IS the term "The People" in the second amendment different

WHAT? where? the federal government didn't start interfering with private citizens, uses and possessions of firearms until FDR. This is from the rabidly anti gun propaganda site-Violence Policy Center's pages.
The first law passed regulating the possession of firearms was the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), which was enacted following the wave of violence that accompanied Prohibition to control access to “gangster weapons,” such as fully automatic firearms, sawed-off shotguns and silencers.

 

If Obama couldn’t do it with a Dem majority in Congress, Hillary wouldn’t has stood a chance. considering 29 states are now Congressional carry, not likely any updates to the 2 A will happen for a long time. After this disaster of an administration, moves by some Dem dominated cities to defund police and some that have adopted pro criminal catch and release policies, a backlash has started that will result in more states going Constitutional carry.

 

if dems reverse Heller-the Democrat party would lose in a landslide in the next national election. Heller was one of the main reasons why a joke of a candidate Obama was able to win in 2008

 

The second amendment describes the need for a well regulated militia then, and has nothing to do with children being able own and shoot their younger sister with a blue or pink cricket gun.

 

the second amendment is a negative restriction on a federal government that was never delegated any proper power to interfere with whatever arms private citizens wished to keep and bear. But I suspect you already knew that. so what exactly is your point?

 

That the second amendment is obsolete since there is no longer a need for a well regulated militia, since there is a full time professional military force now.

 

you do realize this ridiculous misinterpretation of the second amendment has no validity in American jurisprudence and it considered a frivolous argument if raised in a US Court?

 

None of that changes the fact that the second amendment was obviously written about the need for a well regulated militia, and not for the firearms industry to proudly brag that there is over one mass shooting daily, and over 300 children are shot weekly, and about 40,000 people are killed by firearms yearly.

 

I reject your erroneous and misinformed interpretation of the second amendment-an interpretation that is not bolstered by those statistics. The meaning of the second amendment does not change due to the number of suicides and felon-created murders.

You do understand that fact don't you?

 

None of that changes the fact that the second amendment was written because of the need for a well regulated militia back then, and is now obsolete.
End of story!!!

 

you are wrong-end of story. can you cite any controlling authority that supports your erroneous view?

 

So why is it still necessary to have a well regulated militia if you have a full time professional armed force?

 

that has nothing to do with the fact that the second amendment is a negative restriction on the federal government-a federal government that was never given any proper power.

some would argue that since we do have a full time armed force, a militia is a necessary counterbalance but all of that is window dressing. the second amendment was intended to be a guarantee of the natural right that citizens can defend themselves and that is why the Cruikshank court noted the right is not dependent on the constitution

 

Have you asked the writer(s) of the second amendment why it is still necessary for a well regulated militia and why it is still necessary for the people to keep and bear arms to serve in the well regulated militia?

 

no need to, I know damn well they never gave the government they created a power to interfere with the arms of private citizens and that the second was to guarantee an individual right. now It's my turn-why are you so agitated over the fact that there is a second amendment that guarantees an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT?

1) are you one of those people who are upset that gun rights advocated oppose perhaps your pet policy--abortion? gay rights? income redistribution? BLM? etc

2) or are you someone who thinks that gun ownership causes evil people to commit crimes and if we only got rid of guns, there would be no crime?

 

But unless you have actually spoken with them, then you have no reason that a well regulated militia is still necessary and that it is necessary for the people to keep and BEAR ARMS in the militia.

 

it is irrelevant because the purpose of the second amendment was to reiterate that the new government had no proper power to prevent or interfere with private citizens keeping and bearing arms. and that means more than serving in a militia. are you upset that people can own firearms?

 

None of that changes the initial purpose of the 2nd amendment which was about a well regulated militia being necessary and for people to be able to keep and bear arms to serve in the militia, even though the firearm's industry ignores that in order to sell more and more guns to increase weekly mass shootings and the number of children shot weekly and the number of frequent school massacres..

 

wrong-people being able to form a militia, of course, was of prime importance given the fact that militia helped overthrow British imperialism. Now your conspiracy theory nonsense directed at gun makers shows that you really don't care what the second amendment says, you have a hard on for lawful gun ownership

 

IOW the firearm's industry denies the original purpose for the second amendment about a well regulated being necessary and for people to be able to keep and bear arms to serve in the militia, and just sells more and more guns which increases the number of weekly mass shootings and the number of children shot weekly and the number of frequent school massacres, and for the gun worshippers in your country to sleep with their guns and have them blessed in their churches.

 

You have convinced me you have no understanding of constitutional law or the bill of Rights. You have a cultural hatred towards Americans being able to own guns and I am not going to waste any more time on your disingenuous arguments.

 

None of that changes the fact that the writers of the second amendment obviously were referring to a well regulated militia being necessary and that the members of the militia were allowed to keep arms for bearing in the militia, and wasn't about the firearms of gun worshippers being blessed in their churches or five year old's being given pink or blue Cricket guns as birthday presents.

 

You are upset that the second amendment allows gun ownership. why is this? and for a militia to be effective, anyone who might serve has to own guns. When you use the terms "gun worshippers" you indicate that you have a political agenda against gun ownership: you most likely are a hard leftist who is motivated by a perception that gun owners-for the most part-vote against some agenda you hold dear: abortion, gay rights, welfare socialism etc

 

At least we have proper firearm's laws and we can't own sidearms or combat weapons and don't need a well regulated militia either, and we have a proper health care system, and adulteresses can still have abortions as commanded in Leviticus 20:10 and Numbers 5:20-28. And we can't brag that we have over seven mass shootings weekly and frequent school massacres either.

 

what country are you talking about. And guess what, I couldn't care less. foreigners complaining about our gun laws sound like Aesop's fox that lost its tail