another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

[vision]

Which parties are trying to get rid of firearms in America?

Considering more than 112 million people in the USA own guns it's not likely all of them are of the Conservative Republican persuasion. Gun ownership crosses parties. Most of my friends own guns. And if you think I'm some wacky leftist liberal and "birds of a feather flock together" this fact should surprise you. Anecdotally, within my personal sphere, a friend's political affiliation has absolutely no bearing on their desire to own a firearm (not that any of my friends are very political, though I do have some hard-right friends). There is no possible way to get rid of guns. However, I'm fairly confident no one needs an AK-47 for "self defense." We should have more sensible gun laws. This 2nd Amendment bull★■◆● is just that -- bull★■◆●. Until I can legally own a tomahawk cruise missile the 2nd Amendment is worthless.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Vision, either you're speaking foolishly without having throught it through, or you really have no conception of what it takes to control people, or what prevents a people from being controlled. Missiles are for destruction, not control, and a lack of missiles does not render a people easily controllable. An AK-47/AR is not designed to protect you from a burglar (that's overlap--like hunting), though it's arguable that there are legitimate, extreme scenarios where a compact, high-capacity rifle would be exactly what you want backing up a "get off of my property/away from my business". The best reason to have high-capacity rifles in the hands of citizens is to prevent the concentration of unopposable power in a governing body which is historically guilty of, and prone to corruption. Any government that is angling to concentrate unopposible power should be considered highly suspect from purely a historical POV. If people like slick weren't opening the gun control Pandora's box, with plenty of room to ram the rest of the anti-gun agenda through, I might have a little more respect for "common-sense restrictions". There's nothing common-sense about their goals, or they would exercise the common-sense to take into consideration the social and political benefits of gun ownership to offset their fixation with firearm killings. It amounts to a bold-faced lie, because they know better--slick knows better. They hate the second ammendment either because they're morons and they don't subscribe to the lessons of history, or because they don't want the unwashed masses to be able to be armed; even for their own protection.

You're also wrong that gun control is not a party-line issue. Gun control is uniquely a Democrat party issue, whether it breaks down neatly among their constituents or not. Feel free to quote any political platform which says otherwise.

[vision]

The best reason to have high-capacity rifles in the hands of citizens is to prevent the concentration of unopposable power in a governing body which is historically guilty of, and prone to corruption. Any government that is angling to concentrate unopposible power should be considered highly suspect from purely a historical POV.

You actually prove my point for me very nicely. Giving everyone high-capacity rifles would do absolutely nothing to stop the government from controlling the people. Those things are toys compared to the tech the government already has. The 2nd Amendment died pretty much before any of us were even born.

If people like slick weren't opening the gun control Pandora's box...

Massive ad hominem attack with no substance. Also, you are misusing the term Pandora's Box because it actually makes no difference if the government confiscated every gun in America (which is impossible, regardless of laws). There is nothing left in the box. It was all released by the time citizens couldn't own battleships and tanks without being incredibly rich and connected. The government is already powerful beyond imagination, militarily speaking. Let's give everyone machine guns and see how the fare against F-22 Rapors.

Gun control is uniquely a Democrat party issue, whether it breaks down neatly among their constituents or not. Feel free to quote any political platform which says otherwise.

Background checks and eliminating assault rifles is hardly "Pandora's Box." If you really think Democrats want to remove all the guns in the US you are more of an idiot that I previously imagined.

Let's remember that the 2nd Amendment is a contract between the government and the population. It does not give you the right to shoot at each other. It does not free you from oversight. If you really cared about the 2nd Amendment then you would form a well regulated militia to keep the US military in check. If you can't do that, then the 2nd Amendment is useless. Guns in the USA are used for violence and crime, not protection from the government, for which there is no protection and hasn't been since before you were born. Get over it. Gun control is not a 2nd Amendment issue, it is part of how we deal with crime and lawlessness. It's no different than any other regulated activity. If guns only killed "the bad guys" we wouldn't need laws regulating them.

