You use the 1900's perverted definition, and not the old world definition the Constitution was written under. Regulated then meant "well maintained", not limited! All men were ordered to have a functioning, well equipped weapon, on par with the military of our or any gov't. They were subject to the laws of the state, not the corporation of states (USA). Well regulated actually meant "trained, functioning, and on par with", not "limited to"!

And regardless how you may feel about the age of our Constitution, it is the law of the land, it does state our right to be "unalienable" not "inalienable" (as some are) http://unalienable.com/unalien.htm and includes the words "shall NOT be infringed"!

What part of that liberals don't understand, is beyond me

anyway,,,

'inalienable rights' is part of the Declaration of Independence not the constitution

and, as I said above, people will and HAVE continue(d) to debate what was meant by 'well regulated'

the amendment itself was edited from other STATE amendments that came before it,,,

Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by George Mason:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

(TRAINED,,,,not just any john/jane doe carrying around any weapon regardless of skill )

An amendment to the Constitution, proposed by James Madison:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person


(well armed AND WELL REGULATED)



people also debate what was meant by 'arms' when the constitution was written

George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable'

(rifles and pistols,, not uzis,,,)



and finally, the SUPREME COURT INTERPRETED the second amendment in DC v Heller

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

So a motorycle isn't a vehicle? A fib is not a lie?

the constitution didn't include anything regarding vehicles or fibs,,,,

or restrictions on class of arms

or specifics ,



similar to the right to free speech, no restrictions there either nor specifics,,,,,

So, since those "unalienable rights" shall not be infringed, and they are not specific as you say, where does the "right" of gov't to infringe upon them come from when individuals have NOT signed them away?

Any "law" or regulation infringing upon them MUST be unconstitutional

It is a standard to be a teacher you have to be in the top 10% or so, a high priority is on teachers. I do not know about government involvement other than the norm. Finland and Asian countries rank in the top 5 of students in Math, Science and Reading.

As far as guns, I believe in your right to have one. However, I do not believe you need an assault rifle in the neighborhood.


*ducks for cover*

the inalienable rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

I don't care to get into a discussion of DEFINING Those vague terms

what wasn't to be infringed upon was the right of citizens of a WELL REGULATED Militia

and the 'government' is both federal and state

per the constitution itself

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



RESERVED TO THE STATES,,, states have governments ,,,they set STATE LAWS As well

the constitution powers are about FEDERAL GOVERNMENT< except where it mentions STATES specifically,,,




STATE LAWS Can be influenced by the FEDERAL when FEDERAL Funds are a part of the issue,,,,,the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can place regulations on those funds, they control the FEDERAL BUDGET,,,,,,they cannot set a LAW for the people, but they can set funding REGULATIONS for the state


which can influence the way those STATES issue and administer their laws,,,

,,,its hard to discuss when 'government' is just lumped all into the same category with no recognition of FEderal vs STate


but in short,, if there is no SPECIFIC , the STATES can set their own laws,,,

kewl, aren't Asian countries pretty strict with their citizens in general,,,?

well,he is OWT,OUT!

YOU ARE WRONG! You didn't bother to follow my link to the difference between Unalienable and Inalienable

Hey, is this some kind of anti-alien thread?
Maybe I should get into my spaceship and leave.

Bloomberg is out, YEA!

I'm going to get me a 20oz Big Gulp and celebrate!

just a matter of semantics

inalieanable: impossible to take away or give up

unalieanable: impossible to take away or give up

BOTH DEFINITIONS FROM MIRIAM WEBSTER

also

Jeffersons drafts of the constitutin used INALIENABLE but the final draft was written UNALINEABLE from John Adams , printed by Dunlap by order of congress

both words would have the same contextual meaning, but the PRECISE And CORRECT quote would be unalieanable rights which I will not in the future,,,,

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IN HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY, SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. . . The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right, it was formulated as such under the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' in the declaration of independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that 'all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen. To deny it to all but a few favored individuals, by investing the latter with a monopoly, is to invade one of the fundamental privileges of the citizen, contrary not only to common right, but, as I think, to the express words of the constitution. It is what no legislature has a right to do; and no contract to that end can be binding on subsequent legislatures. . . BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

Don't worry, New Yorkers replaced him with some new yayhoo who will continue on with jackassery.

yep,some People are Suckers for Punishment!

WRONG!!!


“As a textual matter, the Second Amendment does speak of the idea of a “well regulated” militia, phrasing which seems to at least concede the idea that the government could assert the authority to assert some conditions upon gun ownership by individual citizens.”

Wrong.

The term well-regulated, in the lexicon of the late 1700s, meant functioning properly, functioning as expected, not the dictionary definition we have today. Today, the term means tightly controlled, and is at odds with the shall not be infringed phrase found in the amendment. So no, textually the Second Amendment does NOT allow government to place conditions on gun ownership, as the Second Amendment is WITHOUT conditions in it's explicit prohibition.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/13494-a-libertarian-case-for-manchintoomey


Gungrabbers try pulling a fast one,and People fall for it!