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

You are a hoot Daniel. Fortunately for us civil persons, what the founding fathers did was carefully studied and then written up in our reference books such that everyone could read and understand them.

BTW, this is not from a dictionary, it is the federal statute word for word. No interpretation necessary for those who understand English.

And here again is the law which regulates the militia of the US.

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

In other words, acquire and posses is nowhere to be found in our Second Amendment, but may be found in the Militia Acts, for that purpose, regarding that which is Necessary to the security of a free State and all of the attendant, wellness of regulation.

- - - Updated - - -

simply claiming that is an appeal to ignorance without your rebuttal and hopefully, superior refutation. Rejection is merely a form of special pleading.

 

Our Second Amendment enumerates not just Any militia or anarchy or mob, but a well regulated militia (of the United States) as necessary to the security of a free State. Any questions? If not, why not cede the point and the argument you never had.

 

AND CIVIL INDIVIDUALS THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Do you have any questions?

I don't, but if I did I would ask someone who understood the subject. I certainly would not aske you.

My argument has been proved correct many times, yours has failed because all you do is special plead. Our militia as dictated by 10 US Code 311 describes and regulates our militia. Your inability to or failure to read the following is a great tell about your thinking.

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

sorry; you are not going to non-sequitur your way out of this topic that easily, simply because practice makes perfect.

not just Any militia or anarchy or mob, but a well regulated militia

Here is where the Militia of the United States must get its prescription for wellness of regulations; any questions?

 

In other words the founders said exactly what they intended and that intent was in no way the bizarre collective right nor the odd militia right so beloved by grabbers...

 

I've shown you over and over again the definition of appealing to ignorance. You look foolish when you misuse it. You also have been shown what special pleading means, and you look foolish when you misuse that too.

 

Of course our Founding Fathers already knew that rights in private property are already secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms; Acquire and Posses. Can you cite where those specific terms are to be found in our Second Amendment?

 

You are calling the law of the land a non-sequitur Daniel?

I agree, and I have given you the manner in which it is regulated based on the law of our country. If you are not satisfied with our law then try to get your congressmen to change it.

 

Yes Daniel, it is. It is called keep and bear, which means the same thing.

Nope! The militia is a separate issue and its wellness of regulation is found in the statute describing it. Whether you believe it is or is not adequately regulated is irrelevant.

You are the one appealing to ignorance Daniel, and you are the one special pleading because you have no valid argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, specific synonyms, keep and bear.

 

this is the 500th time I've seen this argument from this poster. He cannot interpret what he reads, he just likes to sound important.
sesquipedalian...............which is a form of an ad hom. He too suffers from cognitive dissonance, as do most Libs. He's a gun hater with a hidden agenda, to disguise himself as a Supreme Court judge.

 

No. I am calling your rebuttals, mostly non sequiturs. Current practice in our republic is the current law; and, only well regulated militias are exempted from Paragraph (2).

Why do you believe our form of limited government is not limited to the specific terms, specifically enumerated in our supreme law of the land?

 

Nope; it can't be synonymous or any Contract could be changed in such a manner. I know you don't believe in arbitrarily changing contract terms for a political passion of the moment.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you know that you have mostly only, ad hominems and that form of fallacy for your Cause?

 

In Any case, the various Militia Acts are not our Second Amendment; so, where in our Second Amendment can the specific Terms, Acquire and Posses be found?

 

I can cite what the folk who wrote it believed they wrote...Can you cite anything written by them that supports anything other than the individual right??

 

Our Second Amendment specifically enumerates what is Necessary to the security of a free State. Well regulated militias of the United States can only be comprised of Individual Persons who may keep and bear Arms for the United States.

If our Founding Fathers meant what gun lovers claim, this is what our Second Amendment would look like:

 

keep and bear

- - - Updated - - -

repeatedly proven false.

 

Nope; here is what our Second Amendment would look like if that is what was meant:

 

the courts say they mean the same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

keep and bear

- - - Updated - - -

that is what it looks like. you simply substituted synonymous words to pretend you have a point.

- - - Updated - - -

nope. already refuted.

 

They can't mean the same Thing or we would not need different words. It really is that simple.

 

I am sorry...I am missing something here. Just what exactly do you think " Well regulated militias of the United States can only be comprised of Individual Persons who may keep and bear Arms for the United States" means?

 

but they do mean the same thing. they're called synonyms. it really is that simple.

 

Only if you are willing to appeal to ignorance regarding diagnosing the Body politic. They are different words and mean different Things.

In no way can be confused with keep.

 

In no way can a sane person not accept that "keep" is equal to possess and that to possess implies acquire. It is clear in the 2nd amendment that private persons have the right to acquire and possess arms. It would take an illiterate to believe to the contrary.

 

I've shown you the definition of appeal to ignorance. you look foolish when you misuse it. they are different words with the same meaning.

it means the same thing.