[Will Robinson]

Vision, all that amazing tech the government has?
Then why do all the military experts in the world always talk about "you can't win a war without boots on the ground"?
And the guys on the ground in boots carry rifles.

And if you think it's hard in some far away place where dead babies don't seem to be such a problem try winning a war in the same country you and all your people/babies you care about live in while you fight it....
Your tech is neutered...it's effectiveness becomes a wishful fantasy.

The second amendment....a well regulated militia (as in: well equipped citizenry) are boots on the ground... and you can not even come close to winning a fight against them without boots on the ground to match theirs....or else you must use that tech to the point that you end up exterminating everything about yourself you are trying to protect.

[vision]

....a well regulated militia (as in: well equipped citizenry)

...as in: you need to learn what words mean. Well equipped is not well regulated. And how many people here can provide proof of their regulated militia membership? Where are your State's militia membership cards? How many hours of militia training have you had? What day of the month do you meet for your responsibilities as militia? Words are important. The right to bear arms is the right of well-regulated militia, not Joe Shmoe. The 2nd Amendment aptly applies to the state vs the federal government, not you versus Obama.

And the whole "boots on the ground" argument is idiotic in this context. Since you haven't learned anything from the current civil wars around the world, I'll point out that a "well equipped" populace means absolute ★■◆●. Revolutions happen when significant parts of the military break off and pick sides. There is no way any Americans are going to fight the government with only guns. At this point, the number and type of guns our citizens have only affects the military in the slightest sense -- that being how much extra firepower they will bring from their essentially unlimited supply.

[Will Robinson]

Vision, It is amusing that you attempt to lecture me on 'what words mean' when the distinction of 'well regulated' = 'well equipped' is precisely correct as a proper interpretation of the document based on the vernacular of the time.

And this is established by historians not gun nuts and can be found in detail in legal arguments used in court to reject the argument you tried to make.

'Well regulated' was a common phrase when describing the outfitting of a person or thing in that era. Taken in context and compared to the other passages in the founding documents and the contemporaneous writings by people involved in the authoring of our founding documents you would fail your history lesson miserably to suggest it didn't refer to the individual citizen and his right to keep and bear arms.

The whole purpose was to make it possible for the individuals to rise up against the tyranny of a governor. There are reams of discussions in letters passed from one founder to another where they specify this very point.
It is the reason the left wing hasn't taken the core argument of the individual right to court to have the 2nd amendment declared to not be the individuals right but that of the state's. It wouldn't pass the test because all the documentation refutes such a notion.

Whether or not the citizens could rise up today and ultimately overthrow the government is a red herring argument. The purpose of the 2nd wasn't to guarantee successful revolution of the whole nation. It was to provide deterrence to thug like governors and the ability to defend against such a tyrant.

And it's equally amusing for you to suggest the only revolutions happened when the military divides and overthrows the existing government. History says you are making crap up. Typically people rise up in protest and take up arms to prevent their dissent from being squashed by the tyrants and THEN, when some opportunistic military leader recognizes the groundswell of potential support for his efforts does he step in to claim a role in forming new leadership....usually claiming the top spot for himself.

And of course it is even more comical to see you make up this 'historical fact' in this particular discussion when the American Revolution was carried out by armed individuals NOT because a British army faction created civil war.

The 2nd Amendment was written by those armed citizen individuals who had just been there-done that!
Not by some British army deserter turned revolutionary!
They didn't overthrow King George and take over England, they expelled his governors...
And it is historically the most substantial and successful revolution in history...all done with individuals bearing arms.
Lol!

