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

I missed nothing, but you have. You refuse two answer simple requests. I believe it proves you know you are wrong and you just don't want to admit it.

1. 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?

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

Until you show good faith by responding to those two items I am going to assume you don't know how and have been doing nothing but blowing smoke all along.

 

The portion of the 2nd Amendment stating "well regulated militia" is not the empowering clause of the Amendment. In fact, it's virtually anecdotal and unnecessary to the purpose of the Amendment. The enforcing words of the Amendment are "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed." Reading the words of the founders tells us what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is. "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."! The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that we the people cannot be enslaved by an arrogant, power-grabbing government that would disregard the actual intents of our Constitution... much as the present administration is doing.

 

My dear Mr.Smith, Paragraph (2) clearly and unequivocally, gives the lie to Paragraph (1).

 

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. Do you suppose that well regulated militias are subject to Paragraph (2)? Only civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with well regulated militia service are subject to it.

 

You don't seem to be able to put all of my cognitive sonnance together. You merely missed the point about well regulated militias being exempt from Paragraph (2), as a comparison and contrast when compared to civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with well regulated militia service who are specifically subject to Paragraph (2).

Our Second Amendment only may exempt well regulated militias of the United States from Paragraph (2) due to a literal interpretation that must exclude civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with well regulated militia service since our Second Amendment does not specifically enumerate an Anarchy or Mob as being necessary to the security of a free State.

 

That is a deliberate, appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction.

Clause the First must provide a Context for Clause the Second. That context must be within the meaning of what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

 

Please quote the part (cut and paste) you believe it does that. That is what I asked of you, not some canned response which says nothing of consequence. Either post it or it will be clear you don't know what you are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Baloney! Either cut and past the part which says that or we know you have no point at all.

 

Ok. I thought it was self-evident on my first reading of that decision. According to the majority opinion, Part the First is only a Statement of Intent and Part the Second is the Operative Part.

Only well regulated militias of the United States are not Infringed by Part the Second.

 

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.​

Nothing in paragraph (2) says a militia is necessary. Nothing in paragraph (2) says the people do not have the right to own a firearm. The only thing paragraph (2) does is recognize that SOME RESTRICTIONS CAN APPLY. THOSE RESTRICTION ONLY LIMIT THE TYPE OF FIREARM AND WHERE A CIVIL PERSON CAN CARRY IT. We have all said that many times, yet you show your ignorance of the USSC decision every time you bring up the militia crap. I think you are simply insufficiently knowledgeable for me to concern myself with you.

 

No it doesn't

- - - Updated - - -

Repeatedly proven false

- - - Updated - - -

Repeatedly proven false

 

No Daniel, it is your ignorance.

No Daniel, Operative clause is, "shall not be infringed." Both the first clause and the second clause are dependent on the operative clause, therefore neither a well regulated militia nor the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Please underline only that part of paragraph (2)) which discusses the well regulated militia. We all acknowledge that paragraph (2) limits THE TYPE OF FIREARM AND WHERE YOU CAN CARRY IT. But in reading it over and over I cannot find a single word which relates to the militia in paragraph (2); please underline it and repost it.

 

It is self-evident that well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, by Paragraph (2).

 

Simply claiming that without your good argument is a simple appeal to ignorance and laissez-fare-ness regarding any "work" ethic to provide it each and every time this becomes any sort of issue and impairment in the discovery of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

 

Why do you believe the "operative" clause should not be held accountable to the "statement of intent" clause?

- - - Updated - - -

It is self-evident that well regulated Militias of the United States and their banner may not be Infringed by Paragraph (2).

 

Well regulated Militias of the United States are exempted from Paragraph (2) due to a Literal Interpretation of our Second Article of Amendment to our Supreme Law of the Land.

 

So you highlighted the part about some specific firearms being prohibited and there are some places you can't carry one, but you highlighted nothing that said there was a militia necessary. Try again Daniel, your credibility is in serious doubt. Here is the part you highlighted again:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.​

I have bolded all of the prohibitions left in place by the USSC decision. There is nothing in it about a militia. you have struck out again Daniel.

- - - Updated - - -

Trying to mix issues are you Daniel? The Heller and McDonald decisions told us clearly that the 2nd amendment DID NOT MAKE A MILITIA NECESSARY.

 

The operative clause and the statement of intent are the same things and it says that the two dependent clauses shall not be infringed.

Only to people who cannot understand English and who choose to not accept a Supreme court decision. Do you always throw out supreme court decisions Daniel? Is English a 3rd language for you such that you can't read it for meaning? What actually happened was the USSC defined the 2nd amendment for all of us by holding that guns cannot be prohibited to be possessed by civil persons and that only some especially dangers weapons could be denied and some places one cannot carry a firearm. The USSC made it very clear that the militia is a separate and distinct issue and then the Congress passed laws regulating that militia.

 

Repeatedly proven false

- - - Updated - - -

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

- - - Updated - - -

Repeatedly proven false

 

Our Second Amendment specifically establishes a right to not be Infringed, but only for well regulated Militias of the United States.

- - - Updated - - -

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller claims a limited right, but it can only claim that for civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with well regulated militia service due to our Second Amendment.

 

An opinion of the Judicature is no substitute for any plain and unambiguous enumeration in our federal Constitution; any Thing to the contrary, not-with-standing.

 

Simply claiming to do something is not the same as actually doing something; it is why you need to post your good refutation, each and every time it is contested.

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller claims a limited right, but it can only claim that for civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with well regulated militia service due to our Second Amendment.

 

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

Repeatedly proven false

- - - Updated - - -

Repeatedly proven false

 

I agree, if it was different than the plain and unambiguous language in the 2nd amendment. The fact is the 2nd amendment stands on its own giving civil persons an un-infringed right to keep and bear arms and an un-infringed right to a well regulated militia. The point is the USSC made the only decision they could make without legislating from the bench. Obviously you don't like their decision, but from the stand point of language it was correct and it is stated law that civil persons have an un-infringed right to keep and bear arms albeit with some regulation of type of firearm and where they can be carried. It is now settled, right Daniel?

 

Proven false with what? Simply claiming that is an appeal to ignorance without your alleged, good refutation that can in no way be confused with simple rejection.

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller claims a limited right, but it can only claim that for civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with well regulated militia service due to our Second Amendment. You can't prove this false because it is secured by our very own, Second Amendment.