2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

[Grand Mal]

You want me to pick apart a source you know isn't reliable, why, exactly?

Your posts are precluded on ignoring stated intent of the framers on the 2nd.
Your posts are precluded on ignoring the logic inherent in the Bill of Rights enumerating rights protected, not rights granted.
Your posts are precluded on ignoring multiple speech studies detailing the 2nd and what it means.
Your posts are precluded on ignoring multiple SCOTUS decisions and the denouncing of your EXACT argument in Heller.

But hey, Wikipedia! Oy vey.

Use the footnoted links in Wikipedia.

Here's an example...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] "

Those bracketed numbers refer you to...

Notes and citations
1 ^ Constitutional Law. Casenotes.
2 ^ Jilson, Cal. American Government: Political Development and Institutional Change.
3 ^ Shaman, Jeffrey. "After Heller: What Now for the Second Amendment". Santa Clara Law Review. Retrieved January 30, 2014.
4^ "US Senate Annotated Constitution". Retrieved January 30, 2014.

Those are links to more scholarly sources (which for some reason don't show up here as links).

 

[OpportunityCost]

Use the footnoted links in Wikipedia.

Here's an example...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] "

Those bracketed numbers refer you to...

Notes and citations
1 ^ Constitutional Law. Casenotes.
2 ^ Jilson, Cal. American Government: Political Development and Institutional Change.
3 ^ Shaman, Jeffrey. "After Heller: What Now for the Second Amendment". Santa Clara Law Review. Retrieved January 30, 2014.
4^ "US Senate Annotated Constitution". Retrieved January 30, 2014.

Those are links to more scholarly sources (which for some reason don't show up here as links).

If you want to have a credible source, post the credible source, not cherry pick parts of Wikipedia to hang your case on.

 

[TurtleDude]

State the framer's intent on the second amendment.

easy, the federal government was never delegated any power to interfere with certain rights that the creator endowed man with. That includes the right of self defense and the related right to keep and bear arms.

In other words, its an area where the federal government has no power in this area whatsoever

 

[Grand Mal]

If you want to have a credible source, post the credible source, not cherry pick parts of Wikipedia to hang your case on.

No, the point is Wikipedia points you to credible sources. The footnotes are links to scholarly books, university papers, quality sources. Here's the second paragraph of that Wiki article...

"The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]"

That '8' footnote leads you to this...

Avalon Project - Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England - Book the First - Chapter the First : Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals

...from the Goldman Law Library at Yale Law School. That's a good source, just ask our learned reptilian friend. And it's not cherry-picking. I quoted the Wiki article because it's simpler than asking you to wade through the source material.
It's just using a tool to it's potential.

 

[jet57]

Right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that the government is not to restrict. The right to keep and bear is integral to have a functioning militia.

That's not what the founders intent was.

Show me where the intent of the founders matches your interpretation.

 

[OpportunityCost]

That's not what the founders intent was.

Show me where the intent of the founders matches your interpretation.

We have gone around this particular block many times. Pretending I need to go and find quotes, writings and various state laws on which certain principles were based is a zero sum game with you, you will ignore whatever you chose.

You cannot be relied upon to be an honest actor in this type of debate.

 

[OpportunityCost]

No, the point is Wikipedia points you to credible sources. The footnotes are links to scholarly books, university papers, quality sources. Here's the second paragraph of that Wiki article...

"The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]"

That '8' footnote leads you to this...

Avalon Project - Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England - Book the First - Chapter the First : Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals

...from the Goldman Law Library at Yale Law School. That's a good source, just ask our learned reptilian friend. And it's not cherry-picking. I quoted the Wiki article because it's simpler than asking you to wade through the source material.
It's just using a tool to it's potential.

Except he doesn't even recognize the idea of Natural Rights, so he will focus on national defense and ignore the idea of self defense. It IS cherry picking if you understand how he has argued in the past.

 

[TurtleDude]

We have gone around this particular block many times. Pretending I need to go and find quotes, writings and various state laws on which certain principles were based is a zero sum game with you, you will ignore whatever you chose.

You cannot be relied upon to be an honest actor in this type of debate.

there is nothing one can find from the era where the constitution was created that even remotely supports Jet's jumbled vision of the second amendment/ There is not a single shred of evidence that the founders intended that the federal government have any authority whatsoever to regulate what sort of arms individual private citizens could own, use, possess, bear, discharge, buy, sell, trade or lend. NOT ONE SHRED of evidence. I have asked bannerrhoids for years to come up with any shred and guess what I get,

crap like the militia clause. which has nothing to do with the subject

 

[jet57]

We have gone around this particular block many times. Pretending I need to go and find quotes, writings and various state laws on which certain principles were based is a zero sum game with you, you will ignore whatever you chose.

You cannot be relied upon to be an honest actor in this type of debate.

