Who believes the claim that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to arm militias

You are not merely attempting to forfeit your rights, you want to forfeit the rights of the rest of the forum. And let's be frank. You can't tolerate guns thus want to do the rest of us in.

 

Cite the other parts of the constitution, that supposedly grants this authority over firearms to the federal government.

 

You, like so many others before, twist and misinterpret the words of the Second Amendment, then deny all the statements of the Founders clear intent regarding the Second Amendment, and as such prove the intellectual dishonesty of your position.

You say "there is nothing in it about keeping and bearing arms for non-militia purposes." WRONG. It says "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed." Since the militia comes from the people themselves, and the people must be properly equipped and capable of functioning as expected (well-regulated), then the people's right to bear arms - for ANY lawful purpose - shall not be infringed. THAT is what the Second Amendment says, which fits perfectly into the clear, unambiguous, and stated intent of the Founders. There are exactly ZERO statements from the Founders to match your so-called "interpretation" of the Second Amendment, and your claim that your twisted, false, and dishonest "interpretation" of the Second Amendment somehow makes the Founders own statements irrelevant, is an example of astonishing self-delusion on your part.

Once again: FAIL.

 

The leading phrase of the 2nd Amendment (it's not even a clause since it has no noun/verb combination) is what is known as a present participle. A present participle functions as an adjective, not as a restriction. In the sentence "The blue dog barked" the adjective "blue" does not restrict barking to only blue dogs. The present participle phrase is no different. It is an adjective phrase explaining *why* the FF's included the 2nd Amendment but it does not restrict the main clause in any way. The FF's included the protection of the 2nd Amendment in order to insure the ability of local militias to form and operate as a protective force. But the reason for including the 2nd Amendment does not restrict the right in any manner to *only* that function.

Does NO ONE on the left today know how to diagram a sentence any more? Do they not know any basic grammar?

 

Just because you are knowledgeable does not mean that yours is the only or right opinion, ergo the subjectivity.

 

well given every document from that era that speaks to the issue supports me, I am safe saying I am correct. just because you WANT the 2d amendment means something else, doesnt really work

 

"James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Cite: Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session: p. 451.

Where's your preamble now?

 

Yeah... That Jefferson guy... confused.

 

Documents are open to interpretation, what makes your interpretation any better than another? Just qualifying yourself does not mean that you are the definitive authority on the issue.

 

There is NO WAY to "interpret" the Founders' clear and unambiguous statements on the issue but in one way and one way only. To claim otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest.

 

When have gun control advocates ever been honest about anything involving guns ?

 

because mine actually fits in with the entire constitution and yours does not

 

Just as in that movie "Contact" with Jodie Foster, they tried to make that seat fit the spaceship, and it did not fit and fell apart, or self destructed.

Gun control arguments self destruct.

 

What I've seen are not professors of law but liberal opinion editorial writers make these assertions.

 

The only way the militia-only interpretation could be remotely considered legitimate is if they ignored the wording of the Constitution itself and the many writings of the era regarding firearms possession by the people, such as the Militia Act of 1792 which instructed recruits to bring their own firearms and ammunition.

 

Actually, if a person understands what Rights really are, and who Rights apply to, there can be only one interpretation of the Second Amendment.

 

Exactly so!

 

If you know basic English grammar and know how to diagram a sentence the 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear and is *NOT* open to interpretation!

 

Subjective opinion.

What do you presume that my interpretation is?

 

Highly innacurate and off the mark.

 

I take it you are referring to "and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements"?
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

 

What is?

 

Subjective opinion. Just saying that something is not open to interpretation does not make it not open to interpretation.

 

Just because you say 2 + 2 = 6 does not make it so.

The Right of "The People" to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

This phrase can only have one objective meaning, since as Rights go, Rights are reserved to "The (ordinary citizen) People.

The Militia when activated and acting under Government orders, as do the Armed forces, do not have any Constitutional Right to bear Arms, they do so under the color of Authority and power of the duly constituted Government.

 

something contrary to the correct one or you wouldn't be arguing with mine