"Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment"

It sounds as if you like to pretend that the Founding Fathers were just rambling incoherently when they specified, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State ..." because their precisely worded context of the right does not comport with your agenda.

 

...and the only way that can happen is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall NOT BE INFRINGED!

What part of NOT BE INFRINGED don't you understand?

I'm not the one emphasizing half of the whole. Each part means something, and together they mean a lot more than you want to admit. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing.

I've already clearly explained the original intent in this thread, which you and Danny have glazed over with your customary denial, and re-visionary lenses. But you know this already.

 

The Bill of Rights was specifically designed to defend individual rights, and to prevent the federal government from infringing on those basic human rights.

Since the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, it also specifically deals with individual rights, and is there to prevent government influence.

Since the Bill of Rights is about preventing the influence of the federal government on individual rights, it has nothing to do with a federal militia, but "A" militia comprised of the people, who individually have the right to be armed.

"Well-regulated" does not mean what you purport it to. In 1776 it meant "functioning correctly". It has nothing to do with "control through regulation". After all, the Bill of Rights specifically says those amendments in the Bill of Rights CANNOT be regulated by the federal government.

We're not sorry it doesn't comport with your agenda of re-writing the Constitution. Glibly ignoring the true meaning of "well regulated" specifically, and all of the writings and context upon which the Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment, were based.

 

I only recognize that well regulated militia may not Infringed, for some Intent and Purpose. It is in the first clause of our Second Amendment.

 

Is it so hard to realize you wont have much of a well regulated militia if they are not 1st armed? Thats why the two are tied together. The militia being every able bodied male citizen. The militia was only raised when it was called for. They were citizen soldiers.

 

You are reading it wrong. But you knew that already.

 

I can't be reading it wrong since I am not appealing to ignorance of any clause.

 

No you are spreading it like the manure it is.

 

I don't hide behind the 2nd Amendment. If the 2nd Amendment didn't exist at all it would not change anything because, as Burger and every other member past or present of SCOTUS should already understand, 2nd Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights do not GRANT rights...they merely are an attempt to enumerate or guarantee some of those unalienable human rights that we are born with and predate governments and constitutions. My right to defend myself, my family and my community using whatever means I see fit...and indeed means AT LEAST as good as those that I PROVIDE AND FUND for the government that I also fund and give my consent to govern.

I really don't care what SCOTUS has to say on the issue because the Constitution does not grant the power to any branch of our government to deny or infringe upon our unalienable human rights...no matter what they may think or say about the issue.

 

nothing but diversion instead of a better argument?

Arms are declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.

 

No it's not.
Yes it is.
No it's not.
Yes it is.No it's not.
Yes it is.No it's not.
Yes it is.
No it's not.No it's not.
Yes it is.
Yes it is.No it's not.
Yes it is.

 

Your intellectual dishonesty has already been noted.

 

Arms are declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

Only the nine hundred ninety-nine have to resort to fallacy for their Cause.

 

1. I do not need to be a member of the militia to exercise my unalienable human right to bear arms.

2. Concerning the issue of arming the Militia and the Constitution, you do understand the concept of Amendments, right? Using your backwards logic, the 3/5 clause would supersede the 13th and 14th Amendments.

 

Federal regulations do not apply to the Bill of Rights, or the Amendments contained within.

 

dude, Article 1, Section 8 is not a regulation.

 

There is no point arguing with Daniel is fundemental misunderstanding of article 1 section 8 as pertains to second amendment rights has been debunked by at least 30 people. He has zero understanding of law, grammar, or constitutional historical perspective and doggedly clings to a failed idea.

The point of the second amendment is to be a check on government power. The fact that states and federal
Representatives are continually encroaching on the right to own and bare arms is nothing sort of treason against the people of the United States.

 

Article 1, Section 8 clearly declares the subject of Arms, socialized for the militia of the United States.

 

Yes, and then, after the Constitution was ratified, the new Congress, many of whom were veterans of the Revolution in one role or another, got together to amend that Constitution with a "Bill of Rights", something the so-called "anti-Federalists" had insisted upon and that many states had demanded during the ratification process. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to enumerate and guarantee some of the unalienable human rights that all "men" were born with, as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Many who insisted upon the inclusion of the Bill of Rights were concerned that without it, the government may at some future date fail to recognize those unalienable rights and attempt to limit or deny them. Ironically, those who opposed a Bill of Rights were afraid that a future government might interpret them as granting rights...inferring that those rights could be again limited or denied by simply amending the Constitution. In effect both the supporters and opposition had the same fear...a future government using the inclusion or omission of a Bill of Rights as a justification for limiting or denying our unalienable rights.

Being fresh from the Revolution, many of these men remembered how badly the Continental Congress failed at keeping the regular Army, let alone the lowly Militias, equipped and armed. So, because a "well-regulated" (well trained, equipped and disciplined) Militia was necessary to the Security of their new State (since large standing armies were frowned upon), they wanted to ensure the right of the People to keep and bear their own private arms was guaranteed. Well-armed citizens ensured that the Militia would at least be well-armed in the event that Congress once again had trouble actually living up to its responsibilities to the Militia under Article I Section 8. Keep in mind that at that time citizens were usually at least as well-armed as the regular army...if not better armed. As I am sure you know, amendments are designed to make changes to the Constitution...thus the 2nd Amendment ensured that people like you would not be able to claim that Article I Section 8 somehow "socialized" the right of the People to keep and bear arms.

Of course after reading many of your posts I am pretty sure you will simply ignore what I have written...but I did my due diligence and at least tried to engage you honestly.

 

Here are some points to consider: the subject of Arms is declared socialized and there are no individual rights in property secured by the Second Amendment.

 

Read my words...I don't need the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution to retain my unalienable right to keep and bear arms. Those rights existed before and are not dependent upon governments or constitutions. If you wish to attempt to take away any of those rights, I am quite sure I am speaking for literally millions of Americans when I say "molon labe". Do you feel me?

 

No federal authority exists over the Bill of Rights. Case closed.

 

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself; case closed.

 

Was that supposed to make sense, because it didn't.

 

it would if you had a clue and a Cause. our Second Amendment cannot operate in a vacuum of special pleading. it must amend something.