[callmeslick]

A 'Well-Regulated Militia' meant THIS and ONLY THIS:

they didn't have a standing army. They didn't WANT a standing army, having seen one misused against the citizenry. Thus, in a land with threats on a long border(Indian lands) and sea(England still, among others), they maintained a system whereby all able bodied men were expected to pick up arms and defend the nation. They put up the 2nd amendment to prevent a future government from changing that system, but, alas, we DID develop a standing army, and therefore, as someone noted, the 2nd Amendment became functionally obsolete(in terms of the founders intent) by the 1840s. There were a few at the outset that argued for the ability to be able to overthrow an onerous government, which was feasable if the people had state of the art weapons. That is not the case, despite the goofy claim above about 'boots on the ground' The US government, without 'boots' could annihilate the populace, should they wish to(not seeing why they would, but), and no number of armed citizens, unless it were a complete entirety of the population, could do nothing to prevent that.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Vision, all that amazing tech the government has?
Then why do all the military experts in the world always talk about "you can't win a war without boots on the ground"?
And the guys on the ground in boots carry rifles.

And if you think it's hard in some far away place where dead babies don't seem to be such a problem try winning a war in the same country you and all your people/babies you care about live in while you fight it....
Your tech is neutered...it's effectiveness becomes a wishful fantasy.

The second amendment....a well regulated militia (as in: well equipped citizenry) are boots on the ground... and you can not even come close to winning a fight against them without boots on the ground to match theirs....or else you must use that tech to the point that you end up exterminating everything about yourself you are trying to protect.

That's exactly it.

Feel free to experiment with dealing in reality once in a while, Vision.

P.S. - It makes little difference what "Democrats" as a whole want. Maybe for your second impossible assignment on this page you can reference a country which has imposed gun control without essentially getting rid of firearms altogether. Disarming the unwashed masses is always the end-goal.

P.P.S - I guess the constitution is a "living document" until we get to the cob-web ridden 2nd amendment, eh, slick?

[callmeslick]

I guess the fact that Republicans around here have used NRA organizations to fund-raise for 20 years makes THEM the party financially dependant on a 'gun issue'. Every poll will tell you 80% of the public wants FAR MORE RESTRICTIVE gun access.

[Will Robinson]

A 'Well-Regulated Militia' meant THIS and ONLY THIS:

they didn't have a standing army. They didn't WANT a standing army, having seen one misused against the citizenry. Thus, in a land with threats on a long border(Indian lands) and sea(England still, among others), they maintained a system whereby all able bodied men were expected to pick up arms and defend the nation. They put up the 2nd amendment to prevent a future government from changing that system, but, alas, we DID develop a standing army, and therefore, as someone noted, the 2nd Amendment became functionally obsolete(in terms of the founders intent) by the 1840s. There were a few at the outset that argued for the ability to be able to overthrow an onerous government, which was feasable if the people had state of the art weapons. That is not the case, despite the goofy claim above about 'boots on the ground' The US government, without 'boots' could annihilate the populace, should they wish to(not seeing why they would, but), and no number of armed citizens, unless it were a complete entirety of the population, could do nothing to prevent that.

slick, you are blatantly wrong.

There were some who were against a standing army of any kind and others who knew that an armed citizenry wasn't enough of an 'army' to take on external threats.

Those that feared a standing army were not afraid the army would go out and conquer too many foreign enemies...they were afraid a tyranical leader in government could turn the army on the citizens the way a King did in their time.

In response to those fears the effect of the 2nd amendment was cited by Madison (who wrote 90% of the Bill of Rights) as the counter to the fears that a tyrant could put his boot on the necks of the citizens. He exchanged letters with many of the other leaders of that time and these things were discussed in detail. I'm not making stuff up here. I'm relating to you what the actual authors of the founding documents said they meant and their writings were purposefully archived for that very purpose...so that you and others wont get it wrong.

You are just some guy hundreds of years later trying to ignore reality and making up 'slick-facts' to buttress your political party's rhetoric. "A well regulated militia" back in the 1700's America meant what the authors clearly said, in numerous documents designed to convey their intent and meaning' said it meant. Not what you say it meant.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Ok, boys (slick and vision), let's cut the bull★■◆●... slick claimed that Will was full of it because he laid gun control at one party's feet. I affirmed that it was the platform of but one party, and you have both run around in circles as a result. Perhaps you could see fit to allow any extraneous concerns to be introduced as such and allowed to stand on their own instead of playing the bulletin board hokey-pokey.

