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

Daniel is not capable of reading English and understanding what it means. He does not understand that possess is a synonym for keep. He does not understand what the Supreme court said when the "Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected." Further the "Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: "

So effectively, if the first amendment pertains to any civil person, and if the 4th amendment pertains to any civil person, it is also established that the 2nd amendment pertains to any civil person, whether they are or are not part of any militia.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller​

I am sure that Daniel will read what I said, read the excerpts from the USSC findings, read the discussion on the link and still not accept or admit to accepting that the 2nd amendment guarantees the rights of civil persons to own and carry firearms without recourse to any militia. He is incapable of understanding what he does not want to understand.

 

Daniel, since you haven't responded directly to my posts in which I explained the basis and meaning of the 2nd Amendment, I'll address you directly. I'm hoping that you truly want to learn, and don't wish to remain ignorant of our nations history?

ANY and ALL court rulings that have upheld a power of the States and/or the Federal Government to regulate firearms are unconstitutional! Believe it or not, some judges have political agendas, and are only too willing to ignore the rights guaranteed us in the Constitution. To comprehend what I'm telling you, an understanding of the English language is necessary, as well as legal terms, our Constitution, and the actual explanations given by our founding fathers as to what the intent of the 2nd Amendment was.

The word "militia" as used at the time of our founders was understood differently than it normally is today. In colonial and ante bellum America, militias were not the highly-organized groups they are today. Today, most people consider our "Reserves" and "National Guard" units to be militia. At the time our Constitution was written, the militia were considered to be all able-bodied males. The weapons used by those early militiamen were not provided by some government entity. Each able-bodied male was expected to own and bring his own weaponry when danger arose.

The key wording in the 2nd Amendment is the phrase that follows: .... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL not be infringed." When the word "Shall" is used in legal documents it implies an absolute! In other words, the founders were stating that there is NO justification for denying law-abiding citizens the ownership of weapons. The word "infringed" can be defined in several ways, but is universally accepted as meaning "interfered with", "restricted", "encroached upon", etc. To place any restrictions whatever on this Constitutional right, another Amendment would have to be passed that would specially list the types of weapons that could either be owned or not owned. Otherwise, all regulations on the ownership of weaponry at this time are unconstitutional..... regardless of what some politically-appointed judge may say about it!

To further understand the 2nd Amendment, one must look at the actual explanations provided by the founders when the Constitution was written, debated, and ratified. I provided a number of those explanations earlier. To refresh your memory, here is just one that was stated by a man who actually co-authored the 2nd Amendment:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

Nobody today should tell us that the 2nd Amendment means anything but what those who actually wrote it intended it to mean!!!! , Mason clearly stated that it meant that "the whole people" were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms! Mason additionally stated the reason for the 2nd Amendment; i.e., "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." The US government and US State governments have NO power whatever to infringe upon a law-abiding American citizen's RIGHT to keep and bear arms!

Understand now?

 

Nope; our government is one of only limited and only delegated social Powers:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to acquire and possess Arms, shall not be infringed.

What would that interpretation accomplish?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, the End for which the Means may be necessary.

In any case, if they aren't warning those of the opposing view for resorting to so many fallacies, how seriously can I take their warnings.

 

I can read and comprehend quite well. Here is what our Second Amendment does Not specifically enumerate, for those of your point of view to be correct:

 

Yes, my position is the same since our Second Amendment specifically enumerates not just Any militia of Individuals of the People who may keep and bear Arms, but only a well regulated militia of such Individuals for such Purpose.

 

repeatedly proven false.

- - - Updated - - -

yet you can't comprehend plain English, or supreme court rulings which directly refute your argument.

- - - Updated - - -

repeatedly proven false.

 

Simply not having a valid argument is the same as not being able to come up with one. Do you care so little for your alleged and not-for-profit Cause?

 

I've repeatedly refuted your claims with supreme court precedent. there's nothing left to do but keep reminding you when you troll gun threads.

 

No valid argument again. I can't take you seriously anymore without it since you have already reached your quota with me.

 

Speaking about a quota Daniel, you have over reached your quota of crap. If you are so enamored with paragraph (2) and claim it ties a private person from having the right to possess a firearm without associating with a Militia, how about posting the verbiage which you think proves your point. So far all you have done is assert empty claims.

 

I've repeatedly refuted your claims with supreme court precedent. there's nothing left to do but keep reminding you when you troll gun threads.

 

You only Claim to have refuted my claims but you only have a fiat claim and argument to show for it. When are you going to get a commodity argument to prove it?

Yes, my position is the same since our Second Amendment specifically enumerates not just Any militia of Individuals of the People who may keep and bear Arms, but only a well regulated militia of such Individuals for such Purpose.

 

When are you going to post that part of paragraph (2) which you believe has something to do with a persons right to possess arms in conjunction with a militia?

And tell us how the statute describing the militia is not adequate regulation?

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.

 

What's the matter Daniel? Why don't you want to answer my questions?

 

I've repeatedly refuted your claims with supreme court precedent. there's nothing left to do but keep reminding you when you troll gun threads.

 

............wait for it...................he believes that the Calfornication Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.........

 

Did you miss this part? Our Second Amendment specifically enumerates, not just Any militia of Individuals of the People who may keep and bear Arms, but only a well regulated militia of such Individuals for such Purpose.

- - - Updated - - -

You have only provided fiat arguments which refute nothing. You are welcome to provide your commodity arguments every time if you claim to believe in Capitalism within our form of Socialism.

 

Your lack of understanding, is understandable, considering you have to resort to so many fallacies.

 

Until you display what I asked you earlier it will be obvious that you have conceded that there is no militia required for a civil person to keep and bear arms. Thank you!

- - - Updated - - -

You Are the fallacy!

 

LOL, arguing with daniel is an effort in futility. The only concept he has of the Constitution is something made up in his imagination and by golly, he sticks to it contrary to reality.

 

I've repeatedly refuted your claims with supreme court precedent. there's nothing left to do but keep reminding you when you troll gun threads

 

No. You only claim to have done so. You are welcome to put some "stock" in your argument.

 

I've repeatedly refuted your claims with supreme court precedent. there's nothing left to do but keep reminding you when you troll gun threads

 

Do you like arguing with goats? Just asking?