The right to bare arms..... questioning the understanding.

If that is the case, then why can anyone be disenfranchised (in their right to keep and bear Arms), if what you claim is true?

 

Now we are finally getting to the basis of your emotional anti intellectualism about guns.

 

I think all americans have the right to " bare" their arms. However, in some regions of the middle east women are not allowed to do so.

Now bearing arms- the right to carry weapons- is a different matter altogether.

 

I don't think they were referring to automatic weapons or pistols; rather musketry and the like.

 

Which of course then means that they weren't talking about television or radio when they talked about free speech.

 

I would concur with you on that.

 

Care to elaborate or are you merely making a statement regarding you unsubstantiated opinion?

 

I think that some disambiguation is in order. What gun lovers are usually referring to in their claim to a right to a form of private property in the class called Arms, is merely that; rights in private property which may include Arms. It is not, however, an exemption from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws) since only a well regulated militia of the People who keep and bear arms are rightfully protected by the Second Amendment. Everyone else already has recourse to their State Constitutions to secure their rights in private property which may include Arms, but they are not exempted from State gun control (laws) by the Second Amendment and which every other citizen of that same State must follow regarding State laws concerning Arms for the citizenry who are not entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia".

Here is one example in this State Constitution, which only a well regulated militia of the People who keep and bear Arms, are exempted from:

 

every right in the bill of rights is not absolute. due process and all

 

strawman

I've already shown you what the supreme court has said regarding the 2nd amendment, and the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

 

Your own statements cannot be misconstrued as my opinion.

 

At least now we know why only a well regulated militia of the United States is specifically exempted from State gun control (laws) while the citizenry who is not entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia" is not specifically exempted from State gun control (laws) regardless of any rights in private property which may include Arms.

I would like to thank those of the opposing view for clarifying that issue for us.

 

strawman

 

In my opinion, incorporating the Second Amendment was merely an exercise in fiscal forms of irresponsibility with the Peoples' tax monies. What has it really accomplished? The right to keep and bear forms of private property which may include Arms, already exists in State Constitutions without requiring militia service. The Supreme Court merely affirmed that already existing right. Nothing was gained by incorporating the Second Amendment, with the Peoples' tax dollars during times of lowering Taxes and therefore not real times of war, but fixing a new Standard of frivolous forms of litigation.

If we can afford frivolous litigation, we can afford to bear true witness to our Ninth Amendment, a federal doctrine regarding employment at will, and State at-will employment laws, such that we can solve official poverty instead of merely paying for a War on Poverty for around a generation.

 

Johnny one note with nothing to add but a toothless and ridiculous mantra.

 

Not having an argument is even more toothless and more ridiculous in establishing any confidence in the sincerity of those of that point of view.

 

Not considering or even understanding anyone else's argument and repeating a mantra over and over is even more toothless and ridiculous.

 

I understood and refuted those arguments. Those of the opposing view are merely fixing their Standard for dis-ingeniousness regarding our Second Amendment and it shows in their special pleading argument, which only resulted in a special pleading adjudication.

 

Another mantra. Nice.

 

At least my mantras help us understand the reasoning behind the Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land; unlike the mantras of those of the opposing view.

 

Your mantras lock you into a mindless loop and do nothing for anyone else.

 

lol, what did you refute? I've given you the SCOTUS decision which defined the individuals right, within the second amendment, to keep and bear arms. having nothing at all to do with any militia.

you can disagree with and rail against the SCOTUS all you want, but reality is going to remain in place regardless.

 

your montra is completely destroyed by the decision in DC vs Hellar.

 

Actually, your mantra is a form of special pleading in a vacuum. My argument bears true witness to the specific enumeration of our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and conforms to two rules of construction that are "dictated by plain reason and legal axioms".

 

Says the person who has no rational argument and merely jumps on a bandwagon to engage in special pleading.