The right to bare arms..... questioning the understanding.

I don't disagree that rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and that your argument is merely special pleading in a vacuum as was the decision that was reached with that special pleading, limited to that special pleading, as a result.

 

it's the law of the land.

except the supreme court called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on your argument.

 

you keep using this phrase, but you have no idea what it means.

 

state constitutions have nothing to do with it. the second amendment of the US constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, which is not tied to or dependant upon any militia.

this is the law of the land. you can keep stomping your feet and pretending it isn't, but reality is not going to change for you.


and you have no idea what special pleading means.

 

Simply resorting to that form of special pleading does nothing for your argument since State Constitutions already protected that right in private property which may include Arms.

 

nobody is talking about state constitutions protecting the right to private property. we're talking about the US constitutions second amendment, which the SCOTUS defined the individuals right to keep and bear arms having nothing to do with any militia.

keep stomping though, maybe reality will change for you

you have no idea what special pleading means

 

i have to say i'm both thankful and umming and arring about my incorrect usage of the word bare in reference to bear but hey ho - it allowed for some comedy..... in addition i jumped straight to the constitution when i clicked on your link, and on reading the first bit "we the people" etc i can only laff and note the irony of the opening bit being followed by 'Article 1'... brilliance i assume at least one of the forefathers was initially pissed off by this but on passing can see the funny side and the benefits at the constitution been created, written and read in such away.

but again i'll re-literate my point, realistically a perception of the constitution et al. promotes the freedom of 'the people' and although the point of being able to have weaponry has been pointed out by many of you - which is justifiable - i still believe the 'right to bear arms is in relation to actual appendages, as through the attainence of establishing the 'blessings of liberty' the practice of many forms of what would be known modernly as 'barbaric' punishment would have been removed, and 'posterity' is acclaimed when 'the people' resolve the situation - the 'american' way.

If you lot adhered to the constitution you wouldn't even have a prison system, but the one that was inadvertently set up would have more than likely originally had a far different purpose than the ones conveyed in todays media.

 

I am saying that our Second Amendment is consistent with our Ninth and Tenth Amendments, unlike the special pleading of gun lovers who seem to care more about their guns (maybe for a profit), by even being willing to engender a unitary form of national government instead of the wisdom enumerated in the federal doctrine regarding the septation of powers and governments.

 

none of this has anything to do with SCOTUS defining the peoples right to keep and bear arms as having nothing to do with any militia.

you have no idea what special pleading means.

 

SCOTUS merely affirmed those rights already enumerated in State Constitutions.

 

Not true.

 

and I've already proven that to be incorrect. they defined the individuals right, per the second amendment, to keep and bear arms irregardless of any militia.

 

Simply appealing to ignorance is no way to inspire confidence in your sincerity since I have already posted the relevant Constitutional articles in previous posts in this very same thread.

Rights in private property which may include Arms are secured in State Constitutions and no militia requirement is necessary. SCOTUS merely affirmed those rights already enumerated in State Constitutions. How could they do otherwise when even our Second Amendment States why a well regulated militia is Necessary.

 

False mantras do not make your argument.

The right to property can be overruled such as eminent domain thus property rights are not inviolate. That is the reason 39 of the States have the right to bear arms as part of their constitutions to separate them from government intrusion and general property rights. Federally the same exists and now is incorporated to apply to the remaining States.

 

And i've already demolished your argument. SCOTUS has called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on you. They specifically addressed the second amendment definition of the individuals right. You can keep pretending otherwise, but reality remains never the less

 

Say,
I'm just a bystander, and I suspect that my opinion on such things doesn't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things, but;
could one of the Mods or Admin's fix the title of this thread?

I'm sure the original poster meant to say, "right to bear arms" and not, "right to bare arms", and (again, it's just my opinion) allowing such an ignorant oversight to remain on display in the main forum index for a solid month now seems tantamount to condoning and encouraging ignorance.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration to this humble request.

 

I still believe women should have the same right to bare their breast anywhere men can bare their breast.

 

you would. prevert. LoL

 

Why do you object to that form of equality?

 

boobies are for the beach and the bedroom and perhaps if lucky other places as for woman strolling around with their boobs out i'm pretty sure i wouldn't be able to contain myself for glee imagine a capitalist society being found in national geographic in the way native tribes often are, it would be hilariously brilliant even more so for young adolesent males thumbing through the copies with the hope of finding something they can legitimately look at that's not off the top shelf. think its best reserved for naturist communities otherwise i'd end up being to shy to go to the shops.

 

But, what about breast feeding whenever it may be more convenient for a child; should women be harassed for feeding another fellow human being in public under the equality guaranteed by our republican form of Government?

Why do you believe it would be difficult to abstain from any less sociable behaviors, if all that would be required is that you do, nothing?

 

they're not are they? its deemed perfectly normal as far as i'm aware, and generally often a rare situation unless out of their norm, and if not accepted the accusee has a lot of growing up to do.

 

I have read anecdotal stories about some women being asked to leave some premises for breast feeding in relative public places; that would not be the case if women could go as bare breasted as men as a form of equality under our republican form of government.

 

Jesus Christ.

Mods. Admins;
Will you fix the title of this thread, or does the ignorance of the original posting bring you some sort of ongoing & perpetual amusement?

Please fix it, for the good of the boards.

 

True i read the same, but such statements were most likley made by someone that either wasn't breast fed or wanted to breast feed.