Lets see, "bear arms" and "the people" which I have already made posts about.

The point is if we do not need to fight we do not need a militia. Thus in times of not fighting you don't necessarily have the right to carry those arms.

The point is?

The right to bear arms, the rights of a milita, a civilian military, are to prevent the rights set forth by the Bill of Rights from ever being erased by a leader who came to power and attempted to take them away. With the right to bear and form militia we, the civilian population, are the defense from a dictator from ever taking our rights away from us by force. (At least in theory)

maybe you should read the beginning of the declaration of independence

and tell me how this can be maintained if the people can not bear arms

-------------------

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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 of 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world

things that make ya go hhhuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh

Well, if we are going to remove the ability to discuss figures in proportion to one another.. I really don't have much to add. It is clear that you believe the sole reason DC maintained its claim to fame is solely because of the ban on handguns. Completely disregarding the study that suggests it significantly reduced the deaths in the city.

I could argue the point for days to come... Maybe simplify it more and more as we go. But why would I?

Sometimes a mushroom prefers to be a mushroom. It can be so much better to sit in the dark on a pile of crap. In other words...Ignorance is bliss!

Yes but you must be signed up for a militia and if the militia is called for and you do not heed the call you might face legal ramifications. Say you join the militia and they say the militia is going to iraq and you don't go. You can get into trouble.

so no one read the beginning of

declaration of independence

pls explain how it can be explained

with your interpretations of the second amendment

what about the right of the people to "keep arms"?

who is going to call up this militia you are talking about

-------------------

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

----------------------------
the government is going to call up the militia to stamp itself out when it becomes destructive to the

---------------------------

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

----------------------------

if you can come up with an argument that says the people
not bearing arms can enforce this declaration then you need
get a political spin job

cause the 2nd amendment was put in place to ENFORCE THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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 of 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world

-----------------------------

****WHO IS GOING TO HOLD THE GOVT ACOUNTABL AND ENFORCE THE DECALRATION OF INDEPENDANCE

ENTER THE 2ND AMMENDMENT

----------------------------

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment

Second Amendment - Bearing Arms

Amendment Text | Annotations

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.

----------------------------

DEFINITIONS

-----------------------------

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- in + frangere to break
transitive verb : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed —U.S. Constitution amendment II>; especially : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name) intransitive verb : ENCROACH —in·fring·er noun
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

en·croach (n-krch)
intr.v. en·croached, en·croach·ing, en·croach·es
1. To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily: encroach on a neighbor's land.
2. To advance beyond proper or former limits: desert encroaching upon grassland.
3. Football To commit encroachment.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

peo·ple (ppl)
n. pl. people
1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people.
2. A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality.
3. pl. peo·ples A body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life.
4. Persons with regard to their residence, class, profession, or group: city people.
5. The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: "those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes" Thomas Jefferson.
6. The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate. Used with the.
7. Persons subordinate to or loyal to a ruler, superior, or employer: The queen showed great compassion for her people.
8. Family, relatives, or ancestors.
9. Informal Animals or other beings distinct from humans: Rabbits and squirrels are the furry little people of the woods

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/people

------------------------------------

SO IF THE GOVT INFRINGES (see DEFINITIONS)

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE (SEE DEFINITIONS)

TO BEAR ARMS

WHO IS GOING TOENFORCE THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
WHEN THE GOVT BEGINS ABUSING THEIR POWERS

------------------------------------


deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

------------------------------------

AND BEGIN RESTRICTING THE

------------------------------------

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

-------------------------------------

WHO WILL STEP IN AND REMOVE THE

-------------------------------------

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

----------------------------------

AND INSTITUTE THE NEW GOVT

DO YOU THINK THE GOVT IS GOING TO DO IT

IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE

AND TO DO SO THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE ARMED

AN UNARMED PEOPLE ARE SLAVE TO THOSE IN POWER

AND THE GOVT ARE THE MASTERS

WHICH IS NOT WHAT IS WRITTEN IN

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE

-------------------------------------

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, 1788

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..." Samuel Adams


(Sorry i just like this one)

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Benjamin Franklin

And in that vein Gun Control should be defined as the ability to hit exactly what you're aiming at.

oh btw VERY well said adj4u a fellow constitutionalist i see.

thank you

some need it bottle fed to them it appears

every word in that post has been posted already

dang i must of killed it

maybe hard to argue with logic


??????????????????????????????

Has anyone even read the posts I made about the meanings of "the People" and "bear arms"? I posted them twice and I don't feel like arguing in circles if you are just gonna ignore my posts.

Ok last time I am posting these.

And here are some more supreme court stuff. All the ones I read basically agrees with my previous posts about "bear arms" militia etc. Its for national defense not personal.

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/19thcentury.htm#Tennessee

Chazter.. There is no doubt that the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. Much in the same way that scripture is. Depending on your point of view..both can take on some pretty strange meanings.
Even if the highest court in the land determines how it is to be interpreted... There will still be those who will disagree and prove it with every step they take.

Most of the argument is not so much in the wording of the 'Right' itself... IMO. It is in how we define a 'Right'.

We see this all the time in how people feel their right to free speech is violated in these forums. It isn't.. Their definition of what free speech is..is just so heavily bastardized it does not even look like the intent of the original text.

The fact of the matter is simple. No right is absolute! No right gives us license to cause imminent danger or abridge an other's rights.

My right to free speech does not allow me to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater, or publish possibly libelous material regarding someone without verifiable proof of those statements. It also does not give me a right to just babble incoherently, rudely, without regard for others or accountability for my actions, in here.

In that vain.. It is also not my right to defend my driveway with a howitzer. Therefore putting my neighborhood in imminent danger.

We could go on and on.. bringing up Supreme Court case after Supreme Court case... in an endless attempt to help define the 'Right to bear arms...' However.. we are discussing it with some who apparently do not have a clear understanding of the limitations of our 'Rights'.