What has Well Regulated or Badly Regulated or Unregulated or Constipated Militia Patrols in Chicago, have anything to do with crime in Chicago ???????? You may as well have added; Aqueducts, better roads and an improved Roman Senate ! Then you would have increased your irrelevancy quota 100 fold !
Only the fantastical, right wing is that cognitively dissonant. Here is the reason and authority: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Gun lovers just need to become well regulated, to enjoy that protection, literally.
Problem is, your reading comprehension is somewhat lacking; "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, The right of "The People" to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed. Two separate clauses, the first clause establishes a Militia, the second clause establishes that "The People" have a Right to keep and bear Arms, and this Right shall NOT be infringed, that means UnRegulated or UnRestricted. Now, you already know this, anyone that has anywhere from 2-3 Months of basic Legal training related to any type of job should know how to read and understand Legal documents.
If the 2nd Amendment were read as merely granting states the right to maintain a militia, it would contradict Art. I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the states from keeping "troops, or ships of war in time of peace," "without the consent of the Congress." The 2nd Amendment meant that a free people should retain the power of self-defense. The militia was merely the contemporary means by which that defense was effected. If militias go out of vogue, that does not mean that the need of the people to defend themselves ceases. Individuals also have other occasions to defend their lands and themselves, especially back then but even today. And as Jefferson wrote: "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Cartwright, 1824.
projecting much? The People are the Militia. did that not, "sink in" in right wing, propaganda school. - - - Updated - - - Then, stop confusing natural rights with civil rights and obligations.
Here is a quote from BryanVa, the most credentialed poster on this forum regarding this subject. "My position is the 2nd Amendment was drafted to specifically recognize the broader pre-existing RKBA, and to reinforce the truth that Congress new power to divorce the militia from its prior reliance on these individually held arms was not also a broader power to then ban those arms altogether. Congress could ban their use in the militia, but Congress had no power to otherwise restrict the right of the people to keep and bear them outside of militia service. The only power over arms Congress was given was over the arms used by the militianot the private citizen." What say you?
so what. it is just an opinion. our Second Amendment is a legal fact. and, the intent and purpose for that legal fact is in the first clause. In any case, you Only have a case against incursion by the federal government, not State governments, due to 10USC311.
Who's confused? If the people's right to liberty is a natural right, whatever is necessary to assure that liberty is an auxiliary right. Possessing arms may therefore be considered an auxiliary right necessary to secure our inalienable rights, for as Jefferson said: "It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end." --Thomas Jefferson: Miss. River Instructions, 1791. In other words, a right to liberty gives a right to the arms without which liberty could not be defended and secured. This is the primary purpose that the right to keep and bear arms serves, and this is the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Kinda makes sense right?
I You lack understanding of what well regulated meant in 1780. According to the Oxford dictionary well regulated meant in working condition. For example "if a liberal education has formed in us well regulated appetites and worthy inclinations...." "The practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the world..." Your applying 21st century language to 18th century writing and your getting it wrong badly. Also when applying grammatical structure to 2a. It's important to note that the used "a" militia instead of "the" militia. This is important because it suggest the framers chose not to explicitly define who or what would regulate the militias nor what regulation would consist of. Nor how that was accomplished for that matter. According to Roy Coppeerud, who is consider an expert on America English language. "The words 'a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, contrary to modern interpretation constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause, it is used as an adjective to modify militia which is followed by the main clause of the sentence. Subject the right verb shall." "The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia" Professor Copperud had a 17 year career teaching journalism at USC and had been working for editor and publisher sent. He is the guy English professors go to to ask questions about the English language. He goes on to say
The left is continually plagued by the facts. I had a liberal recently want to "debate" me on the original intent of the Second Amendment. When you beat the left down on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the left then denies the concept of unalienable Rights. No Rights are unalienable they argue since the word isn't in the Constitution. Then they have to rely on legal literature (in the form of statutes, court rulings, etc.) before and after the founding era, NEVER during the founding era. It is amazing to me that people do not understand. Under President James Madison the Bill of Rights became law in 1791. If you will examine the words of the founding fathers, there is no shortage of quotes wherein the word Liberty and firearms / guns appear AND in connection with a Right of the people during the founding era: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Justice Story was nominated by President Madison, the author of the Second Amendment "f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens...." