What Exactly Were Our Founding Fathers' Intention With The "Right To Bear Arms"???

supreme court precedent.

I've repeatedly refuted your trolling with supreme court precedent. I've told you numerous times that I am simply going to remind you of it when you troll gun threads.

repeatedly proven false.

 

Sorry about that; I thought it was self-evident from paragraph (2).

Here it is for your ease and convenience:

That Only applies to civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with militia service, well regulated.

 

Did you miss it? The example is given in a previous post.

- - - Updated - - -

Only Trolls don't have a good argument, even Ogres have better arguments.

 

Where in that does it refer to a militia? Use the entire paragraph and highlight that part where you believe it refers to a need for a militia. Otherwise you are ceding defeat on the subject.

 

repeatedly proven false.

 

So you are calling yourself a troll and an ogre? Because you don't have an argument at all, not good, bad or indifferent. And your "example" does not exist.

 

What section and what verbiage are you claiming, does what you claim. How difficult is it to copy and paste it each and every time, if you want me to confide in your sincerity?

- - - Updated - - -

Did you miss it by Omission? That Must be the case since it Only applies to civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.

 

The bill of rights is about individual rights, not collective rights

 

Your point is?

Can you cite Any militia that is not comprised of Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms resorting to collective action through a statement of purpose or End, for which the means may be necessary?

 

Repeatedly proven false

 

I simply refuse to believe you without a valid argument to support your contention.

 

I couldn't care less what you believe. You've been repeatedly directly refuted via Supreme Court precedent. Your trolling doesn't change that.

 

Only Trolls don't have a good argument; thus, simply repeating yourself without providing one makes you more of a Troll, even without making me more of an Ogre.

That Must be the case since it Only applies to civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.

 

Repeatedly proven false

 

IOW, you will circle your wagon again and expect everyone to do your bidding while you never give a straight answer. You are the epitome of a troll.

I missed it because you omitted to post the entire paragraph and high light only that portion you believe refers to militia. I'll try again. Here is paragraph (2)2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

Not at all; all you have is fallacies at your disposal, as indicated above.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you know that paragraph (2) Only applies to civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with militia service, well regulated?

 

Can anyone explain how the delegated social Power to Arm the Militia by our federal Congress with the Peoples' monies, vests any rights in private property through our Second Amendment?

 

Can anyone explain why the first clause is null and void, from Inception regarding limiting the Context to the End, specifically enumerated?

 

How can the Second Amendment do what is claimed by those of the opposing view? It would need to be a Constitution unto itself, in that vacuum, instead of merely, the Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land.

 

Repeatedly proven false

- - - Updated - - -

Repeatedly proven false

 

Nope; it never happened and at this rate, it probably never will. Thanks for the practice.

 

Interesting trivia: He's my GGGGGGGGG-Grandfather.

 

Repeatedly proven false

 

Here is the relevant Part of our supreme law of the land; our Second Article of Amendment does not change or modify any Thing specifically enumerated in this part of Article 1, Section 8:

The Social Power to Arm the Militia of the United States is clearly delegated to our federal Congress and ceded as a civil right for Individuals of the People.

It is simple, Socialism 101.

Therefore, by what line of reasoning can those of the opposing view advance their Cause, by claiming that Article 1, Section 8 which delegates the power to Arm the Militia of the United States, may vest any rights in private property through the Second Article of Amendment to our social Contract and supreme law of the land.

It must be self-evident that any bills for raising revenue to Arm the Militia of the United States Must come from the House of Representatives to our federal government; thus, implying, that it may also be a civil Power ceding by Individuals of the People not elected to that House.

 

I know exactly what par (2) says, and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH MILITIA SERVICE. Now take this and highlight what you believe refers to or not to the militia and how as you originally said it negates part of par (1).

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.