Who believes the claim that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to arm militias

I didn't ask you.

 

You asked,
He answered.
Just not the answer you wanted.

 

Definition of non sequitur
1:an inference (see inference 2) that does not follow from the premises (see 1premise 1); specifically :a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative (see 1affirmative 3) proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent (see 1consequent 1)

 

You
simply do not want to answer.

 

Answer what? "Either you believe in the Right to keep and bear Arms or you do not, Which is it ?"

Sure, I'll answer that. For most of us, yes, we should have the right to keep and bear arms. For you? No, no rights for you.

 

More off the wall humor.
Technically LE personell have no Rights anyway.
We are allowed Arms.

 

Well there you go.

 

Because you are hostile towards mine.

 

You should be able to tell by my accent. But I'd be right proud to be from any of the three you mentioned.

 

I think I detected a Texas accent?

 

I only read hostile, actually I'm easy in real life.

 

I'm Arizonan with a Texas influence and a Hoosier twang.

 

Fail. Cherry picked quotes don't change the wording of the Second Amendment.

 

Nor to the opinions of those posing as so-called "legal scholars" change the Heller, McDonald, and Caetano rulings, or what they ultimately do. Three times in a row now, the united state supreme court has ruled that the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the militia. There may very well be a fourth ruling coming shortly, a federal appeals court for the district of columbia ruled yesterday that the district can no longer legally require applicants to demonstrate a good reason for why they should be issued a concealed carry permit. This means the district is required to now issue a permit to anyone and everyone that can legally own a firearm.

 

Feel free to post any quotes from the Founders that support a militia-only Second Amendment.

 

What makes your interpretation better than another? As written the 2A is not concise thus the numerous interpretations.

 

What makes your interpretation on how concise the 2A better than another. The 2A couldn't be more short and to the point.
The numerous interpretations that you speak of are from people that don't like the obvious meaning of the 2A.

 

No, the failure is yours.

These aren't "cherry-picked quotes". They are clear statements of the intent of the Founders, and prove, definitively, that the right to bear arms was intended FROM THE BEGINNING to be a right of the people.

Your attempts to reinterpret and twist the words of the Second Amendment, and dismiss the words of the Founders, show how intellectually bankrupt your position is.

Show me ONE comment from the Founders that would support your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Short answer: YOU CAN'T. What was that word you used? Oh, right....

FAIL.

 

well given every document from that period supports mine as does the concepts of natural law that the founders believed in, pretty well means i am right

 

In other words you don't want to answer because it would undercut your own argument!

ROFL!!

Pathetic!

 

Second Amendment Supporters Cheer as DC Circus Lets Concealed-Carry Ruling Stand

 

No, sorry, doesn't follow. Of course you can try again and see if you can follow?

 

The second amendment *is* concise and is written in proper grammar. The FF's *were* well educated in the English language and its grammar rules.

The leading phrase of the 2nd Amendment (it's not even a clause since it has no noun/verb combination) is what is known as a present participle. A present participle functions as an adjective, not as a restriction. In the sentence "The blue dog barked" the adjective "blue" does not restrict barking to only blue dogs. The present participle phrase is no different. It is an adjective phrase explaining *why* the FF's included the 2nd Amendment but it does not restrict the main clause in any way. The FF's included the protection of the 2nd Amendment in order to insure the ability of local militias to form and operate as a protective force. But the reason for including the 2nd Amendment does not restrict the right in any manner to *only* that function.

Does NO ONE on the left today know how to diagram a sentence any more? Do they not know any basic grammar?

 

Really? You think we figured out that murder is unacceptable by a process of trial and error?

Really?

It doesn't.

Obviously nonsense, given that laws against murder favor almost all religions over those which sanction human sacrifice.

Because...?

So either you've never read the DoI or you haven't understood it.

If you think the American Revolution would have stood the chance of a snowflake in Hell had the Founders trusted in the Providence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, your thinking needs serious rethinking.

 

It *does* follow. You said you would fight in order have your rights. What if you were unable to fight for your rights? Would you still have them?

Do those that are unable to fight for their rights have no rights?

Simple question. A simple answer would suffice.

My guess is that you won't.