Who believes the claim that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to arm militias

How words are interpreted is often subjective and how a word is defined is based upon the context in which it is used.

Ad hominem as I am not the topic.

If the 2A is not open to interpretation then why are there so many different limits on firearms?

Objective examination of the many different firearm laws reveals the subjectivity of interpretation.

What do you perceive that my view is?

 

What if any limits should there be on firearms?

 

If their intent was clearly outlined then why are there so many different firearm laws?

Ad hominem as I am not the topic nor does the above claim represent my actual views or intent.

 

Because of corrupt, dishonest politicians and ignorant people.

 

A good analysis to which I agree.

 

The only firearm that has ever been used by any military, anywhere in the world, that should be allowed to be sold on the US civilian market would be the U.S. Musket Model 1795. Nothing else.

 

That is nebulous, can you be more specific? Do you have an example of where corruption was involved with the creation of a firearm law?

 

Why would that be the legal limit? Did the forefathers not make accommodations for an evolving America?

 

Sure, if you're a member of the militia, aka local swat, aka national guard, aka state police, aka etc., you can have a modern military weapon.

 

I have had a pistol, rifle and shotgun, so how it is that I was able to purchase these weapons when I have never been a member of a "militia, aka local swat, aka national guard, aka state police"?

 

Because of corrupt, dishonest politicians and ignorant people.

 

That is nebulous, can you be more specific? Do you have an example of where corruption was involved with the creation of a firearm law?

 

The sullivan act of the state of New York would be a prime example. It was created as a way of preventing immigrants from the nation of Italy from being able to legally acquire handguns for their own defense. The law was named after the senator Timothy Sullivan, who was known for his degree of corruption at the time. It was not an outright prohibition on the possession of handguns, but those in charge of issuing permits were given full authority to deny anyone who applies, without having to give a reason to justify the denial. And seeing as the state of New York was well known for its anti-immigrant stance at the time, it was a defacto prohibition for anyone and everyone that was neither rich nor white.

 

This doesn't have anything to do with interpreting a word. It has to do with grammar and sentence diagramming.

Nope. If you don't know what a present participle is then how can you understand the grammar of the 2nd Amendment? Your opinion indicates that you *don't* know what a present participle is. That's why I tried to explain it to you!

There are less and less limits every time the Supreme Court rules. Many state and local limits have been invalidated recently by the Supreme Court. Most of the limits today are not limits on what you can have but are statements of process on how to go about getting what you want.

The Supreme Court is going to rule (they may have already) that "may issue" laws like in Wash DC and CA for CCW permits are unConstitutional. Meaning you are going to see big gains in CCW licenses in both! You must still meet the process for a CCW (i.e. classes, fingerprinting, etc) but you can't be denied.

You can't be denied the possession of a fully automatic weapon either. All you have to do is follow the process to get one!

Not any more. The SCOTUS has ruled the 2nd is an individual right and possession is the same. No more laws in Wash DC banning guns from the home! Same with Chicago. Even state registration laws are being challenged as are the gun bans in CA and CT. Those will probably being going down the tube as well.

There is actually very little *subjective" reading of the 2nd. There are *wrong* ways of reading it that require violating the rules of grammar and sentence structure -- which is what the left has to do in order to justify their stances on gun ownership.

I don't care what it is. What I care about is that the 2nd is read as it is written instead of what people wish it says! When someone claims the 2nd is ambiguous and depends on "subjective interpretation" then I jump in and point out that such a claim is only to push an agenda that requires misreading the 2nd.

 

The most obvious example would be the NFA of 1934; structured as a "revenue measure" because they knew they couldn't ban guns outright because of the 2nd Amendment... and created a tax so draconian it priced such guns right out of the hands of the average American.

Also, the AWB of 1994 was enacted outside of the rules. I watched the vote on CSPAN, and even though time had expired with the Bill voted down, House Speaker Tom Foley refused to bang the gavel to close the vote for several minutes, while opponents of the bill cried foul, shouting at him to bang the gavel; which he refused to do until the supporters of the bill got two Reps to change their vote, at which point he promptly gaveled voting closed to pass the bill in defiance of House rules.

 

Wouldn't the simple solution be only allow men and women of the age to be IN a Militia and under the act to have unabridged right to arms yet restrict it to everyone else thereby joining the two aspects and noting CONGRESS under its powers is authorized to calling up, arming, training and disposition for use of the Militia so they arguably would be responsible to arm the Militia making the need for personal weapons obsolete. You would armed when you volunteered with suitable weapons.

 

So all gun laws are now universal and States and Cities are being made to conform? If so do you have source citation?

It is easy to claim that ones reading is the right reading, the problem is that many make that claim yet do not agree on the reading thus the subjectivity.

Does this apply to you as well? Do you believe that you have perfect understanding and those who have a different understanding are wrong? If so how convenient says I.

What and who's agenda?

 

Simple, but not Constitutional.

 

Fine. Spell that in smoke signal. Or write it with a feather quill and then transport it by horse. Sincerely, The Future

 

So is this a problem with the wording of the 2A or a problem with our judiciary system, or both, or something else? How can we remedy this?

 

Sure it is the Enumerated Congressional Powers should take precedent in shaping the intent of the 2nd Amendment since the bearing of arms is no longer needed by the Militia they need to do an updated Militia Act and they can simply say any weapon not lawful for personal use hunting or home defense then it must be made lawful by being made unusable as a weapon but as a collectible. (Such as seal the barrel with a material making it useless save to show the weapon or turn in the weapon for destruction.) But make owning such a weapon deemed unlawful as possessed a Federal crime subject to 6 months to a year in prison per weapon after a race period upon signing into law. Then see what the Federal Courts do at worst they will toss it out but they might uphold it and attach it to the Anti-terror Laws declaring such people Domestic Terrorists if the say own three or more unlawful weapons.

 

The legal ownership of firearms was never made contingent upon militia service. Nor can the militia be used as a way of restricting private firearms ownership. The united state supreme court has stated, in absolute terms, that the two standards are in no way related, nor connected, with one another.

 

You are correct. go here: www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Reagan was correct. The problem with the left is not how much they know, it's how much they know that is wrong!

Does the term "incorporation" mean anything to you? Go look it up!

I have given the grammar rules that apply and have diagrammed the sentence. There has not been a single person yet that has shown where my analysis is wrong.

And all *YOU* are doing is employing the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal. Since you can't refute what I have said you just dismiss it out of hand!

So show me where my analysis is wrong!

I know basic English grammar and how to diagram a sentence properly. No one that disagrees with me has shown how they can diagram the sentence differently or can refute my use of English grammar.

All you are doing is proving that you can't either. Can you show me how the leading phrase of the 2nd is *NOT* a present participle? Can you show me how an adjective can restrict instead of describe? Can you show me how a phrase with no noun/verb combination can restrict anything?

"If so how convenient says I" -- this is nothing more than magical thinking. It's a corollary of the Argument by Dismissal!

Anyone trying to abrogate the 2nd Amendment as an individual right and which requires participation in a government sponsored militia in order to keep and bear arms!

 

(deleted)