Debates
11 Jul 22
@jimm619 saidHere is the complete text of the second amendment....
What about ''......a well regulated militia.................?''
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.
-emphasis added.
There is nothing in the final clause that limits the right of the people based on what we think is or is not a militia.
It could have said... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people who are in a Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
But it doesn't.
Regardless, if the right to keep and bear arms hinged on whether or not you were in a government approved Milita, that would totally nullify the second amendment.
But I've said too much. I did not intend to come here to argue this point. I just marvel at the fact that people not only can find the right to abortion in the Bill of Rights, but often the same people often can't find the right to own a gun in the same Bill of Rights. And it is not predicated on a deep dive scholarly analysis, but rather the assertion that you'd have to be completely stupid to disagree with either claim.
And I don't know if you noticed, but one person responded to me asserting that no one wants to take away rights to gun ownership, but here you are willing to credit the government with that exact power (i.e. just declare that none of us are militia members).
13 Jul 22
@techsouth
Did you notice the "Regulated" part? They seem to recognize there has to be limits but I guess that escaped you.
13 Jul 22
@techsouth saidIf you don't understand simple English, you could have said that at the beginning.
Here is the complete text of the second amendment....
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.
-emphasis added.
There is nothing in the final clause that limits the right of the people based on what we think is or is not a militia.
It could have said. ...[text shortened]... credit the government with that exact power (i.e. just declare that none of us are militia members).
@techsouth saidIf Congress decided that every able bodied person was in the militia and that they were adequately armed with a Swiss army knife (remember it is up to Congress to "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia," ), what "right" would you have to own a firearm?
Here is the complete text of the second amendment....
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.
-emphasis added.
There is nothing in the final clause that limits the right of the people based on what we think is or is not a militia.
It could have said. ...[text shortened]... credit the government with that exact power (i.e. just declare that none of us are militia members).
The Second Amendment says nothing about a right to personal self-defense. But surely the Framers believed in such a right; it's just not enumerated. You know, like the right to bodily autonomy.
13 Jul 22
@techsouth saidI wrote yesterday that 2 cretins tried to carjack a family with 2 children in the car. He luckily was able to shoot them both ....to protect his family.
Here is the complete text of the second amendment....
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.
-emphasis added.
There is nothing in the final clause that limits the right of the people based on what we think is or is not a militia.
It could have said. ...[text shortened]... credit the government with that exact power (i.e. just declare that none of us are militia members).
Are all of these posts suggesting in anyway that he should NOT have had a gun? Yes or no, no need to mention the Constitution or it’s amendments.
13 Jul 22
@averagejoe1 saidI think you have a right to self-defense and a corollary right to have reasonable tools to protect that right.
I wrote yesterday that 2 cretins tried to carjack a family with 2 children in the car. He luckily was able to shoot them both ....to protect his family.
Are all of these posts suggesting in anyway that he should NOT have had a gun? Yes or no, no need to mention the Constitution or it’s amendments.
I don't think the Second Amendment "gives" you that right. You had it before the Second Amendment and would have it whether the Second Amendment had been added to the Constitution or not.
13 Jul 22
@mott-the-hoople saidYou still haven't figured out the difference between a right and a power.
check out number ten
Nothing in the Tenth Amendment gives to States a power to decide what the People's rights are.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147485
13 Jul 22
@no1marauder said>IF<. LOL
If Congress decided that every able bodied person was in the militia and that they were adequately armed with a Swiss army knife (remember it is up to Congress to "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia," ), what "right" would you have to own a firearm?
The Second Amendment says nothing about a right to personal self-defense. But surely ...[text shortened]... ers believed in such a right; it's just not enumerated. You know, like the right to bodily autonomy.
13 Jul 22
@suzianne saidJaap is to stupidly affect something, or somesuch. Mess something up. Spell check changed it. You must think I was disparaging a Japanese person? Would that be germane to anything.? A touchy bunch.
"Jap up"?
Sue Ann, did you see the racial slurs that I wrote you, stated by President Biden? I find him racist. What of that.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147485
@no1marauder saidyou are a fool
You still haven't figured out the difference between a right and a power.
Nothing in the Tenth Amendment gives to States a power to decide what the People's rights are.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
13 Jul 22
@mott-the-hoople saidYour childlike response doesn't effect the accuracy of my remark.
you are a fool
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
You might think the Framers believed that State governments had absolute power over their People but you are wrong.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147485
@no1marauder saidthe states have the power to make laws that do not conflict with the US constitution…no amount of 💩weaseling by you will change that.
Your childlike response doesn't effect the accuracy of my remark.
You might think the Framers believed that State governments had absolute power over their People but you are wrong.
You have made yourself look like a fool to those that know how the system works.