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

There are only two rules of construction that need to be observed:

Our Second Amendment merely exempts a well regulated militia from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws).

The End: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

The Means: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

It has nothing to do with that. In case you missed it, the federal constitution is not a State constitution and militias would not be run federally by by State. It protects a States right to form a militia and it protects the individual right of "people" to keep and bear arms from federal intrusion. Since incorporation of the second amendment, the "people" are now protected from State gun confiscation, whether you are in a militia or not so your premise that it protects a well regulated militia from State gun control laws is wrong, it protects the individual.

 

The Supreme Court, not some random internet poster, is the official interpreter of the constitution. They ruled quite clearly that the second clause is not limited by the first. In fact your breakdown also supports that interpretation.

In order to achieve the end of a well-regulated militia, the constitution ensures that the rights of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. It doesn't state, "the rights of the members of that militia" or even "the rights of that militia", but it states, "the rights of the people".

But if you believe that it means otherwise, all you have to do to prove your point is show an actual direct legal precedent. Pull up one of the many supreme court second amendment cases that supports your interpretation that the second clause is limited by the first.

If you are unable to do so, your point stands disproved and the opposite interpretation - which is supported by direct precedent - must stand as the true and proper interpretation of the amendment.

 

Failing to distinguish between our Second Amendment and rights in private property already established by State Constitutions which may include Arms and which also, no militia service may be required to establish such rights in private property which may include Arms, is a fallacy in and of itself.

 

Failing to distinguish between our Second Amendment and rights in private property already established by State Constitutions which may include Arms and which also, no militia service may be required to establish such rights in private property which may include Arms, is a fallacy in and of itself.

Usually, the argument with fewest fallacies wins.

 

A militia is made up of the People.

 

The Second Amendment merely exempts a well regulated militia, from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws).

It is current practice in the US.

 

Which second amendment case are you trying to reference? The statement of a random person on the internet is not even close to reliable support.

 

Are you claiming the supreme court has ever claimed the Second Amendment does not exempt a well regulated militia from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws)?

 

I'm stating that the Supreme Court has ruled (as has been quoted in a previous post) that the second amendment protects the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms, whether or not they are in a militia. This right is in no way limited by membership in a militia, nor is it a right that can arbitrarily be infringed on by either the federal government or a state/local government.

 

That was not what I asked; has the Supreme Court ever ruled that the Second Amendment specifically does Not exempt a well regulated militia from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws)?

 

I see you've realized that your premise was wrong, so you've shifted your position and are trying to pretend that was your position all along. It won't work, we can all see what you are trying to do.

 

Avoiding the question is also a non sequitur and usually considered a fallacy. Can you cite any post of mine which claims the argument you attribute to me?

The Second Amendment merely exempts a well regulated militia from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws); it does not create an independent right on its own merit since rights in private property which may include Arms, is already secured in most State Constitution as cited in a previous post above. The Supreme Court was merely conforming to due process when they claim that militia service is not a requirement to acquire, posses, keep and bear, forms of private property which may include Arms.

 

no it isn't.

 

no fallacy. you've been shown exactly what the second amendment means, according to the supreme court. it protects the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

you may not like that, but reality is not going to change, just because you keep stomping your feet.

 

SCOTUS has called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on that.

 

SCOTUS has called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on this argument.

no it isn't. as we have already established.

 

the bolded portion is where you have been proven wrong. yes, the second amendment exempts a well regulated militia from state gun control laws. BUT, as has been shown using SCOTUS precident, it also protects the individuals right to keep and bear arms irregardless of any militia.

this is reality, you should join us here

 

What State are you from? I have already provided an example from the State of California that specifically enumerates rights in private property which may include Arms, with no militia requirement.

Why do you believe, if we are to apply two rules of construction, that the Second Amendment operates in a vacuum of special pleading regarding rights in a form of private property in the class called Arms?

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed; cannot be interpreted literally in a vacuum of special pleading since it is only found in the Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

 

Yes, it is.

 

You are welcome cite any case that claims they did.

 

States do that in their several and sovereign Constitutions; the Supreme Court was merely following due process requirements as specifically enumerated in our federal Constitution. It was only specially pleaded in the manner it was, due in my opinion, to forum shopping on the part of gun lovers, probably on a for profit basis.

 

The supreme court has called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on your argument

 

I've already shown you, having cited case law, that it isn't