So you've been asked a simple question about one of your incompetent assertions and once again you can't defend it.



juuuust checking

 

[OpportunityCost]

So you've been asked a simple question about one of your incompetent assertions and once again you can't defend it.



juuuust checking

That's not it at all. YOU are not worth defending it for. I have given you all of this information before. More than once. You like to pretend I have not because this is all an exercise in wasting time with semantic bull****. You know it, I know it.

Don't pretend you have not heard this argument repeatedly from multiple sources. The dishonesty you are displaying right now is incredible. How about you support your claims first, Natural Rights as a matter of law is well established.

 

[OpportunityCost]

So you've been asked a simple question about one of your incompetent assertions and once again you can't defend it.



juuuust checking

I have more time now. Incoming!

"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

"And that the said Constitution be never 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

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … 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 … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton

"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 abolish it."
Thomas Jefferson

Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed – unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster

Liberty and order will never be perfectly safe until a trespass on the Constitutional provisions for either, shall be felt with the same keenness that resents an invasion of the dearest rights.
James Madison

Your argument is a farce.

 

[jet57]

That's not it at all. YOU are not worth defending it for. I have given you all of this information before. More than once. You like to pretend I have not because this is all an exercise in wasting time with semantic bull****. You know it, I know it.

Don't pretend you have not heard this argument repeatedly from multiple sources. The dishonesty you are displaying right now is incredible. How about you support your claims first, Natural Rights as a matter of law is well established.

That IS it - you can't defend your position, so the fact remains that you're lying abut the second amendment.

You've ceded and ran from the challenge. Case closed.

 

[jet57]

I have more time now. Incoming!





















Your argument is a farce.

https://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/madison-and-the-advantage-of-being-armed/

Your quotes are BS

 

[OpportunityCost]

https://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/madison-and-the-advantage-of-being-armed/

Your quotes are BS

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Full quote, same meaning. I have no problem with presenting both for inspection. Proving one quote not in full doesn't render that one false NOR any of the others. Try again.

 

[OpportunityCost]

That IS it - you can't defend your position, so the fact remains that you're lying abut the second amendment.

You've ceded and ran from the challenge. Case closed.

Look who spoke entirely too soon...

 

[jet57]

Full quote, same meaning. I have no problem with presenting both for inspection. Proving one quote not in full doesn't render that one false NOR any of the others. Try again.

No, you're not making your point at all and your fudging facts in order to satisfy what you believe to be true. If you'll note my signature quote from Jefferson, HE wanted reconciliation with the British as opposed to armed insurrection; many of "the framers" wanted the same thing, but when push came to shove the "revolutionaries" went with their own interests.

As for the second amendment, the British had for hundreds of years suppressed insurrections by limiting gun ownership. The British practiced their abuses on an unarmed populace and thus a desire to be armed, because the colonists and others in our history thought that a standing army was an abusive source of absolutism in power, which, besides the economical detriment was the chief reason that our new government all but abolished the standing army and went with the mandatory militia system which is reflected exactly in the final version of the second amendment. What you and Trutledude and others keep trying to do - is abuse the facts of history in order to satisfy a very narrow uniformed political agenda around guns: you just went out and grabbed whatever quotes you could find, the context of which does not show n the second amendment, nor is there even a hint of "natural rights" or "armed with whatever we want" in the final version because the framers removed all of the emotionalizing in order that the second represent its true purpose for the people of the country. Try as you might, you cannot anthropomorphize human history; attempting to do so only demonstrates a lack of knowledge of it and comes off as just lying in order to satisfy a personal need. Your misuse of your own source quote only demonstrates how out of touch you are with what was being said.

You have nothing with which to defend your position and the history of gun control in this country, from colonial times up through modern factual legislation based on the 10th Amendment betrays your fantasy.

 

[jet57]

Look who spoke entirely too soon...

See post 466.

 

[OpportunityCost]

No, you're not making your point at all and your fudging facts in order to satisfy what you believe to be true. If you'll note my signature quote from Jefferson, HE wanted reconciliation with the British as opposed to armed insurrection; many of "the framers" wanted the same thing, but when push came to shove the "revolutionaries" went with their own interests.

As for the second amendment, the British had for hundreds of years suppressed insurrections by limiting gun ownership. The British practiced their abuses on an unarmed populace and thus a desire to be armed, because the colonists and others in our history thought that a standing army was an abusive source of absolutism in power, which, besides the economical detriment was the chief reason that our new government all but abolished the standing army and went with the mandatory militia system which is reflected exactly in the final version of the second amendment. What you and Trutledude and others keep trying to do - is abuse the facts of history in order to satisfy a very narrow uniformed political agenda around guns: you just went out and grabbed whatever quotes you could find, the context of which does not show n the second amendment, nor is there even a hint of "natural rights" or "armed with whatever we want" in the final version because the framers removed all of the emotionalizing in order that the second represent its true purpose for the people of the country. Try as you might, you cannot anthropomorphize human history; attempting to do so only demonstrates a lack of knowledge of it and comes off as just lying in order to satisfy a personal need. Your misuse of your own source quote only demonstrates how out of touch you are with what was being said.

