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

Our Second Amendment does not confer any rights in private property simply because the subject of Arms, is socialized and delegated to our federal Congress for addressing any potential exigency concerning the common defense.

Our Second Amendment must enumerate those Specific terms for any rights to exist.

 

Actually it is the gun control nut who is sick. They are incapable of thinking logically. They believe that it would be better if we eliminated guns from the hands of all law abiding citizens, since they are the only ones who will turn them in leaving the criminals with upwards of 100 million guns to terrorize all the innocents in the country. We know for an absolute fact without any quibbling that the Supreme court finally chose to hear the 2nd amendment case, and held that with or without a militia, the private citizen has the right to keep and bear, (as they put it - possess and carry) We know for a fact that some idiots will not accept the literal meaning of the 2nd amendment guaranteeing the individual rights and there are also some idiots who don't want to believe the Supreme court held for that opinion, all that in spite of producing the documents proving that they did. In the case of our resident troll I have Daniel on ignore, and as ignorant as he is about gun control and socialism, there are others who may even accept the 2nd amendment for what it is but still want to eliminate guns from law abiding.citizens. I believe they are criminals pushing for control so they can have an advantage. Stupid people all.

What makes it even more stupid, is we don't need the second amendment at all to have the right to keep and bear (possess and carry) as it is a natural right to arm oneself against hostile persons. The most stupid idea yet is from those that claim the constitution or an amendment must specifically used the words they want to hear because they are not smart enough to understand synonymous words. Ignorance and stupidity to the nth degree.

 

Keep and bear

- - - Updated - - -

Repeatedly proven false

- - - Updated - - -

Repeatedly proven false

 

Not under our form of goverment, limited by its social contract.

 

daniel
please answer this simple question that i have asked many times.
how can you keep and posses something if you are not allowed to acquire them as you claim?
everyone with common sense knows you have to acquire something before you can posses it. how else can you own it if you don't first poses it?

 

Dude, you may want to watch some historical videos like Gettysburg. Well regulated Militias of the United States have a literal right to not be Infringed, when they keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

Rights in private property may be infringed by due process.

 

daniel
your so right a movie is how you learn about history i guess my BA in History / Polisci is not equal to you watching a Hollywood movie. But at least we now know where you gain all of your knowledge.
Maybe you should try reading a couple history books. maybe something about the war of 1812 where the individuals came forward from towns with their personal guns to defend against British invasion they where not organized state militia.
But to use your Civil war example the majority of state militias where not organized until after they where called up. Most of the Officers got the position because they had money,
I also see that you once again failed to answer the question how can you keep if you are not allowed to acquire like you state?

 

You should be warned, Daniel is a troll. You can post the most logical data with absolutely perfect proof that even a moron would understand and he will come back with an inane argument not related to the question and the circle jerk goes on and on and on...................

 

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
​

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
​

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
​

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
​

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
​

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
​

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


source

 

Thank you! Daniel actually knows that. He also knows that to keep is synonymous with possess, and to bear is synonymous to carry. He is not arguing to make any other point than that he is a troll, a spoiler if you will. He knows he can't win the argument because he knows his point of view is in error. He just likes the attention, like a baby, he believes he is the center of the universe.

 

I did answer the question. It is only your limited understanding of the concepts involved. Keep and bear is not synonymous nor interchangeable with acquire and possess. Civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with militia service, well regulated, may acquire and possess Arms but only well regulated militias may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union.

- - - Updated - - -

Mr.Smith should have public warnings for Will Robinson regarding his modus operandi concerning diagnosing the Body politic.

 

You are wrong, in all aspects of gun control. Civil persons are specifically enumerated to possess and carry arms by the 2nd amendment without regard to a militia and that was clearly confirmed by SCOTUS.

Mr. Smith is correct in his warnings and his modus operandi about diagnosing the body politic as it relates to gun control and socialism.

You are a troll. No matter how much absolute proof has been presented to you, you are still too stupid to acknowledge it and accept the fact it is you who have been in error in every post of which I have seen you make.

In my opinion you should be removed from the forum as all of your posts are bait to which you hope someone will respond so you can continue to post your insanities.

 

I have put Daniel on ignore. If you people would stop quoting his ridiculous posts when you respond to him I could not see them.

You are right on point. Daniel is a troll who has been posting garbage since before I joined the forum. No one has been able to get through to him and for what ever reason the moderators don't take his baiting and trolling seriously. He is totally ignorant on the subjects of gun rights and what socialism is.

 

he is a copy and paste bot

 

Natural rights in private property are already secured in State Constitutions with the specific Terms; Acquire and Possess.

Since those Terms are already used and must be already defined, they cannot mean the same as keep and bear or those terms would be interchangeable in State Constitutions.

 

repeatedly proven false.

- - - Updated - - -

Repeatedly proven false.

 

repeatedly proven false.

 

Apparently he does not understand that so long as the State Constitutions do not clash with the US Constitutions there is no issue with what is in them. The US Constitution as amended guarantees private citizens the right to possess and carry firearms without regard to a militia. State constitutions NEVER TRUMP the US Constitution and frequently say the same thing about similar issues or use different words to clarify its meaning to the state's citizens. This statement, "Since those Terms are already used and must be already defined, they cannot mean the same as keep and bear or those terms would be interchangeable in State Constitutions." means nothing what so ever about our rights under the US Constitutions and it is stupid to believe otherwise.

 

Proven false by what? Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with federal precedent in support; and, not via our Second Amendment.

 

The point is that Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions wth the Specific terms; Acquire and Possess. Thus, keep and bear cannot be synonymous with nor interchangeable with acquire and possess, but for reducing our supreme law of the land to a mere fraction of Its former self.

 

Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

 

Supreme Court precedent

Repeatedly proven false

- - - Updated - - -

Repeatedly proven false

 

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with federal precedent in support; and, not via our Second Amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

Proven false by what? Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with federal precedent in support; and, not via our Second Amendment. Can you show how that is not the case in any given State?

 

Repeatedly proven false

Supreme Court precedent

Repeatedly proven false

 

Proven false by what?

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with federal precedent in support; and, not via our Second Amendment. Can you show how that is not the case in any given State?