Re: Scope of the 2nd Amendment


Magus wrote:
Skylune wrote:
My Name Is Nobody wrote:
"Leif" <leifrakur2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1167940933.722599.68460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Leif speaking: Of course the Second Amendment doesn't simply
"reiterate". It was written to restrain the federal government from
infringing the right of the people to defend their states as a well
regulated militia.

A well regulated militia = A Well maintained/trained militia, NOT a well
controlled militia....

And yet either interpretation/misinterpretation has no effect on the right
of the people to keep and bear arms, not being infringed...



In the debates of the time a lot of arguments were
made that the new constitution would allow the destruction of the
militia system in favor of a standing army, leaving the people without
any effective means of defending their states and their rights. The
fear presented in those arguments was what was addressed by the
amendment, not any general fear that the new Constitution would permit
the federal government to take away the arms individuals needed for
hunting or personal self-defense.
Sorry, but the meaning of the Second Amendment is quite clear, despite
your protestations, cursing and weak attempts to undermine the
Constitution to your liking.

You might like this t-shirt:

http://www.thoseshirts.com/atf.html

I own one, and though pricey, they are well constructed.

Yup. Well "regulated" back in the 1700's meant well equipped. The
libs want to change the meaning of the Second Amendment by redefining
"regulated" and engaging in a rhetorical argument.


Actually "well regulated" meant more than just well equipped. The phrase
includes organized [by laws] and trained [drilled, marched, and
practiced] as well as equipped. The Second Amendment protects the right
of the people [citizens/voters at that time] to own weapons so that a
militia may be formed even in the face of lack of action by Congress.

What the anti-freedom liberal's can't get a handle on is that the Second
Amendment is a multi-part statement. The right of the people to keep and
bear Arms is paramount to the formation of a militia--also that the
right is protected if a [well regulated] militia is formed or not. The
militia is subordinate to the right--the right is not subordinate to the
militia.

The anti-freedom liberals lie and say it's a "collective right" when the
Second Amendment actually protects an individual right that has a
collective result--the formation of a militia.

You can't build a building without materials. The right, of the people
to keep and bear Arms, is the material and the militia is the building.

The material exists without the building but the building can't exist
without the material.

The anti-freedom control freaks accuse the individual right advocates of
ignoring the militia part of the Second Amendment--I don't ignore it at
all. I think the above addresses the issue quite well.

Yes. Well said. Well regulated meant trained and equipped. Essential
equipment obviously included firearms.

.