Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

I addressed that TWICE and you avoided it. If you can’t discuss the points made, this conversation is over and you forfeit it all.

 

You -responded- but nothing to -address- much less -negate- what I said.

Your words:
BECAUSE A well regulated Militia is necessary...

The militia is necessary, thus the right is protected.
The condition of the militia does not - CAN not - affect the necessity for same, and thus, has no effect on the protections afforded to the right to keep and bear arms.

If you can’t discuss the points made, this conversation is over and you forfeit it all

 

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.
And you know it.
If you can’t discuss the points made, this conversation is over and you forfeit it all

 

I DID “challenged” it. And you avoided my challenge.

See? You make half-statements/quotes in the hope of squeaking out a “win”. But let’s look at the whole statement and its meaning: A well-regulated militia is necessary the the security of a free State. You say its actual condition is irrelevant, but are you going to go by the Constitution or not?? The Constitution says its actual condition is essential to the right to bear arms! And that condition it requires is that the militia in question be well-regulated. So your statement here is WRONG.

And I just proved that all wrong too.

 

wrong as usual. all the second amendment does is negatively restrict the federal government. It doesn't "justify" anything other than a sufficient reason why the government cannot act. And you are wrong yet again because you don't understand what well regulated meant and why the founders wanted citizens to be armed. on top of that, there is absolutely no language in Article One Section Eight that even hints at the founders giving the new federal government ANY powers over private citizens acting in a private capacity in terms of using, owning, keeping or bearing arms

 

The idea that a militia composed of slobs with no proper military training carrying AR-15s and similar is "necessary to the security of a free state" when we have forces armed with tanks, the most modern artillery, fighter jets, drones and the most advanced armament in the world is ludicrous in its own face. But no more nonsensical than the idea that "keep and bear arms" means "own firearms". It does not! As historian George Wills put it, "one does not bear arms against a rabbit". Not in the English language, at least. Not today, not in the 18th century,... not ever.... It means to have weapons in good working condition to fight against an enemy in a military scenario". Which is what militias did in the 18th Century. And it's what the United States Armed Forces do today. So if you deny anybody the right to be part of the Armed forces, strictly speaking (though no right is absolute), you would be infringing on the 2nd A. This is what Trump did during his administration with transgender people.

 

Which is fine because I don't have opinions. All I have are facts.

 

I know.

Incorrect. There is no "because".

That's not how it generally works. It is up to you to prove your points, not up to other people to disprove them.

But as it happens, your claim is easily disproved, so I'll go ahead and disprove your claim as requested.

The Second and Third Amendments originated from proposals made by the Virginia Ratifying Convention, and it is easy to see the two separate intentions in the Second Amendment from the text of the original proposal.

Note:

"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms: that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."

"18th. That no soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the laws direct."

"19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead."

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/virginia-ratifying-convention-amendment-proposals-va/

That is incorrect. The National Guard is part of a standing army, and is therefore not a militia for Constitutional purposes.

Because the government is violating the Second Amendment.

That is incorrect. For as long as the Second Amendment mandates that a well-regulated militia is necessary, we need a well-regulated militia.

That is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms exists independently of any well-regulated militia.

Way off topic here, but your attitude towards peaceful protesters would do Darth Vader proud.

Actually I made a point by point denial. And I succeeded.

That is incorrect in multiple ways.

First, the right to keep and bear arms exist regardless of the state of the militia.

Second, there is no "since" in the Second Amendment.

Third, the conditions mandated by the Second Amendment exist for as long as the Second Amendment is in force.

That is incorrect. His post is entirely correct.

There is no such requirement.

But I refuted all your points, so they've been refuted in any case.

It is irrelevant to the right to keep and bear arms, which exists independently of it.

That the government is violating the mandate to have a well-regulated militia is of course a serious problem.

He is going by the Constitution.

No it doesn't.

The government should stop violating this mandate. But the existence of the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon the government doing so.

His statement is correct.

Hardly.

 

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state.

That mandates the necessity of a well-regulated militia.

States can be mandated as well.

Sure you can.

Not necessarily.

No one has proposed that the militia be composed of slobs with no training and armed only with AR-15s.

The existence of a standing army does not remove the requirement that we have a well regulated militia.

"Keep" includes personal possession of the weapon in question.

Doesn't change the fact that "keep" includes personal possession of the weapon in question.

"Have" denotes personal possession of the weapon in question.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment does not provide any right to enlist in a standing army.

Not given the fact that the Second Amendment does not provide any right to enlist in a standing army.

