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

Keep is all you need, synonymous with possess. Personal right, not affected by militia.

 

The words acquire and possess are not necessary as Keep means possess and that implies an automatic right to acquire as certified by the US Supreme court.

I am going to put you on notice Daniel, your continued refusal to accept reasonable authority and your claims anyone is (besides you of course) appealing to ignorance or cognitive dissonance will be considered a direct insult which I will report as an insult. Any questions?

 

You are doing an injustice to people who for some reason have not learned to read. The inability to read does not amount to stupidity or lack of understanding of words. I have met scores of people who did not know how to read, but had a fine understanding of the meaning of words and contexts. It takes willful ignorance, stupidity, an agenda or some combination of them to say that "keep" is not and was not meant to HAVE.
Unfortunately too many gun rights opponents are afflicted with those attributes.

 

I totally agree that being illiterate does not amount to stupidity. Unfortunately in some cases, as illustrated on this thread, illiteracy has led to ignorance. If anyone believes that "to keep", is alien to "possess," it illustrates ignorance to the nth degree.

 

Why do you believe our Founding Fathers would be that unwise regarding that which is necessary to the security of a free State; you may have missed it through omission. Our Founding Fathers did not specifically enumerate that an Anarchy of the People who may Keep and Bear Arms--may not be Infringed in their Keeping and Bearing of any such Arms. The same can be said of a collective of the Body (politic) that may be Termed, a Mob.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry; you need a better argument than that for me. Wanna practice?

 

Please people go back and reread the many other threads old danny has been in, you'll see you are wasting your time...you can't fix stupid so give it a rest.

 

If only we could be better Angels on Earth who have not the need, for the Expense of Government. All it may require is sufficient social morals for free, to accomplish that End.

 

Why would I need a better argument? I've completely refuted your argument already. Your continued trolling doesn't change that.

 

It's unanimous then. We agree that God isn't finished with Danny. I am.

 

I would say that the 2nd Amendment was written to enable the people (the voters that vote for Representatives and later also Senators and hopefully Kat Swift for POTUSA) to be armed with military weaponry except for nuclear, antimatter, radioactive, and deadly germs to protect against tyrannical government.

 

Simply because appealing to ignorance does nothing to support your contention. It is why you need to post your good refutation instead of merely your rejection.

Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and, only those well regulated, Persons who keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union, enjoy literal recourse to not be Infringed.

 

Spouting ignorance also does nothing to support your contention.

 

What part of This is the ignorance Part:

Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and, only those well regulated, Persons who keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union, enjoy literal recourse to not be Infringed.

It is current practice in our republic.

 

Making things up that are not true is also not helping you.

 

You are the only one appealing to ignorance Daniel and he and I and many other people have supported our contention that it is a civil person's right to keep and bear (possess and carry) arms.

Not only has the US Supreme Court found that civil persons have the right to possess and carry arms, but clearly without reference to a militia. The US Statute describes the militia and that statute confirms the militia and is all the regulation needed.

 

this guy is a sesquipedalian. Even he doesn't understand what he posts. Circular argument putting up posts he cannot interpret. (He even thinks he's a supreme court judge.) DO NOT SHATTER HIS ILLUSION. We'll end up with another mental case on Obamacare.
God, Blessed is His Name, will sort these types out later................

 

The part which suggests that only persons who are associated with a militia have the right to keep and bear arms is the ignorant part.

The current practice in our republic is that all individuals who are not specifically denied the right (felons, mentally ill) shall have the right to possess and carry arms.

 

Let's put it this way, only well regulated militias of Individuals of the People may have the privilege and immunity of marching with the banners of their State or the Union to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; and, only those well regulated, Persons who keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union, enjoy literal recourse to not be Infringed.

 

you keep missing the point. Your point is worthless and pure bull(*)(*)(*)(*)

 

Let's put it this way, the People have the right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union or just for the fun of it, and enjoy literal recourse to not be Infringed and well regulated militias also have the right not to be infringed. There is nothing in the constitution which requires a militia, well regulated or not for the people to have the right to keep and bear arms for personal use. The very idea that such a right to keep and bear arms is limited, by the need of a militia, is outlandish in its very nature, and the US Supreme court has held that right that the individual civil person does have the right to keep and beararms without having a militia, both in federal enclaves and in all other cities and states and that right shall not be infringed. Any more questions?

 

this guy is a troll. He cannot interpret his own posts. All you are doing is feeding is self-imposed ideology that he actually knows what he's saying. That is why no one usually responds to his idiotic and meaningless posts.
Please, don't feed the trolls

 

Simply claiming that without a valid rebuttal is merely an appeal to ignorance and that form of fallacy for your Cause.

Only well regulated militias of Individuals of the People may have the privilege and immunity of marching with the banners of their State or the Union to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; and, only those well regulated, Persons who keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union, enjoy literal recourse to not be Infringed.

- - - Updated - - -

No, they do not; paragraph (2) of DC v Heller makes that quite clear.

 

I've given you the definition of appealing to ignorance. You look like an idiot when you misuse it.

Repeatedly proven false

- - - Updated - - -

Repeatedly proven false

 

Repeatedly proven false

 

Proven false by what?

Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and, only those well regulated, Persons who keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union, enjoy literal recourse to not be Infringed.

It is current practice in our republic.