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

Supreme Court precedent.

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. Well regulated militias are not Infringed by paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.

 

It's fascinating to watch uninformed children try to explain the 2nd Amendment to our US Constitution. They speak with such certainty, and yet they are so WRONG! Our Constitution means exactly what the founders intended it to mean, nothing more and certainly nothing less! What did our founders tell us that the 2nd Amendment means?

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"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

The Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be abridged! This is not an opinion, it is a FACT!

 

Just wait, ole danny will have a psychobabble comment I response LOL

 

It amazes me that so many of our younger citizens are so ignorant of our Constitution. The leftist educators have convinced our children that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says. These children spout their ignorance, never questioning what the left has taught them. Their blind ignorance is frightening!

Our founders came from a Europe in which only the aristocracy was permitted to bear arms. The aristocratic class didn't want the downtrodden populace to have the means to defend themselves and worse yet, possibly overthrow their royal masters. The term "coat of arms" refers to a persons royally-given permission to bear arms and "protect" himself.... or more likely, to keep those "lesser" citizens under the royal heel. Like the old royalty of Europe, present-day leftist Democrats don't want power in the hands of the people. They don't want the people to have the means of resisting the left's arrogant power and unconstitutional laws. At the same time, our leftist politicians are only too willing to have their own weapons, either owned and carried themselves or by their bodyguards.

Those who tell us that the 2nd Amendment refers only to a state-run State Guard, National Guard, or militia are either ignorant, or worse yet, they DO understand and are purposefully lying about and undermining our Constitutional rights. Our founders specifically intended the 2nd Amendment to DENY ANY government entity the power to ban, control, or restrict in any manner the possession of arms by law-abiding citizens!

The fact that "some" judges have ruled otherwise is the most frightening aspect of this debate. Judges who rule in total opposition to what they damned well know the Constitution means should not be judges! Such rulings display either ignorance OR a purposeful intent to undermine the Constitutionally guaranteed and God-given rights expressed in our Bill of Rights!

Debate of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment was successfully concluded over 200 years ago! The result of that debate was what I described above. There is one and ONLY one way in which any restrictions on the peoples' right to bear arms could be Constitutionally instituted. That way is by following the prescribed method of Constitutional Amendment.

 

supreme court precedent

repeatedly proven false.

 

In what way is Paragraph (2) proven false? It only applies to civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with well regulated Militia service, due to our Second Amendment.

 

yup, he came back with sesquipedalian psychobabble..................once again proving he doesn't know squat

 

Says only those of the opposing view who have nothing but fallacy for their Cause.

 

daniel
please explain how the writers of the constitution had no idea about what they where talking about when they say that every law abiding person citizen has the right to own a gun.
that is what you are claiming that they are all so stupid they had no idea what they where saying but you know more than they do.
so back up your claim that the founding fathers did not want individuals to own guns as you are claiming.

 

you keep spouting the word "Cause"...just what the hell are you talking about?

 

Yes, exactly; not everyone has an un-Infringed right to keep and bear Arms, except for well regulated Militias of the United States.

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the express Terms; Acquire and Posses, not, Keep and Bear.

- - - Updated - - -

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. Well regulated militias are not Infringed by paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.

 

ac·quire [uh-kwahyuhr] Show IPA
verb (used with object), ac·quired, ac·quir·ing.
1. to come into possession or ownership of; get as one's own: to acquire property.
2. to gain for oneself through one's actions or efforts: to acquire learning.

pos·sess [puh-zes] Show IPA ,
verb (used with object)
1. to have as belonging to one; have as property; own: to possess a house and a car.

keep [keep] Show IPA
verb (used with object), kept, keep·ing.
1.to hold or retain in one's possession; hold as one's own

Bear, well Daniel, that is an animal that (*)(*)(*)(*)s in the woods, right?

 

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the express Terms; Acquire and Posses, not, Keep and Bear.

A State supreme law of the land trumps any dictionary every time.

Well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms, may not be Infringed only when they keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

This is what our Second Amendment would have to look like, if it meant what gun lovers claim:

 

Paragraph (2) DOES NOT REMOVE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE INDIVIDUALLY TO POSSESS ARMS. That is simply not true. All paragraph (2) does it to recognize that some regulations can be applied, but the right is still there for a person to carry legal firearms. Legal firearms are all of those arms which are not specifically prohibited such as sawed off shotguns and fully automatic firearms.

Since you don't understand what you read you are incapable of providing us with a factual interpretation of any part of Heller which clearly and positively guarantees the right of civil persons to possess a firearm in federal enclaves. McDonald positively guarantees the right of civil persons to possess a firearm in all other cities and states.

- - - Updated - - -

This entire post has not a single reference which trumps the 2nd amendment or the USSC decisions which positively guarantees the right of civil persons to possess a firearm.

 

it doesn't say or do what you keep claiming it does.

no it doesn't.

- - - Updated - - -

repeatedly proven false.

- - - Updated - - -

repeatedly proven false.

 

Yes, it does. It is only your special pleading point of view, that may be indistinguishable from cognitive forms of dissonance, that impedes your cognition of the relevant facts.

Paragraph (2) only applies to civil Persons who are specifically, unconnected with well regulated militia service, as it should since it is a literal interpretation of our Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land.

- - - Updated - - -

Rejection is not a refutation without a valid rebuttal, every time you want this to be an issue.

 

no it doesn't. I've given you the definition of special pleading. you look like an idiot when you intentionally misuse it.

repeatedly proven false.

I've directly refuted your argument via supreme court precedent. I'm not going to repost it every time you troll a gun thread.

 

It has nothing to do with point of view Daniel. I know your point of view is that civil persons can only possess firearms as part of their being in some militia. But the facts are different from opinions. So your insulting comments calling people cognitive dissonant or special pleading falls right back on you. As I told you, the next time you insulted me thus I will report you. It is further obvious that you have not been able to read the most important USSC decisions with understanding because both give civil persons the absolute right to possess firearms found to be legal to be sold in the US and the only issue paragraph (2) is that the firearm must be a legal type and there are places a civil person can carry them, such as schools or government buildings.

 

Incorrect application of the term "cognitive dissonance"............there's only one form of cognitive dissonance. Like other terms you so loosely use, you don't understand this one either or the correct way it is used.
You suffer from cognitive dissonance.

 

oh,so now the Californication Constitution is the Law of the Land........
and what is your cause/agenda, dp?

 

Here is my bottom line; an appeal to ignorance regarding our supreme law of the land is not a privilege and immunity for civil Persons in our republic.

Our supreme law of the land establishes Government, limited to expressly enumerated powers.

Since our Founding Fathers did not express our Second Amendment in the following manner, it cannot be what they meant:

What would that interpretation accomplish?

Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates the End for which the Means may be necessary.

 

Repeatedly proven false

 

The intent of the 2nd Amendment?

The mods can give you a warning for citing the purpose.