What is the primary reason you support Trump?

Doesn't change the fact that it's about bearing arms in a "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
What evidence do you have to support your claim that the second amendment doesn't say "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

 

I'm not the slightest bit interested in what a supreme court says, I'm only interested in what the second amendment actually says and means, and it's purpose in 1791 when it was written.

What evidence do you have that the supreme court says that the second amendment doesn't say anything about bearing arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

 

if you are truthfully only interested in what the second says, why have you constantly and dishonestly changed the words of the amendment?

 

one of the reasons people need to have, possess keep and bear firearms. One of the reasons.

 

What evidence do you have that the second amendment doesn't say anything about the right to bear arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"?

 

IOW it's about the need to bear arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

 

Where did I say otherwise?

They wanted private citizens to have firearms because they were the first line of defense in case we were attacked. That became moot once we had a standing army. It doesn't change the reason for citizens having firearms...it wasn't personal protection...it wasn't even fear the US government would somehow become a tyrannical government needing to be overthrown by armed citizens.

It was to provide the states with "well regulated militia" that repel invaders.

 

Why do you constantly and dishonestly ignore what the second amendment says about the need to bear arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

 

because it in NO WAY limits the negative restriction on the federal government
I used to bill 400 an hour for legal advice. I am giving you a free education here

 

and the founders believed that citizens had the right to own, possess, keep and use firearms and that the new federal government had NO POWER WHATSOEVER to interfere with that. You keep missing the obvious point-the issue is not what the people COULD DO and your silly claim that is no longer needed is IRRELEVANT. the federal government was NEVER ALLOWED any power to restrict the arms of private citizens and whether a militia was needed or not does not change that fact

 

bullshit., it's about a federal government that was never given any power whatsoever over the private arms of private citizens being told it had NO POWER to interfere with privately owned arms whatsoever

 

Here is the different views and why the anti gun position is wrong when it comes to the second

The gun banner view of the second

1) citizens only have rights that the government affirmatively grants them
2) the right to keep and bear arms was granted to citizens ONLY when they were serving in a militia
3) since we no longer need militias, the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms evaporates because there is no longer that need

The correct view of the bill of rights

1) the federal government only has the powers that were specifically granted to it
2) the bill of rights reiterates what the federal government does not have the power to do
3) one of those matters was that the federal government was never given any power to regulate privately owned small arms and the second amendment further reiterates that lack of power
4) whether citizens "NEED" to keep and bear arms matters not-the need or lack thereof does not suddenly empower the federal government to regulate arms


so when Gun banners talk about a militia being no longer needed-there is no reason or need for us to debate whether this is true or not. It is IRRELEVANT to what the second amendment does

 

Have you ever read the second amendment, and if so, where does it say anything about a federal government? Or did you just make that up?

 

Have you ever discussed your personal views about the meaning and purpose of the second amendment with the writers of the second amendment?
And if it was just about the federal government, why did the writers refer to bearing arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

 

I taught constitutional law. your posts suggest you obviously never studied it.

 

LOL you keep digging the hole deeper. Your posts clearly don't understand constitutional law, constitutional theory or the entire concept of a government limited to the powers delegated to it in the constitution.

remind me where the federal government was given any power to interfere with what arms private citizens could own or use?

 

None of that irrelevancy changes the fact that the second amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

 

Doesn't change the fact that the second amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

 

Wow...so desperate

 

His arguments are pretty well void of logic so what do you expect? as if the constitution changes based on a tragedy

 

stop with this nonsense. you are not correct. NOT A SINGLE SUPREME COURT CASE SUPPORTS this fiction.

 

What is your evidence to support your claim that the second amendment is fiction and doesn't say anything at all about "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and about the right to keep and bear arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

 

are you unable to understand this phrase

the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

why do you ignore that? why are you unable to comprehend Article One Section Eight? why do you erroneously claim that the ONLY reason the founders PREVENTED the new federal government from INFRINGING ON A RIGHT that the people had since the dawn of time, was so they could SERVE in a militia? how do you appear to a muster if you cannot OWN Firearms prior to that? do you understand that fact? I doubt it

 

IOW the right of people to keep and bear arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" shall not be infringed, including swords and bayonets.

Are you unable to understand this phrase?

 

So why are you so desperate?