 

there is an alternative reading of the second that makes sense. it goes like this: the first clause confesses that a nation needs a 'well regulated' militia which means essentially a type of standing army. Because this can become pernicious, it has to be kept in check by a well armed citizenry.

we do know from the writings of the founders, and the complete lack of any gun control powers delegated to the federal government over private citizens acting in a private capacity that the founders never intended the federal government to have any such authority

 

have you ever figured out that this is nothing but mental masturbation given how the court has consistently ruled for almost 100 year and the fact that the federal government is relegated to using bogus commerce clause fabrications to justify gun control?

 

the only way we can have a well regulated militia is when citizens can keep and bear arms because a militia is an ad hoc military force assembled hastily in the case of an emergency rather than being a professional full time army unit. And the only way it can be effective (Ie well regulated meaning in working order) is for those who volunteer or answer the call up know how to use the arms they bring

 

They can. But not with a stative verb. They would use an operational verb. A stative verb implies that it ALREADY exists. Who would write a constitutional amendment to mandate something that already exists!

I am assuming English is not your first language, because this would be obvious to any English speaker by just reading the phrase and this explanation would not be needed.

I'm not sure I'd be able to explain it to somebody who might still need to learn English (unless they speak Spanish or Italian, because the same structure applies)

It's not "keep". It's "keep and bear arms". In English this means "maintain weapons of war in good working condition to be ready in case of a military conflict". A scenario that today is handled by the military.

Exactly! And it meant the same in the 18th Century. But it's not in the 2nd A. And if they wanted to include personal possession, they could have used that word in the amendment. Or many others like "own", "possess", etc. But they decided on "keep and bear arms" because they were ONLY referring to a military-type scenario. They didn't think it necessary to enact an Amendment to address ownership. It was irrelevant.

No. It just asserts the right to bear arms in a military scenario. But today it's not possible for civilians to bear arms in defense of our free state and against our current enemies unless they are part of a standing army.

.

 

So once more you concede my point.

You should make up your mind once and for all. One post you concede that it's the courts, not the 2nd A, that gives this "right" to own firearms, the next you deny it. I'll leave it here as you have now conceded in TWO threads. I can now quote either, if somebody had any doubts.

 

Obviously I was giving the “because” and never suggested the word is in the 2nd A.

So you can’t show my explanation is wrong. Got it.

Cool, except that random armed gangs are not “well regulated”, so they don’t comply.

And you think a collection of random, armed, unregulated thugs corrects that? LOL!!!

That is your assumption and opinion, so it doesn’t mean much here. With just as much authority and validity I can say an unregulated “militia” of self-important thugs is not needed.

Not according to the Constitution!

What “peaceful protesters”? You mean the criminal, violent, disrespectful thugs who crapped in the Capitol, smeared it on the walls, broke windows and doors? Those “peaceful protesters”?????

Not that I know of.

Wrong.

English can be a problem, eh? It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…” and if we can’t clearly say what that means, we can’t claim to understand it. So what does it mean? It means “SINCE a well regulated Militia IS necessary to the security of a free State,…"

The point is that the 2nd Amendment IS NOT IN FORCE!!! lol

Nope. Wrong and I showed what’s wrong with it.

Then you can’t show I’m wrong.

Apparently not. Opinions don’t count.

You haven’t proved the simple English means something else.

But it’s not a mandate, and if it were and the conditions are not fulfilled, it would be illogical to say an armed, unregulated, rag-tag collection of right wing groups fills the bill.

 

I am not conceding your point. Your bogus interpretation of the second amendment ignores the intent of those who wrote it and the men who enacted it. It also ignores the entire context of the constitution and the fact that the constitution granted no gun control powers to the federal government concerning private citizens. You also ignore the fact that EVERY supreme court case that has dealt with the second amendment has conceded or trumpeted the individual rights interpretation. Your posts apparently understand that so they are relegated to pretending we need a linguistic analysis despite the clear intent of the founders being expressed in hundreds of contemporaneous documents.

 

where was the federal government delegated any power to regulate the firearms of private citizens acting in a private capacity. Other than a negative restriction, what do you claim the second amendment does?

 

Someone who wanted to ensure that it would continue to exist.

"Keep" includes personal possession of the weapon in question.

People continue to have the right to keep arms.

"Keep" includes personal possession of the weapon in question.

That's because the government is disregarding the mandate that there always be a well-regulated militia.

 

I did show that your explanation is wrong.

So what? Has anyone here said anything about random armed gangs?

And actually, it is possible for a random armed gang to be well-regulated. Not that it matters.

No. Why would you think I think that?

