The Heart of the 2nd Amendment

When the constitution refers to "the people", as in "We the people of the united states..." or "the right of the people", to whom is it referring?

 

One of the Founders was killed by a privately owned firearm with no relation to the militia. Are you saying you understand the intent of the 2nd better than people who actually signed the Constitution? History and logic are not on your side...

 

How so? I really do not understand what you are trying to say here. Hamilton was killed by a privately owned firearm, a handgun if you will. Sure Burr was later charged with some crimes, none of them pertaining to privately owning firearms, do you think they just over looked that?

 

Not at all. I'm not saying that ownership of privately owned firearms is forbidden by the 2A. Only that it is not protected by it.

 

A statement you know is not true.

 

Of course its protected by it, can you not read? Its there plain as day...

 

lol. no, it doesn't. It means whatever Congress prescribes it to mean.

And, it is simply Another reason, why the left should Always question the right Wing, about any Thing.

 

Burr was a right winger.

 

No it doesn't mean whatever congress prescribes it to mean.

 

First, it’s a statement not a complaint. Second, When you reply to a post you address the whole piece not cherry pick a single line. Is English you’re first language?

 

Yes, it does. Only the right wing, Prefers to Appeal to Ignorance of the law.

 

No it doesn't.

 

Yes, it does. And, I am right and You are Wrong.

 

Nope. It was a complaint. Whiny, at that.

I did, in toto.
It does not matter what you think about the 2nd: Until you repeal it, it remains in place, and you don't get to ignore it.

 

Of course they didn't, but that has nothing to do with the RKBA.

There is no such requirement in 2A - or, for that matter, anywhere else in the Constitution.

Sure, and had they intended unbridled permissiveness in speech they would surely have stated, unambiguously, that anybody can say anything he wants. Got that about right, haven't I?

No, regulation, which is prior restraint of citizens presumed innocent, has nothing to do with a murderer's inability to possess a firearm, since he abrogated his 2A right by demonstrating his contempt for the right to life of others.

It certainly could be, had the People decided to make it Their business. Happily, They decided instead not only to refuse to meddle in it, but to forbid Their servants from meddling in it as well, in no uncertain terms.

Please, you haven't got a clue about the Preamble.

On the contrary, every unalienable right responsibly exercised is indeed absolute, seeing such rights are God given. That's one of America's founding principles, and the Constitution has no higher purpose than to secure such rights.

Nonsense, as rights responsibly exercised are never in conflict to begin with.

To be sure. To bad you don't understand that neither has meaning absent the very establishment of Justice and the securing of Liberty that you seek to undermine.

 

A.That militia is described in Article 1 Section 8 of that very same document and it's pretty specifically a military organization with rank and order and discipline and officers.

B. Standing Armies of the time were referred to as "Regulars". So Regulated can be judged in that light

 

None of that redefines the meaning of "well-regulated" which means "well-functioning" or "working in proper order."

 

Soon the one hand...we have you googling anything someone said somewhere to "define" that phrase in a way you think helps you

And on the other hand we have the Framers describing that very same "Well Regulated Militia" IN the very document we are discussiing ...and that description is NOT what you claim defines that phrase.

Here...let me help you

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Not nearly as haphazard as your definition seems

 

And further...that militia no longer exists. It was turned into the National Guard by the Dick Act around the turn of the 20th Century.

What was left was called the "unorganized militia" (hardly fitting even YOUR definition) which ONLY applies to males under 45.

So absent a court ruling regarding the Dick Act...the only 2A protection would be for males under 45.

No females...no one over 45.

Oh....

 

Post 818 speaks to the regulated militia.

Now the rest of the 2nd amendment.


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now we discuss the people's rights. See where it stipulate what is not to be infringed?

 

I certainly understand your position Stevo, but the 1st Amendment has to be well used first in an effort to alter or abolish before the 2nd can be justified. Which makes sense because with use of the 1st, the populations can be unified with their uses of the 2nd. Makes a big difference.

Who regulates the militia? The government? That is circular. Therefore the people, the militia have need of free speech to serve the PURPOSE of enabling them to regulate themselves.

Therein is the key. The PURPOSE of free speech has been abridged as soon as newspapers owned by tories informed Americans of what they needed to know to vote, or even think!

 

Technically, all laws since the act of 1871 are in question. Any law that compromises the ability of Americans to defend the constitution and government operating under it is lawfully automatically repealed.

 

The only liberty and freedom you’re interested in is the right to tote a gun which makes a small man feel big. If you live in America then no one has complete freedom and liberty. Everyone lives with as much freedom which the laws of the land allows them and their bank balance can afford.


Come back when you can post some common sense.

 

That's the way of it - give Americans their guns to tote and shoot and they're happy - at least the red-necks amongst them are??

 

Yea...the "right to bear arms" as required by a "Well Regulated Militia" which of course no longer exists