Slick, no poll has the pulse of 80% of the public, and you certainly know that, so stop trying to make bull★■◆● say what the reality won't.

[Spidey]

I’m still amazed that people believe that the founders who were very elegant in their writings would actually say that you have a right to form a militia, and it has the right to be armed. (not to mention that it already implies that in the first part)

No…sorry the one implies the other.

The second amendment is in 2 parts…

First is the right to defend the country, and the second is the right to defend yourself, family…etc.

If the founders didn’t want the individual right they could have left off the second half, and implied the weapons could have been kept in a stock houses, available in time of war.

The second clearly states “the people” have the right to keep and bear arms, and does not limit the usage to military service.

Oh, and the government has always had superior weapons, even when the constitution was conceived.

[callmeslick]

slick, you are blatantly wrong.

how so?

There were some who were against a standing army of any kind and others who knew that an armed citizenry wasn't enough of an 'army' to take on external threats.

Those that feared a standing army were not afraid the army would go out and conquer too many foreign enemies...they were afraid a tyranical leader in government could turn the army on the citizens the way a King did in their time.

I just said that. No one DREAMED of conquering anything.

In response to those fears the effect of the 2nd amendment was cited by Madison (who wrote 90% of the Bill of Rights) as the counter to the fears that a tyrant could put his boot on the necks of the citizens. He exchanged letters with many of the other leaders of that time and these things were discussed in detail. I'm not making stuff up here. I'm relating to you what the actual authors of the founding documents said they meant and their writings were purposefully archived for that very purpose...so that you and others wont get it wrong.

but the 'counter' to boots on the necks was PRECISELY to have a citizen army and not a government army. Don't you get that?
Like so many apologists, you throw history and reality out the window and assail those that would bring you back to both.

[callmeslick]

Ok, boys (slick and vision), let's cut the ****... slick claimed that Will was full of it because he laid gun control at one party's feet. I affirmed that it was the platform of but one party, and you have both run around in circles as a result. Perhaps you could see fit to allow any extraneous concerns to be introduced as such and allowed to stand on their own instead of playing the bulletin board hokey-pokey.

Slick, no poll has the pulse of 80% of the public, and you certainly know that, so stop trying to make **** say what the reality won't.

actually, the number was 83%, with 70% support from gun owners for UNIVERSAL background checks being made mandatory for ALL sales.

[callmeslick]

I’m still amazed that people believe that the founders who were very elegant in their writings would actually say that you have a right to form a militia, and it has the right to be armed. (not to mention that it already implies that in the first part)

No…sorry the one implies the other.

The second amendment is in 2 parts…

First is the right to defend the country, and the second is the right to defend yourself, family…etc.

If the founders didn’t want the individual right they could have left off the second half, and implied the weapons could have been kept in a stock houses, available in time of war.

The second clearly states “the people” have the right to keep and bear arms, and does not limit the usage to military service.

Oh, and the government has always had superior weapons, even when the constitution was conceived.

they didn't want stock houses for the same reason they didn't want a standing army.....too readily available for government takeover of weapons. Further, in frontier territories, there wasn't either time nor central locations to do so. Oh, and please explain the vast superiority of the government in 1784, this should be rich!
As for your 'two-part' argument, the preamble to the entire Amendment states(as you say, elegantly and clearly) 'In order to maintain a well-regulated militia". I don't see anything else tacked on with the words 'and' or 'or', so your two part idea is a fantasy.

[Will Robinson]

slick, you are blatantly wrong.

how so?

There were some who were against a standing army of any kind and others who knew that an armed citizenry wasn't enough of an 'army' to take on external threats.

Those that feared a standing army were not afraid the army would go out and conquer too many foreign enemies...they were afraid a tyranical leader in government could turn the army on the citizens the way a King did in their time.

I just said that. No one DREAMED of conquering anything.

