That is incorrect. Having a desire to protect our civil liberties, and doing so, does not require avoiding all mention of the militia and the military use of arms (especially when one of those civil liberties involves the militia and the military use of arms). They did write about owning weapons. Weapon ownership falls under the term "keep".
Progressives? LOL. I know many non progressives in this thread who support infringements. Especially arms like automatic rifles, LAWS, Grenades, Grenade launchers, and the like. Some claim infringements are allowed because of 10A and 14A. And they are hard core gun rights. ... bear arms 1 : to carry or possess arms 2 : to serve as a soldier https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear arms Since to bear arms means possess, that could include tanks, howitzers, aircraft carriers, and air force type bombers etc.
Your claims for infringements and your ad hom attacks on others is nothing short of out right hypocrisy. You use weasel words to pretend you are for the 2A explicitly.
have you seen any pro gun posters support the garbage you post? Kal=-noted that he has known me for over a decade and that I don't support the nonsense you say I do. You try to minimize your virulent anti gun nonsense by pretending those who call you out on that, are as anti gun as you are. I attack your hypocrisy and fibs.
I think you are reading too much into the militia component. The militia technicality is every fighting age man in the country so it likely wasn't an individual right it was a right for fitting age men. But since the 14th amendment was ratified it has to be extended to women as well. A militia only exists when you need it so people would have to own their own personal guns and ammo so that the malitia would be well regulated. You don't first organize a malitia and then supply them with weapons from a magical weapons supply hat. They need to bring their own guns their own boots their own food, their own supplies that's why the amendment gives the right to the people and specifically not the malitia.
Believe what you wish. Do you think inability to publish libel about someone or publish direct calls to violence is an infringement on Free speech?
I would go further and say I'm not pretending the only part of the Constitution that exists is the Second amendment there's the Constitution the Bill of Rights and the amendments. So understanding all of these documents will help someone understand why there is limits to Liberty. Don't get bugged down in the minutiae of the Second amendment thing just compare it to speech or fourth amendment rights. Chocolates take it to the fourth amendment I have the right to be secure from search and seizure if there is no warrant. So no police officer has the right to pull me over because that's a seizure or an arrest. What he's doing is he's making an absurdist argument you just beat him at his own game.
Except, the right to keep and bear arms has always been about the sort of weapons that an individual soldier carries on the battlefield. Nonsense. He says nothing of the sort.
He doesn't seem to understand you can own tanks and fighter jets many people do. And a yacht you can land a helicopter on is an aircraft carrier yeah you can own that too. They are considered vehicles not weapons.
That is an assumption. A subjective interpretation. The 2A is explicit. The right to keep and bears arms, shall NOT be infringed. Nothing about any battlefield or what soldiers can carry. Those are just means to allow infringements.
No it isn't. It is historical fact. Notice that the Second Amendment does not create or define the right? Notice how it only protects a preexisting right from infringement? That preexisting right was always about people owning ordinary infantry weapons. Before guns it was the English longbow.
No! I am referring to every single word in the second Amendment, and to historical facts as reference in the Historian's Amicus Brief in the link. THIS thread is about the militia. Because that was what they discussed when the 2nd A was debated when the Bill of Rights was framed. Nothing I have written has anything whatsoever to do with supplying or not supplying weapons. That is completely irrelevant to my point.
Just to be sure what your argument is. You are saying that since the framers thought it necessary to own guns as a simple fact of ordinary existence, the validity of the second amendment rests solely on the militia angle? That being so, then a citizen in today’s time has a false claim to the second amendment as his right to own a firearm? Am I understanding your argument?
Well again as I said the militia is mustered when it's needed. Thus every fighting age man is the militia. It's made up of citizens. That's why the second amendment must be an individual right. they knew the militia was made up of the people, the civilians. You don't understand what regulated means in this context then. Regulars are the supplies that a militia needs. It has to be well regulated that's why civilians need to have guns. If you don't try your absolute best to reinterpret the second amendment it makes perfect sense. A well-regular militia= a group of individual citizens together that are armed and have what they need to do infantry activities. Being necessary for the security of a free state = there's a presidency that phone number shows is that your necessary opponent of freedom. The right to keep and bear arms= the entitlement of every individual to possess and carry firearms. Shall not be infringed.= If you would say it doesn't belong to the individual or the militia that only exists when it needs to you are being disingenuous. You are trying to interpret extra meaning into it and that's why you have to get into this convoluted excuse web you created. You aren't going to educate anyone, you are posting misinformation.
You're very nimble at dismissing pertinent comments and questions as "irrelevant to my post"; which applies to an counterargument to your posts.
I have no interest in "disproving" your statement. I prove MINE. The fact that I prove mine, while you sit back and expect me to prove a negative, is the clearest indication that you have no arguments. So no need to waste any more time..
Whether the framers thought it necessary or not, they assumed people who wanted to own guns had guns. Like they owned pants, or a house, or boots... It was just another item they owned. But those are two separate facts. One is not dependent on the other. They should not be joined by "since". Citizens today can claim a "right" to own firearms. But that is due to legislation (yes! legislation!) passed by a very activist Supreme Court. Not the 2nd A as written and approved by Congress and the States.
Wrong! As I prove here http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/ The rest of your post is based on this myth. The 2nd A doesn't say ANYTHING, one way or the other, about an individual "right" to own firearms. It doesn't grant, restrict, affirm or .... in any way address this.
