#8221 ​

 

in what way? i use all of the words in context, without needing to substitute Terms; without explaining the commutation process.

 

the literal reading is different than your interpretation.

 

Your text is very nice, but obviously the US Supreme Court is not qualified to determine the meaning of a 200 year-old text, written by people who are all dead. The pro-gun lobby is massively powerful in the United States, and has clearly used all of its influence in this case. In fact your very implication that it is a settled matter is disqualified by your own source, which states the ruling on the grounds of "a strong presumption", and not actual fact.

I would also like to offer some evidence of my own in dispute of this one individual case, which you have attempted to draw as a sweeping generalisation across the legal quagmire, in the form of fifty distinguished legal professors who all disagree that the entire population should be given unrestricted access to guns:-

In this sense, Justice Scalia recognized in Heller that, like other constitutional rights, the Second Amendment is not an absolute.

Heller is consistent with the history of the right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers who wrote and ratified the Second Amendment also had laws to keep guns out of the hands of people thought to be untrustworthy. Such laws were necessary to ensure that the citizen militia referenced in the Second Amendment was "well regulated."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/the-second-amendment_b_2581625.html

Ultimately however, I'm not particularly interested in what 200 year old dead people thought. I'm interested in the three people killed per hour by guns in the United States.​

 

As I said, google what the Founders thought about the subject and the purpose of privately owned firearms. There is no mystery, only questions from people who are too lazy to spend a few minutes answering their own question.

 

no it isn't. my literal reading doesn't need to change any Terms.

- - - Updated - - -

In Case you missed it, appealing to ignorance of our supreme law of the land is not a privilege and immunity for civil Persons in our republic. if it isn't specifically enumerated, it doesn't exist.

 

The literal reading is different than your interpretation.

 

Daniel does not understand synonymous.

 

Wow, is that ignorant. If it is not specifically enumerated, its the right of the people and the states, not the federal government.

The Constitution provides specific limited powers to the feds, it does not enumerate the rights of the people.

 

Not only is the Supreme court qualified, they studied the founding fathers comments.

That was only one source and they all agree.

As many disagree, and if they are not part of USSC they have little input to offer.

Of course it isn't. In Heller they recognized the need to prohibit certain very dangerous firearms and the locations to which arms can be carried. Par (2)

Yes it did, to mean that the militias also must be allowed, partly to prevent tyranny by the majority, but it had nothing to do with the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

If you believe anything the Huffington Post says you are a left wing fanatic.

Then your interest is in what you want, not what is constitutional. Got it. Glad you capitulated on the constitutional issue. Now you can get on with your personal vendetta against gun ownership, which of course means absolutely nothing in real life.

The constitutional issue is resolved. Our USSC found the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right without regard to a militia. And unlike our European Brethren we believe individual rights are sacrosanct. We also know that firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens are not dangerous to anyone but a criminal.

Now as for the well regulated militia:
1. it is made of of all able bodied men aged 17 to 45. Everyone, and they must have their own firearm available.
2. it is regulated by federal statute,

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(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

(this is the militia recognized in the 2nd amendment, all of whom must have standard military style weapons at the ready.)
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So you can keep your bloody UK concepts of propriety to yourself.

 

Now that we have proved conclusively that Quantamhead wants to throw his personal bias into our constitution and that he is wrong constitutionlly and morally he will slink off to another thread to whine and cry.

 

i can see daniel the store yelling
I want to see the manager i asked for 12 eggs and all they have is a dozen. how dare they only sell eggs by the dozen i want 12.
the manager would go sir 12 and a dozen are the same thing.
no they are not 12 is 12 and a dozen is a dozen they are not the same thing learn english
sir here is the dictionary see is says dozen = 12
no it is not it is different i don't care what the dictionary says it is wrong 12 is 12 and a dozen is a dozen, if a dozen was to be 12 they would call it 12 and not a dozen.
daniel believes that you can possess something with out acquiring it and you can bear it without possessing it, how you can do that is something he has yet to explain.

 

I am not interpreting since my usage of the words in question doesn't need to change terms.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I do. What is not acceptable is reducing our supreme law of the land to a mere fraction.

 

Thank you for making my point:

- - - Updated - - -

No. Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the Specific Terms; Acquire and Possess. Keep and bear is only found in our Second Amendment, for a reason. Well regulated Militias of the United States, keep and bear Arms for the US.