In response to those fears the effect of the 2nd amendment was cited by Madison (who wrote 90% of the Bill of Rights) as the counter to the fears that a tyrant could put his boot on the necks of the citizens. He exchanged letters with many of the other leaders of that time and these things were discussed in detail. I'm not making stuff up here. I'm relating to you what the actual authors of the founding documents said they meant and their writings were purposefully archived for that very purpose...so that you and others wont get it wrong.

but the 'counter' to boots on the necks was PRECISELY to have a citizen army and not a government army. Don't you get that?
Like so many apologists, you throw history and reality out the window and assail those that would bring you back to both.

Anyone who reads my last post and then reads this from you knows that you are playing word games scrambling for something solid to build upon.

A "citizen army" is, in context of Americans and the Bill of Rights, at best, a loose description of individuals with the right to be armed in a fashion that enables them to fight a war.

The minute you venture from there to putting them (their personal arms) under the direct control of a government authority they lose the distinction, and liberty, of being citizens... and that army then becomes the antithesis to the intent of the 2nd amendment.

As I've spelled out, apparently for your continuous denial, that intent is well documented and your attempts to characterize that intent as one that placed the armed citizens (citizen army as you call it) and their weapons under the direction of a government leadership has been refuted since 1789!
The 2nd amendment was a direct 'cut and paste' of English law, described by Blackstone as: "a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

So there can be restrictions and they can not be so crippling as to deny the self preservation and natural right of resistance if the government either fails to protect from, or if itself becomes, a source of violent oppression.

You can not say that, in order for an individual to protect himself from oppression from a government, the government will keep the individuals weapons locked up for him!
Well, you can, and in essence you have said as much, but it is a completely ludicrous statement. Your premise is the epitome of a contradiction.

[callmeslick]

A "citizen army" is, in context of Americans and the Bill of Rights, at best, a loose description of individuals with the right to be armed in a fashion that enables them to fight a war.
The minute you venture from there to putting them (their personal arms) under the direct control of a government authority they loose the distinction, and liberty, of being citizens... and that army then becomes the antithesis to the intent of the 2nd amendment.

which is precisely why they didn't opt for keeping them in a storehouse....well, along with the logistics of doing so in remote locales, which abounded at the time.

As I've spelled out, apparently for your continuous denial, that intent is well documented and your attempts to characterize that intent as one that placed the armed citizens (citizen army as you call it) and their weapons under the direction of a government leadership has been refuted since 1789!

no one claimed that the weapons were under governemt control, certainly not myself. You have to remember, Will, the central government control was limited by distance and communications of the time. Nothing I stated makes that less true, nor does your objection make any sense.

The 2nd amendment was a direct 'cut and paste' of English law, described by Blackstone as: "a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

wishful thinking on your part. That was clearly not the intent stated by the writers and legislators involved.

So there can be restrictions and they can not be so crippling as to deny the self preservation and natural right of resistance if the government either fails to protect from, or if itself becomes, a source of violent oppression.

why would this excuse the ban on automatic weapons, long upheld as Constitutional?

You can not say that, in order for an individual to protect himself from oppression from a government, the government will keep the individuals weapons locked up for him!
Well, you can, and in essence you have said as much, but it is a completely ludicrous statement. Your premise is the epitome of a contradiction.

sorry, but no, it isn't. At all.

[Will Robinson]

slick, you claim to know the intent but you completely misrepresent it. You can go read their actual words, as can anyone else, in the Federalist Papers, etc., and see that this is simply a case of you declaring something to be but the facts, documented conversations of those people you cite, completely expose you to be wrong.

Now you say no one claimed the 'well regulated militia' is intended to be under government control? Make up your mind.

And by the way, fully automatic weapons are not banned. I can have one if I want it. Legally. I simply have to buy a tax stamp and register it.

You are just flat out wrong on every point you raise.

[Will Robinson]

...

You can not say that, in order for an individual to protect himself from oppression from a government, the government will keep the individuals weapons locked up for him!
Well, you can, and in essence you have said as much, but it is a completely ludicrous statement. Your premise is the epitome of a contradiction.

sorry, but no, it isn't. At all.

This one needs to be addressed on its own.
Lets be clear.

