Dem Sen: Second Amendment Not Meant For Citizens To Take Up Arms Against Government

The terms acquire and posses are not synonymous nor interchangeable with keep and bear; for the terms keep and bear to be synonymous with keep and bear, you need to show the commutation process from acquire and posses to keep and bear. Do any of the holdings explain that commutation process sufficient for any rational person to understand the line of reasoning. If not, then I submit this holding is not valid and should be overturned on its own merit. The specific terms, acquire and posses are found in State Constitutions and available via due process.

 

The first clause clearly provides the context for the second clause; thus, acquire and posses cannot be interchangeable with nor synonymous with keep and bear for the Militia of the United States, simply because our federal Congress is delegated the social Power to Arm the Militia of the United States. The specific terms, acquire and posses are found in State Constitutions and available via due process and existing federal precedent regarding rights in even controversial forms of private property.

- - - Updated - - -

This argument is disingenuous since any militia must be comprised of Individual and civil Persons resorting to collective action to be necessary to the security of our free States. Our Second Amendment refers to not just Any militia, but a well regulated Militia as being necessary to the security of a free State. Thus, simply being the Militia of the United States is not sufficient to secure a literal interpretation of our Second Amendment for civil persons specifically unconnected with well regulated, militia service.

 

See post #325

 

I did. It is how I came up with my argument and rebuttal; unlike those of the opposing view. Can it be true that gun lovers really don't have a Cause, but maybe only a profit motive, as evidenced by their lack of valid arguments for their Cause.