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788 "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 [Univ. of Alabama Press,1975]) "A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression." James Madison http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/james_madison_quote_3944 The left gets wrapped up in the Second Amendment (and those trolling will always cite Article 1 Section 8 - which clearly does not apply to the individual citizen's Right to keep and bear Arms.) But, what they cannot deny is the link between founding fathers that used the word Liberty in conjunction with the citizens Right to keep and bear Arms. So, why is this important? As you know the Declaration of Independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." The Declaration of Independence is, as Thomas Jefferson called it: "the foundational charter of the Rights of man." It is at the head of the United States Code (the official laws of the United States) and has been used as precedent in more than 100 court cases (all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.) The Bill of Rights is the codification of those unalienable Rights. They are a limitation on government. I've already quoted Chief Justice Story (nominated by the author of the Second Amendment had to say with regard to a citizen's Right to keep and bear Arms. But, let's take another right and make sure that when we discuss unalienable Rights, we are talking the Bill of Rights. Here is what the author of the BOR says about the First Amendment: "We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, that religion, or the duty we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right." James Madison http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/james+madison So, we have a Bill of Rights - all passed as one Bill. If the First Amendment is an unalienable Right, it stands to reason that every Amendment in that one Bill - the Bill of Rights are equal and, therefore, unalienable. We have the founding fathers own statements as evidence of it. "Among the natural rights {aka unalienable Rights} of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." Samuel Adams We keep having these gun discussions, but from where I standing, I don't understand how any honest liberal can keep deliberately misinterpreting the law.
You are confusing natural rights with civil rights declared in our Second Amendment. Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, and the means to accomplish that end.
Just an opinion? I would say it by far is a more educated legal opinion than anyone that posts on this forum. Have you read the quotes of the men that wrote the 2A? They clearly state that we all have unalienable rights that pre exist government. The Bill of Rights that they penned recognizes these unalienable rights. They grant nothing. By virtue of being a human being, you have the right to speak and protect yourself, pray to whatever God you want etc.... as long as your actions don't trample on others rights. How does militia have anything to do with a right that pre existed any militia or government?
It only makes sense if you can read the English language. One criticism though: The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right; not an inalienable one. They are different concepts in law. I backed you up in post #138, but don't expect liberals to acknowledge the facts. I can only share with you what a wise man told me: Never argue with idiots. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
like the right would know the difference. - - - Updated - - - it means nothing; and paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller supports my contention and not that of gun lovers. Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose in the first clause. - - - Updated - - - You are confusing natural rights with civil rights declared in our Second Amendment. Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, and the means to accomplish that end.
You may be sincere in your beliefs, but you are sincerely wrong. You are wrong on the topic and there is no point discussing points you bring up that have already been discussed in this thread.
You claim that; but have nothing but fallacy when doing so. You are welcome to cede the point and argument, if you "need to put your shoes back on and get out of the kitchen." Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, and the means to accomplish that end.
The syllubus in the decision is much easier to understand. And unlike you stated earlier, the militia is made up of males only, so my grandmother is not part of the militia. Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. Our 2A clearly states its intent and purpose in the "operative" second clause, as is reinforced by the statements of the men that wrote it.
Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller clearly states the availability of recourse to the police power, when Arms are involved. Only well regulated militia are exempted from the police power, in favor of wellness of regulation, prescribed by our federal Congress. - - - Updated - - - The People are the Militia. There is no, none connection with the militia for the People; Individuals of the People are either, well regulated or not.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. If there were something new and credible to respond to, you'd get an answer. Last time you went to the mods because you lost the argument. You aren't doing so good with these guys either.
"The People" are the citizens of the United States. As it is clear in other amendments where this term is used. "The “Militia” comprises all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. According to you.... women and the disabled should not be allowed to own firearms because they are not part of the Militia.
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. You might want to brush up on the difference between "prefatory" and "operative".