I say that the 2nd amendment is designed to ensure the individual citizen can resist the tyranny of oppression by any and all including government at all levels.
Therefore giving the government the ability to take an individuals weapons is completely counter to that intent. As is giving the government the ability to put extreme limits on the weapon type and location, etc.

You say it isn't?!?

[callmeslick]

slick, you claim to know the intent but you completely misrepresent it. You can go read their actual words, as can anyone else, in the Federalist Papers, etc., and see that this is simply a case of you declaring something to be but the facts, documented conversations of those people you cite, completely expose you to be wrong.

how so? Everything I state, viewed in context of the times and nature of the nation, is consistent with the very writings you cite.

Now you say no one claimed the 'well regulated militia' is intended to be under government control? Make up your mind.

where did I ever state that, or anything close to that? Reality to Will, Come in Will.

And by the way, fully automatic weapons are not banned. I can have one if I want it. Legally. I have to buy a tax stamp and register it.

you are correct. I was oversimplifying, but you get the point of the example. You are under(should you obtain one) STRICT governmental control there.

You are just flat out wrong on every point you raise.

you are long on opinion, but short on fact, thus far.....

[callmeslick]

[Lets be clear.

I say that the 2nd amendment is designed to ensure the individual citizen can resist the tyranny of oppression by any and all including government at all levels.

well, let's be clear, indeed. You are wrong, and cannot find one word in the approved amendment to support the contention. Not one single word. The preamble itself eliminates your explaination.

Therefore giving the government the ability to take an individuals weapons is completely counter to that intent. As is giving the government the ability to put extreme limits on the weapon type and location, etc.

I agree with that, to an extent. However, the argument you have been involved with is around the fact that the INTENT IS OBSOLETE.

You say it isn't?!?

no, I say the above, although I feel there can be, and should be, extreme limits over transfers and ownership documentation. And, given my view above, see no need to allow certain weapons to be possessed except under the same restrictions you noted elsewhere for full-automatics. Want to collect one? Great. But anyone putting an arsenal together wouldn't be able to afford it in some cases, and be a matter of public record at any rate.

[Will Robinson]

slick, you claim to know the intent but you completely misrepresent it. You can go read their actual words, as can anyone else, in the Federalist Papers, etc., and see that this is simply a case of you declaring something to be but the facts, documented conversations of those people you cite, completely expose you to be wrong.

how so? Everything I state, viewed in context of the times and nature of the nation, is consistent with the very writings you cite.

No it isn't.

...The 2nd amendment was a direct 'cut and paste' of English law, described by Blackstone as: "a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

wishful thinking on your part. That was clearly not the intent stated by the writers and legislators involved.

Right there. You are wrong. The founders certainly did use English Law as a foundation to write our law. It is discussed in the letters from and to Madison.
As is the distinction that the 2nd is an individuals right and based upon the principle I cited that Blackstone described.

I'll leave you to deny reality once again. There is no point in continuously telling you water is wet. Your denials and the fact checking capability of the average Google user are bound to collide and the readers of this back and forth will come to their own conclusions. That is all I can hope for, I have no illusions of getting you to face reality at this point, you are far to invested in your position to admit fault.

[callmeslick]

Certainly, the wording was culled from extant British law. But you have yet to prove that there is one word in the Amendment to support your specious 'intent' definition. NOT ONE item of proof by you. Then, you get on your high horse and hurl goofy accusations at me. Not exactly too high a level of debate there, Will. You go to great lengths to claim I'm wrong and then fail to back the claim up. You go on about how great the Founders were at parsing language clearly, and then put intentions into the law that they carefully left out. Why?

[Will Robinson]

[Lets be clear.

I say that the 2nd amendment is designed to ensure the individual citizen can resist the tyranny of oppression by any and all including government at all levels.

well, let's be clear, indeed. You are wrong, and cannot find one word in the approved amendment to support the contention. Not one single word. The preamble itself eliminates your explaination.

The contemporaneous documentation is absolutely overflowing with the authors/founders discussing the tyranny aspect. You are like a drug addict in complete denial.

