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

of course it is, but it has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. my right to keep and bear arms is not dependant upon my being in any militia.

that is my argument. and it has been winning in court for quite some time.

 

OK, I understand and agree with that.

 

The judiciary, and juries, of any society are representative of the people of that society. They hold to the same preferences and prejudices. Of course the various courts in the USA will rule that the right to bear arms is independent of the necessity for a militia - despite the second amendment specifically mentioning that condition - because it is what the bulk of Americans want to believe.

To anyone with an understanding of the English language, the intent of the second amendment is clear, and the right to bear arms is conditional upon the necessity for a well-regulated militia. The ruling of a judge dictates what is legal or otherwise under a given justice system, but it does not alter the meaning of these words, nor the reason they were written.

The US Supreme Court's decision in 2008 was merely a statement of preference, and did not alter the sense of the words, nor the obvious purpose of the amendment. There would be no reason for the conditional clause 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state' were the Second Amendment's intent to simply be the protection of an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia. The newly formed USA did not have a standing army at that time, and this was a common sense method of being able to raise a competent militia in the case of invasion, or other military necessity. Once a standing army had been established the 2nd Amendment should have been abolished.

 

Only if you disregard all the writings of the times, the early drafting of the second amendment, the Federalist papers, the Founders opinions, and the understanding of the interpretations of previous English law.

Oh, and the English language at the time.

 

I didn't say it did; I only claim that only a well regulated militia (of the United States) is specifically exempted from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws) while those who are not entitled to the character of a well regulated militia are not exempted from State gun control laws and must follow State gun control laws that every other citizen of the same State must follow.

 

OK, I am beginning to understand what you are saying but your convoluted definition does not help.

To put it simply.

States have the right to legislate their own gun control laws, as many states do. Example, most states allow concealed carry or a combination of open and conceal carry. Some do not allow carry at all which is basically Illinois.

The right to keep and bear arms has been incorporated narrowly so states have to allow the same according to Heller

 

this has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, nor the second amendment.

 

In my opinion, Heller did nothing to end a seeming fallacy of composition regarding a simple exemption from State gun control (laws) and a right to acquire and posses, keep and bear, forms of private property which may include Arms and which are already covered by State Constitutions.

 

It would be much easier to follow what you are saying if you decided to make sense and make your statements relate to actual law.

 

It is in our federal Constitution. All you need to do is apply two rules of construction to understand what our Founding Fathers meant when they wrote our supreme law of the land on a formerly blank piece of paper.

 

I would prefer a MLRS than a howitzer...more range, firepower, and accuracy. I could also maintain it easier, I worked on them in the NC ANG as an 88M.

 

A well regulated militia of the People who keep and bear Arms, is already exempted from State gun control laws that must be followed the citizenry that is not entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia" of the People who keep and bear Arms.

 

This has nothin to do with the second amendment, or the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Militias are irrelevant

 

I only agree with you to the extent that most State Constitutions provide for inalienable or indefeasible rights in private property which may include Arms; since, only a well regulated militia of the People who keep and bear Arms is specifically exempted from State gun control laws which apply to every other citizen of that same State.

Here is one example:

 

Militias are irrelevant. The constitutional right to bear arms is not dependant upon a militia

 

The Constitutional right to be exempted from State gun control laws that affect every other citizen who is not in a well regulated militia is the only Constitutional right guaranteed by our Second Amendment.

 

Nope. As SCOTUS has made clear.

 

There is nothing in those rulings or current practice that contradicts my assertions.

 

case numbers? docket numbers? Proof? anything?
You've made the statement, now it's your turn to prove it......
personal opinions withstanding, where's one link of proof?

 

completely destroys them

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

"...unconnected with service in a militia..."
post numbers 57, 59, 72, 75, 89 all state there is no militia, vehemently. These are your posts.
Now, with this last post, are you acknowledging there is a militia, or the judge ruling on the case says there is. I do understand where one might get the idea that one has nothing to do with the other, possession of firearms and creation of militias, and that debate will go on for eternity, but is seems you have established with your last post, there are indeed militias.

 

Why does 10USCss311 claim the opposite?

 

You are welcome to present a rational argument instead of appealing to ignorance, which is usually considered a fallacy.

 

I am acknowledging no such thing. no "militia of the united states" exists. there may be a few fringe nut jobs calling themselves a "militia" but that's irrelevant. the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do, or is in any way tied to any militia.