You have nothing with which to defend your position and the history of gun control in this country, from colonial times up through modern factual legislation based on the 10th Amendment betrays your fantasy.

So you cannot dispute the quotes so you seek to bend their meaning. The idea is of an individual right, a right that is necessary to maintain a free people because if they are not allowed self defense they are robbed of that freedom and self determination. The Second is the guardian of all the other rights, an armed free people are almost impossible to suppress. That is all over the quotes I gave you, but you refuse to see the context.

You have yet to show me anything from the founders that supports your new age interpretation of the 2nd and 10th. How about you start looking for evidence of your theory before you attempt dismiss quotes without ever understanding them.

 

[jet57]

So you cannot dispute the quotes so you seek to bend their meaning. The idea is of an individual right, a right that is necessary to maintain a free people because if they are not allowed self defense they are robbed of that freedom and self determination. The Second is the guardian of all the other rights, an armed free people are almost impossible to suppress. That is all over the quotes I gave you, but you refuse to see the context.

You have yet to show me anything from the founders that supports your new age interpretation of the 2nd and 10th. How about you start looking for evidence of your theory before you attempt dismiss quotes without ever understanding them.

(chuckle)

nice try dude.

Your quotes mean nothing against the fact that none of that is reflected in the law.

 

[TurtleDude]

I have more time now. Incoming!





















Your argument is a farce.

He doesn't have any argument. There is not a single document that you can find from the period 1776-1830 which even hints that the federal government was intended to have any gun control power. It wasn't until 140 years later that FDR pretended that the commerce clause allowed the federal government to ignore the 2nd, Ninth and Tenth amendments. what the bannerrhoids never get is that they can whine about the second amendment until the cows come home but they still never can explain who the commerce clause wasn't seen as a "delegation of a federal gun control power" until 140 years later

Jet's main argument is that the bannerrhoids in California don't trust HIM to own certain weapons/ Instead of bashing those scum bag assholes in office, he wants others, in states not run by such parasites, to been harassed by the same laws. So he argues how great those laws are, even though it shreds his credibility. An example is his claim that AR-15s should be banned as weapons of war even though one cannot find a single instance where semi auto only AR-15s have been issued to members of the USA military. But Jet also pretends that his MI carbine-used to kill thousands upon thousands of enemies of the USA in three wars-WWII, Korea and Vietnam (and which Jet claims to own)-is not a "weapon of war. He also claims that the longest serving firearm in US history-the Colt 1911-first used right before WWI and through the mid 80s is also something he should be able to own

 

[TurtleDude]

(chuckle)

nice try dude.

Your quotes mean nothing against the fact that none of that is reflected in the law.

given you don't understand the law, you don't understand constitutional history or theory, its hilarious watching your dishonest attempts to justify California bannerhoidisms as being good law for the rest of the USA

 

[hanger4]

Militia is the term used for a defense force comprised of ordinary citizens and well regulated means trained and equipped. What is equally important, in the context of the 2A, is whether the people refers to only those people currently (or likely to be) engaged in militia activities.

"the people" is used numerous time through out the Constitution, and to my knowledge has always meant the citizens.

 

[OpportunityCost]

(chuckle)

nice try dude.

Your quotes mean nothing against the fact that none of that is reflected in the law.

Oh, so SCOTUS cases reaffirming the 2nd as an individual right are not law? You aren't even making an argument, as you are doing nothing more than saying I am wrong with no supporting evidence.

 

[jet57]

Oh, so SCOTUS cases reaffirming the 2nd as an individual right are not law? You aren't even making an argument, as you are doing nothing more than saying I am wrong with no supporting evidence.

Again; nothing you just said negates what Scalia said in Heller or the 10th amendment.

It's YOU who don't make an argument that's worth its salt. The subject is obviously over your head, yet you keep coming back with the same old tired factually refuted nonsense that doesn't add up to a hill of beans against the real world or the history we've lived through. And you do this time and again as though it's "going to work this time"...

Einstein commented on that kind of behavior.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Again; nothing you just said negates what Scalia said in Heller or the 10th amendment.

It's YOU who don't make an argument that's worth its salt. The subject is obviously over your head, yet you keep coming back with the same old tired factually refuted nonsense that doesn't add up to a hill of beans against the real world or the history we've lived through. And you do this time and again as though it's "going to work this time"...

Einstein commented on that kind of behavior.

Yep, nothing, unless by nothing you mean utter defeat for your argument.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

Care to TRY to support your argument with something more than your opinion?