One more reason the federal government should not own land.

[jimpeel]

um, the collective right?

so that's different from you RKBA folks, then?

the issue seems pretty kleer to me. "militia" means citizen soldiers with longarms in their homes.

Yeppers. The anti-firearms folks believe that the Second Amendment was enacted to prevent the federal government from disarming the State's militias and had nothing to do with a personal right to keep and bear arms.

We had a case here -- United States of America v, Tomothy Joe Emerson -- which went before a district appeals court; and the government argued that there was no right to personal arms even if one were to be enrolled in a militia such as the National Guard. The antis believe the NG is a militia and not an extension of the U.S. military although the courts have found otherwise. The state national guard can be called up by the federal government at any time and that takes them out of the role of militia and places them squarely in the military camp.

SUMMARY

The amended decision also this explains the "collective right" theory very well.

FULL AMENDED DECISION W/ HYPERLINKS

They also argue that the only case ever heard by the SCoTUS in 1939 -- UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) -- closed the books on personal possession and ownership of firearms. In reality, the court merely ststed that one type of firearm, a sawn off shotgun, was NOT a valid militia weapon. They stated in the decision:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

So the antis are full of hooey. That never seems to stop them from making things up about what the amendment means.

 

[Gonz]

Each man is a militia. Having something to protect, you have the right to defend it, and yourself.

Problem solved.

 

[Inkara1]

Ah, a thoughtfully contrived and skillfully hoisted retort which you must have been waiting to use for a long time. Whatever shall I do against such word mastery as that? You have given further evidence of something; although it may not be what you would like it to be.

Sure, chief, you just go ahead and keep thinking that if it makes you feel better. Just for the record, it took me mere nanoseconds to think that up; I don't save many witticisms for later use, and if I do, that means it's top quality and shouldn't be wasted in response to horseshit like what you've been posting.

As for the second amendment... a better way to phrase it today would be: "Since the security of a free nation depends on the ability to round up a militia quickly, people should have the right to keep guns." This page at the mighty and infallible Wikipedia mentions the importance of comma placement.

 

[jimpeel]

Sure, chief, you just go ahead and keep thinking that if it makes you feel better. Just for the record, it took me mere nanoseconds to think that up; I don't save many witticisms for later use, and if I do, that means it's top quality and shouldn't be wasted in response to horseshit like what you've been posting.

As for the second amendment... a better way to phrase it today would be: "Since the security of a free nation depends on the ability to round up a militia quickly, people should have the right to keep guns." This page at the mighty and infallible Wikipedia mentions the importance of comma placement.

Commas be damned. Commas are used to set off clauses which, sans commas, would still read as a complete sentence without them. Just like that sentence which could, just as well, read thusly: Commas are used to set off clauses which would still read as a complete sentence without them. The clauses in red are actually unnecessary to complete sentence structure. They do, however, lend to the comprehension of the sentence. They are also used as pauses in a sentence for effect.

The text reads "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."

Whoever penned that sentence didn't know a tinker's damn about sentence structure. Let's parse the sentence and remove some clauses to see if we still have a complete sentence when we are finished. Red asterisk * is where a clause was removed:

* Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This would be a nearly complete sentence although the second comma is redundant and there is no subject. It is, however, not a complete sentence.

A well regulated Militia, * the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Not a complete sentence.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, * shall not be infringed. Not a complete sentence.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms *. Not a complete sentence

** The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This is a complete sentence, it has a subject. The comma is completely unnecessary. This is the only iteration of the sentence, with clauses removed, which still reads as a complete sentence.

I have argued this fact with antis from coast to coast and they still don't (want to) get it.

 

[jimpeel]

Also on the commas. Here is the web page of the National Archives.

The transcript of the BoR can be read HERE

High resolution images of the documents may be opened or downloaded HERE for closer examination.

 

[2minkey]

The so-called "collective 'right'" types and their ilk.

ah, that's where i got hung up due to phrasing. i thought you were referring to a group of people more than a group of people's particular ideas about collective v individual right.

i thought you meant something like the collective right as a group of largely right of center voters who ocassionally wavered on the gun issue, that the kinda guys with the 5000 rounds buried around their bug out pads make fun of.

 

[chcr]

ah, that's where i got hung up due to phrasing. i thought you were referring to a group of people more than a group of people's particular ideas about collective v individual right.

i thought you meant something like the collective right as a group of largely right of center voters who ocassionally wavered on the gun issue, that the kinda guys with the 5000 rounds buried around their bug out pads make fun of.

5000 rounds???? Amateur.

 

[Inkara1]

Commas be damned. Commas are used to set off clauses which, sans commas, would still read as a complete sentence without them. Just like that sentence which could, just as well, read thusly: Commas are used to set off clauses which would still read as a complete sentence without them. The clauses in red are actually unnecessary to complete sentence structure. They do, however, lend to the comprehension of the sentence. They are also used as pauses in a sentence for effect.

The text reads "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."

Whoever penned that sentence didn't know a tinker's damn about sentence structure. Let's parse the sentence and remove some clauses to see if we still have a complete sentence when we are finished. Red asterisk * is where a clause was removed:

* Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This would be a nearly complete sentence although the second comma is redundant and there is no subject. It is, however, not a complete sentence.

A well regulated Militia, * the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Not a complete sentence.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, * shall not be infringed. Not a complete sentence.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms *. Not a complete sentence

** The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This is a complete sentence, it has a subject. The comma is completely unnecessary. This is the only iteration of the sentence, with clauses removed, which still reads as a complete sentence.

I have argued this fact with antis from coast to coast and they still don't (want to) get it.

Are you arguing for me or against me here?

 

[jimpeel]

Are you arguing for me or against me here?

I'm with you all the way. I was merely expounding on the crap that both sides try to hoist regarding the commas. Taken by itself, there is only one portion of the entire amendment which makes a complete sentence.