Do you even know what well-regulated means?

That is incorrect. It is what is stated in the first half of the Second Amendment.

It doesn't have to be needed. People have the right to keep and bear arms whether you like it or not.

That is incorrect. According to the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms exists independently of any well-regulated militia.

Hardly violent.

You just replied to it. How short is your memory?

Nope. The right to keep and bear arms exists regardless of the state of the militia.

It is a mandate that there always be a well-regulated militia.

No it doesn't. It is a mandate that there always be a well-regulated militia.

Your point is incorrect.

That is incorrect. His post is entirely correct.

There is nothing wrong with his post.

I did show that you are wrong.

No, I rebutted all of your points.

That's why I use facts.

Yes I have.

Yes it is.

I guess it is a good thing that no one is saying that.

 

A fear, as history as proven in spades, today, is a moot point, given aircraft carriers, nukes, F-16s, 50 cal machine guns, tanks, elite fighting forces, etc., etc., etc., see, you and the 'militia types' aren't going to fair well against the United State's 'standing armies', end of argument. So who gives flying crapola of what they thought in 1787 about 'standing armies'? There is no legal nor moral obligation for modernity to adhere to the values of the 18th century which are obsolete, today. Only those which are not. And the 'fighting tyranny' argument is clearly obsolete. Especially given that:

As the Constitution states, it would see any 'uprising' as an insurrection, so this idea that they supported it doesn't square with the militia clause

There is no right of revolution in a democracy. That's a bogus argument. Note that over 1000 people were arrested and some 950 were indicted on 1/6. Many of those who attacked on 1/6 shouted '1776', they believed as you believe, that was their mantra. But, as we can see, it's crapola. Really. IN PRACTICE.

So much for the constitution supporting 'fighting tyranny'.

Freedom is a specious argument. It's not the second amendment that grants citizens freedom, it's the constitution and the declaration of independence.
Many countries don't grant the right to bear arms, but allow gun ownership as their laws provide. Yet their citizens enjoy freedom.


Facts:

Congress can regulate arms under the commerce clause.

The states can regulate arms within constitutional constraints.

As to what those constraints are, they vary depending on the 'judicial philosophy' of the supreme court.

A conservative court decided heller. A liberal court wouldn't. It as a 5/4 vote.

so, ir's right versus left thing.

And, this fellow, completely, utterly, totally, crushed the Republican's second amendment argument.



Unfortunately for you, there are more of us than there are of you.

 

Can you provide evidence there are no well regulated militias?

 

In Heller v US the Supreme Court states categorically that the "militia" wording in the 2A in no way limits the right of a citizen to own and bear arms.

END OF STORY

 

Laughing at you in Vietnamese, Pashto, Persian, and Aarabic.

The people who founded this Democracy believed otherwise.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

None of these things grant freedom.

Fact:
So long as the regulations do not the protections afforded to the right to keep and bear arms by the 2nd Amendment.

The protections afforded the right to keep and bear arms by the 2nd are spelled out in Miller, Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen.
There is little to no "variance" here, and until these cases - and those surely to soon follow - are overturned, those protections stand and cannot be ignored.

Possibly the most meaningless statement you have ever made,.

His opinion is irrelevant.

Unfortunately for you, the bill of rights was created to protect the minority from the majority - because the people who created it knew there'd be people like you.

 

I'm coming in late here so let me make a few comments... not sure who I agree with or not.

The military of the United States could not function without the people supporting it. F-16's are great, but without being able to deliver spare parts to the airbase, it wouldn't last long. Heck, a military base cut off from roads, water, food, fuel, sewage... well... you get it.

Our freedom comes from "Our Creator... who grants us certain inalienable rights... among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The constitution does NOT give us rights. It LIMITS the power of the government.

I love it when blue staters get all wrapped around the axle about the 2d amendment. Here, we have "Constitutional Carry" where every legal gun owner can carry open or concealed unencumbered by any registration, permits, waiting periods, magazine capacity restrictions, etc. We have also become a "sanctuary state" for the 2d amendment much in the spirit of blue states being sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. Those states choose not to enforce federal immigration laws. We choose not to enforce federal gun laws (to a large extent, anyway).

All you blue staters fighting over what we basically ignore makes my day.

TEXAS!!! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!!!

 

Correct.
Only a fool - or the dishonest - believes any large scale insurrection between "militia" and the "standing army" will be fought on the open battlefield.

The freedoms we enjoy are not granted by the state.

They believe the state should have a monopoly on force.
The 2nd Amendment - necessarily and intentionally - prevents that.