... However, the argument you have been involved with is around the fact that the INTENT IS OBSOLETE.

The intent isn't obsolete. Only based on your false premise can you hope to prop that up.

... And, given my view above, see no need to allow certain weapons to be possessed except under the same restrictions you noted elsewhere for full-automatics. Want to collect one? Great. But anyone putting an arsenal together wouldn't be able to afford it in some cases, and be a matter of public record at any rate.

It isnt public record and it isnt very expensive. The tax rate hasnt been raised since the '30's. It costs about $200 per silencer..per machine gun...per short barreled rifle...etc. etc.
The important thing is the citizens have the right, without even the moderate tax regulations, to own simple personal defense weapons. That was the intent. Not to arm an insurgency. Not to have a surplus of assault weapons to field a private army with, etc.
Not to let people carry a weapon into court or polling places where they might intimidate the process, etc.

All those other restrictions are not limiting the individuals right to be armed and resist an oppressive, unconstitutional, malignant government might pose a threat or any other threat that a citizen might encounter.

[Will Robinson]

Certainly, the wording was culled from extant British law. But you have yet to prove that there is one word in the Amendment to support your specious 'intent' definition. NOT ONE item of proof by you. Then, you get on your high horse and hurl goofy accusations at me. Not exactly too high a level of debate there, Will. You go to great lengths to claim I'm wrong and then fail to back the claim up. You go on about how great the Founders were at parsing language clearly, and then put intentions into the law that they carefully left out. Why?

You are just being silly slick! The language is very simple and plain.

"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"

They outlined in the first part the justification for the second part.
In order to be able to fight against something the people have the right to be armed.

Now you, no doubt, want to interpret that to the States having a right to be armed against the federal government? Or some variation of that illogical interpretation.
How do I come to the conclusion that is illogical you ask?
Simply using context and understanding the language of that era.

"Well regulated" was common talk in that time to mean well outfitted...well equipped...
"militia' was considered, not a spin off of the governments armed forces, but the able bodied men in all the towns and farms etc capable of coming to fight an opposing force of men.

So we go to the Bill of Rights itself.
The 2nd is one of ten. So look at the others for a clue.

The 1st amendment. Is it the right of the State government to free speech or the individual person?
The 3rd, a individual homeowner or the State?
The 4th, the 5th, the 6th, etc.

Somehow you want us to believe that the amendments were all about the individual except the 2nd one? Absolute sillyness.

And the 9th is pretty poignant in retrospect
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

If you read the documents I've mentioned you would be aware of the debate that raged among the founders that by simply creating a bill of rights opens the door to a government declaring any liberty or protection not singled out specifically to be non existent. So they included the 9th and 10th to cover the individuals and the States.

The Bill of Rights is a list of individuals rights. You can tilt at that windmill all you want, It isn't going anywhere.

[sigma]

United States affects the world economy with the help of their armed forces and reckless economic sanctions. This madness can not stop neither the UN nor the OSCE. And no other similar international organization. Where in the world even need a boss, it should not be the United States, because the Americans have proven that they can only act as medieval barbarians. No difference from the Ottoman Empire, the Golden Horde, Nazi Germany...

[Jeff250]

United States affects the world economy with the help of their armed forces and reckless economic sanctions. This madness can not stop neither the UN nor the OSCE. And no other similar international organization. Where in the world even need a boss, it should not be the United States, because the Americans have proven that they can only act as medieval barbarians. No difference from the Ottoman Empire, the Golden Horde, Nazi Germany...

You don't need to dump your opinion of American foreign policy into every thread. Your post has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[sigma]

You do not want to remove the blinders from your eyes. My previous post really should have been put in the subject of ISIS. Apparently, people who have never tried Russian kvass, in any case, will vote for Coca-Cola, which is much more harmful to human health. Do not you think that Americans have long been accustomed simply close our eyes to reality, simply out of patriotism?

[Spidey]

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.

Any phrase that can be broken down into 2 complete sentences and conveys 2 complete concepts is considered 2 parts.

