Obama Administration's War Against The Second Amendment...Continued...

Yet the People's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

Why did our Founding Fathers specifically enumerate, not just any militia, but a well regulated militia as being necessary to the security of a free State, instead of specifically enumerating gun lovers who may not love their republic as much as they love their guns?

 

Does this specific enumeration mean nothing to you:

 

I am not the one resorting to fallacies.

 

Would it make any sense for them to enumerate a disorganized militia?

Your last sentence is an exercise in the ridiculous.

 

Our republican form of government is supposed to respect rights in private property.

 

So, are you claiming that all gun control (laws) need to be abolished in favor of non-well regulated gun lovers who may have no interest in the security of a free State?

After all, if the South decides to succeed again, shouldn't federal troops just let them, simply because they have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms, instead of suppressing insurrections and rebellions?

 

Wow, another strawman fallacy.

 

To the best of my knowledge, the militia acts have not been repealed.

 

Can you demonstrate how it is a fallacy? Otherwise, thank you for ceding the point and argument you don't seem to have.

So, are you claiming that all gun control (laws) need to be abolished in favor of non-well regulated gun lovers who may have no interest in the security of a free State?

After all, if the South decides to succeed again, shouldn't federal troops just let them, simply because they have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms, instead of suppressing insurrections and rebellions?

 

You don't even know what you are talking about so it is evident you don't know how the Constitution works.

 

Let's keep it simpler, for your convenience, ok? From my understanding, you are claiming that any gun lover of the People has a Second Amendment right to not be infringed and, presumably, not denied or disparaged in their right to keep and bear Arms.

How would that work, for example, with insurrectionists of the People or rebels of the People who may happen to keep and bear Arms?

 

You must be confused, those are your claims.

 

You are the one claiming an inalienable or indefeasible right to keep and bear Arms, and implying our beloved Second Amendment does not say what it means or mean what it says.

 

It means what it says. You still don't understand the constitution or the relation to the States.

 

Are you claiming the Second Amendment does not grant an inalienable or indefeasible and individual right to not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms?

If it does not grant that privilege and immunity, how can you claim what you claim regarding our Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment merely exempts a well regulated militia from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws).

 

Sure, whatever you say, unfortunately for you it has been decided otherwise.

 

... and still NO PROOF that President Obama wants to end Second Amendment rights ...

 

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you didn't have.

 

Ayuh,... So why do you think the word "People" is in that amendment,..??
'n why would the word "People", has a different meaning in only 1 amendment of the Bill of Rights,..??


Nobody has ceded any points, 'n yer the loser here....

 

How many militias are not composed of the People?

 

Yer avoidin' a direct question, that's at the base of understanding...

If the 2nd was to protect State militias, it would say so, rather that the "People"...

 

The end of the Second Amendment was not unwisely sacrificed to the means; unlike what gun lovers would like to claim.

If what you claim is true, why mention what is necessary to the security of a free State instead of a Peoples'?

 

Again, they did not enumerate the right to keep of bear arms to include only a well-regulated militia. Rather, they merely referenced a "well-regulated militia" to justify why the amendment was necessary. In black and white, the Founders state that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the "PEOPLE."

You also dodged my prior question. If there were an amendment that read, "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to read shall not be infringed," would you say that one must be a voter in order to have the right to read?

Lastly, the 2nd Amendment was written in the context of the Revolutionary War, where the colonies declared independence against an overreaching tyrannical British monarchy. They saw the necessity in the people being able to take up arms against such a government. However, for argument's sake, let's say that you are right and the 2nd Amendment refers to a "well-regulated militia" and not the "people." If your argument is true AND our government were to become tyranical, then where would the well-regulated militia obtain its firearms to fight such a government, if not from the "people?"

 

I am with republicans on this one, everyone has the right to own a gun to protect their home... even ex-felons

I do not though agree that everyone has a right to carry those guns where ever they want, such as schools, banks, airplanes, ect...