What Exactly Were Our Founding Fathers' Intention With The "Right To Bear Arms"???

Your entire post is based on a fallacy. A few over 11,000 die in gun violence every year the great majority criminal on criminal, gang on gang drug shootings. Whereas victims of gun crime have used a firearm on average 83,000 a year to stop/prevent a crime. I will finish showing your BS tomorrow, for now you and your ilk are simply not worth my time because you really no nothing about the issue.

 

First of all, its a joke. Secondly, my point was that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" The people, not the Militias.

It does not say it is the only necessary thing for the security of a free state. It is the Bill of Rights, not the bill of Necessities. The state has the right to its own militia, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, "Shall not be infringed."

 

That's like saying a pilot is not qualified to fly a plane because they didn't design, engineer, and build the plane. The court is qualified to interpret the Constitution because that is their job stated in the Constitution.
.

Not without heavy FBI background checks and class 3 licencing.

It says the people have the right to keep and bear arms. People= every able-bodied person. It never says that it is the Militia of the People but it is of the State. The quotes of the founding fathers and the Federalist papers, give a clear description of what the founders wanted and it wasn't regulation of guns. Your interpretation of the second amendment is not consistent with the beliefs of the founding fathers or the writing of the amendment.

The Huffington Post is extremely left wing because many articles bashing right wing groups and beliefs, as well as the Parent company (AOL) being a proponent of gun control with the Demand a Plan organization which calls for stricter gun control.

Okay, so no such thing as constitutional. That means slavery is okay because "hey, there's no such thing as 'what is constitutional' so lets get away with slavery because even though its unconstitutional for slavery to occur, our friend hear says there is really no such thing as constitutional!" Yeah, not a good argument now, isn't it?

They are not completely preventable deaths, in fact, more would be happening without guns in America. Two million crimes are prevented because of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens every year. More mass shootings occur in "Gun Free Zones" than any other public area. Germany 1939-1945 12 million people were systematically murdered after their guns were taken from them, and that is only one incident. AND YOU SAY WE HAVE NO RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE? You are vile for making such a comment. We own firearms because we DO NOT want our families and our countrymen to be striped of their liberties and their lives! We own firearms so that WE don't get killed by evil people. Then there are people like you who want to take that away from us and say that we are the ones who call for death?!? We own guns because we have a right to defend ourselves from threats both foreign and domestic, and people like you who are so quick to blame inanimate objects and take them away because of the crimes committed by evil people, then I say YOU are the person who has no respect for human life.

 

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the Specific Terms; Acquire and Possess. Keep and bear is only found in our Second Amendment, for a reason. Well regulated Militias of the United States, keep and bear Arms for the US.

 

It has to be in context with what is necessary to the security of a free State. Well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms, already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment, and its State equialent. It is only civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with well regulated militia service who are Infringed by paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller.

 

The literal reading is different than your interpretation.

 

Repeatedly proven false

 

You are either not a US citizen, or you're an extremely uninformed US citizen. The US Supreme Court is the ONLY entity with the power to legally interpret the US Constitution. Additionally, if you'd read my earlier posts here and the posts of others who know, the people who wrote that 200 year-old text explained EXACTLY what they meant in the 2nd Amendment.

Scalia is a brilliant jurist who chooses his words carefully. Of course the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute. Imprisoned criminals, the mentally unstable, etc. have no Constitutional right to arms. Scalia also enjoys tweaking the uninformed noses of American progressives with his choice of words. When asked by an interviewer if restrictions could be placed on the 2nd Amendment to prohibit the ownership of tanks and nuclear bombs, he replied that there must be a way. What way do you suppose he meant? Understanding Scalia's sense of humor, I suspect he mean "Constitutional Amendment" as was done in the case of prohibition repeal.

Are you interested in the lives of citizens who are murdered or raped by those stronger than themselves? Those who'd deny citizens an effective means of self-defense should be charged as accessories before the fact in the crimes committed against those they've disarmed! The ONLY citizens who should be denied arms are criminals and those who are mentally unstable. Law-abiding and mentally-capable people do not commit rapes, robberies, and murders, nor do they commit suicide! Get rid of the criminals and hospitalize the mentally unstable, and there is no gun "problem".

 

I once again state that the second amendment has 2 parts. The right for a state to have a militia, and the right for the people to keep and bear arms. They are separate rights in the amendment.

 

The people ARE the militia.

 

The phrase '...well regulated...' meant something very different to those who wrote it than is does today. To them it meant 'properly functioning'. Gun control proponents like to use this difference to try to misinterpret the 2nd amendment as to say the militia referenced is subject to government regulation, whereas the opposite is actually the case.

 

I read and understood every word you wrote. I skipped over nothing. I wrote my opinion. If you don't like it tough titty.

I do not lie, and did not lie. I used the 11,000 plus figures before you did.

Same site I got the over 11,000.

I have not discussed suicides. Why are you throwing them into the middle of the game?

 

Great post!

 

On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of
the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor
vehicle theft. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

 

As you put it and for those who want to understand how the government regulates the militia beyond "functioning" the statute is very clear.


10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(this is the militia recognized in the 2nd amendment, all of whom must have standard military style weapons at the ready.)
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

keep & bear arms= keep firearms at home and take them out of the home during times of emergency.

 

Or when you want to go hunting. The majority of the meat my wife and I eat is venison, wild pig, wild duck, wild goose, and when my son in law gets one some moose meat. I can't walk much any more so I don't hunt quail, but sitting in a blind for duck, dove or under a tree for squirrel, on the side of another son in law's field pea patch for a rabbit to run out.

My two favorite meals are a wild pig butt roast, and either duck or goose gumbo with rabbit or squirrel sauce piquant (creole style with onions, green pepper, garlic and tomatoes + cayenne). I think last year I bought one beef rib eye section and to legs of lamb and a half dozen chickens. (I miss the wild chicken we used to hunt in India (Mogli or Murgli) when we lived there.

 

yes, bear arms means to keep them on your person in public in times of emergency or for hunting.

you are correct.

did the Founders afford us the right to carry firearms in public in times of peace and tranquility? Im not convinced.

 

I think the founders expected every able bodied person to have rapid access to a firearm. Do most people need to carry them everywhere they go? No, but some do.

 

bear arms doesn't mean to keep them with you when you go to pick up your mail, buy groceries, or shop for doggy food.

it means to take up arms in times of emergency or to defend the republic.

now, since the M-4 is the standard issue for our military, one could argue that the one and only firearm that American civilian citizens should possess at home is the M-4 or M-16.

handguns? semi-auto shotguns?

these are not standard issue military weapons, and as such shouldn't be considered "arms", at least not in the military sense.

 

I disagree

 

since when has the term "bear arms" been used even back then, to describe carrying arms during one's normal daily routine during times of peace?

 

with what? it is supreme court precedent.

 

They can't be separate; there must be an End and their must be a Means; any questions?

 

Thank goodness our Founding Fathers were wise enough to enumerate, not just Any militia of the People who keep and bear Arms, but only Well Regulated Militias of the People who keep and bear Arms for the several United States as necessary to the security of a free State.