After a few centuries the punctuation becomes ambiguous, but the 2 concepts are clear as day. If you look up comma, you will see how it can be used to separate different elements, place a pause or define a list.

[Foil]

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.

Although the second one is a complete sentence, the first one is not, unless you change "being" to "is". The "(subject), being (quality)" phrase isn't a sentence by itself, it needs a predicate.

(I'm not saying your breakdown of meaning is incorrect; I'm simply nitpicking the grammar.)

[Spidey]

Oh, and please explain the vast superiority of the government in 1784, this should be rich!

I never said "vast" do you always need strawmen...yes...yes you do.

The answer is….wait for it……..cannons,

Oh yea….submarines.

[Spidey]

Well Foil, a sentence is a group of words that convey a complete idea…that “usually” contains a noun/subject and a verb…note usually, not always.

The complete idea is the actual key. (along with the capital and the end mark)

My grammar check has both of those as complete. (not that the modern grammar check works well with centuries old text)

[Foil]

"Spidey, being insistent about the meaning..."

The above may imply a full idea (e.g. you could read it with "is" instead of "being"), but as written, it's not a complete sentence.

(Again, I'm nitpicking the grammar, not your breakdown of the ideas.)

[callmeslick]

come on, Foil. Let's be honest, those two phrases WERE linked together, in rather easy to understand prose. One is the explanative for the second part. Period. Any dance around that fact is nothing short of a fabrication.

[vision]

The purpose of the 2nd wasn't to guarantee successful revolution of the whole nation. It was to provide deterrence to thug like governors and the ability to defend against such a tyrant.

Cool story. How's that working out for you? You and your friend's ready to take on some battleships with your rowboats? Nice "deterrence."

Typically people rise up in protest and take up arms to prevent their dissent from being squashed by the tyrants and THEN, when some opportunistic military leader recognizes the groundswell of potential support for his efforts does he step in to claim a role in forming new leadership...

Fun Fact: You don't actually need to take up arms. The rest of your statement actually proves my point, thank you.

The 2nd Amendment was written by those armed citizen individuals who had just been there-done that! Not by some British army deserter turned revolutionary!

Are you absolutely kidding me? George Washington fought for the British Army.

And it is historically the most substantial and successful revolution in history...all done with individuals bearing arms.

hyperbole and oversimplification.

Maybe for your second impossible assignment on this page you can reference a country which has imposed gun control without essentially getting rid of firearms altogether. Disarming the unwashed masses is always the end-goal.

Impossible assignment? Too easy! Switzerland's regulations are sensible and guns are everywhere. We should have something closer to their model.

The second clearly states “the people” have the right to keep and bear arms, and does not limit the usage to military service.

You made that last part up. A militia, by definition, is military service, and that is what the 2nd Amendment references -- a well-regulated militia. It's talking about these guys, not Joe Schmoe sitting on his porch with a shotgun.

[Spidey]

The second amendment doesn’t place any restrictions on firearm usage.

[Spidey]

come on, Foil. Let's be honest, those two phrases WERE linked together, in rather easy to understand prose. One is the explanative for the second part. Period. Any dance around that fact is nothing short of a fabrication.

I prefer the term interpretation….fabrication is so……dishonest.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Let's be honest...

You are so fickle.

[vision]

The second amendment doesn’t place any restrictions on firearm usage.

If you want to form a proper militia, then you have the right to bear arms. Using those arms for theft, murder, and killing little kids is outside the scope of the 2nd Amendment. The constitution gives us the right to use firearms responsibly against tyranny, not to shoot each other. Guns can (and should) be in the hands of capable, trained persons with the proper license and manner, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Of course it's already too late for that, but my point is, self-defense against your neighbors is a different issue than self-defense against the government and not part of the 2nd Amendment. And really, considering the military might of the armed services, the amendment is pretty much obsolete at this point.

[CUDA]

The second amendment doesn’t place any restrictions on firearm usage.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

in·fringe


/inˈfrinj/


verb

past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed

disregard, ignore, neglect;

go beyond, overstep, exceed;

infract

"the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights"

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"