Thread: The right to bare arms..... questioning the understanding.

Originally Posted by dudeman

Small arms are insignificant from a government perspective. The arms only threaten individuals within the society, not those "controlling" it. Explosives are a threat. Most don't appreciate the genius of Nobel and the decades of chemistry and engineering that was necessary to safely prepare nitrated toluene, glycerin and cellulose.

How would even a professional army be any match for the combined might, of the well regulated militia of the United States?

Originally Posted by drj90210

Sure. I'll start when you answer why all gun haters, as communists, feel that they have the right to overlook the Bill of Rights.



Who is advocating breaking state law here? What we are suggesting is that many state laws should be considered unconstitutional, because they are in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Following the Heller v D.C. supreme court decision, this is certainly a possibilty.

Fine question. Why indeed do you feel it necessary to be unfaithful to the Bill of Rights?

Heller only affirmed the natural right to acquire, posses, keep and bear forms of private property, which may include Arms. It was not a Second Amendment issue, simply because it did not involve a well regulated militia of the United States.

"How would even a professional army be any match for the combined might, of the well regulated militia of the United States?" DanielPalos

What decade are you living in? Do you have any concept as to how many of the "combined might" are living on the government dole in 2012? My take. Shoot anything that moves when the dollar collapses. Make the US government responsible for the tragedy.

Well, I don't think you should bare arms unless your arms are toned and pretty.

Flabby arms are NOT attractive.

Well, I don't think you should bare arms unless your arms are toned and pretty.

Flabby arms are NOT attractive.

In my opinion, women should be able to win the right to go as bare breasted as men in public as a natural and civic right in our republic and as citizens in the several States.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Heller only affirmed the natural right to acquire, posses, keep and bear forms of private property, which may include Arms. It was not a Second Amendment issue, simply because it did not involve a well regulated militia of the United States.

Are you kidding me? If you really believe that the Heller case was "not a Second Amendment issue," then there is nothing that I can possibly say that will further this debate, since it appears you are not living in reality.

It did not involve a well regulated militia of the United States. The Second Amendment merely exempts a well regulated militia from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws).

Originally Posted by danielpalos

It did not involve a well regulated militia of the United States. The Second Amendment merely exempts a well regulated militia from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws).

You are purposely misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment to suit your ideology. In reality, the 2nd Amendment grants that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government. It's as simple as that. You do not need to be a member of a militia to enjoy the 2nd Amendment, just like you do not have to be a member of the press to enjoy the 1st Amendment.

No. That is what gun lovers did when they "defined" the suits in those venues. What you are describing is a natural right to acquire and posses, keep and bear, forms of private property which may include Arms. That right is secured in State Constitutions. The point of view advanced by gun lovers is disingenuous since the Second Amendment simply and merely exempts a well regulated militia from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws). It is not specifically about rights in private property which may include Arms, as gun lovers keep advocating since any militia must be comprised of the People who keep and bear Arms.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

The Federalist Number 40

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This is the End for which the means are plainly enumerated: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

This is the Means to accomplish the End for which our Second Amendment was created: " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It is easy to see why the Means must give way to the End whenever there is any conflict.