How to Read the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution

[stanc]

Representatives of the people =/= the people.

In a Republic it absolutely does.

LOL. No. The reason we have a republic instead of a democracy is because the Founders did not trust "the people" to govern themselves.

[stanc]

Here you're just being ridiculous. Instead of presenting some Right you think I have left of the list for discussion you present nonsense.

Meh. You're the one who originated the notion that being "among" = being the source of all others.

[stanc]

I think stanc would need to see the signatures of the entire population of the US at the time of the ratification in order to be satisfied on this one.

I would be satisfied with the signatures of anything over 50% of the population.

[keystone183]

LOL. No. The reason we have a republic instead of a democracy is because the Founders did not trust "the people" to govern themselves.

Instead of arguing further about something not related to the original topic, (and sliding further and FURTHER away) perhaps you could revisit your objections to the OP's original post. Perhaps contribute something other than quarrels over semantics?

Too boring?

[stanc]

Quite simply as I explained. It is no longer a right when it is a requirement. A right means having the option, a choice to exercise a behavior if so desired.

Wrong. A "right" means the government cannot lawfully restrict or prohibit the exercise of a behavior.

Militia members lost freedom of choice in regard to their military duties, but they retained the right to keep and bear Arms.

[stanc]

Instead of arguing further about something not related to the original topic, (and sliding further and FURTHER away) perhaps you could revisit your objections to the OP's original post. Perhaps contribute something other than quarrels over semantics?

There are a number of points in the OP. I have been addressing them, as well as follow-up posts by him and others.

And it takes (at least) two to have an argument. I sure haven't been arguing with myself.

As for "quarrels over semantics," words have meanings.

[keystone183]

There are a number of points in the OP. I have been addressing them, as well as follow-up posts by him and others.

And yet, here we are talking about whether a democratic republic is representative of 'the people' or not. Whatever the hell we even want to decide that means. You will surely grant that isn't what the OP was about.

And it takes (at least) two to have an argument. I sure haven't been arguing with myself.

Quite right. Which is why you're here i am given to assume!

As for "quarrels over semantics," words have meanings.

Indeed they do. And many of them, more than one!!! And often when used in varying combinations leave the meaning that is desired to be conveyed, up for interpretation!!!!

[stanc]

And yet, here we are talking about whether a democratic republic is representative of 'the people' or not. Whatever the hell we even want to decide that means. You will surely grant that isn't what the OP was about.

I suggest you take up your objections with cory. The discussion to which you refer (which has not been about whether a democratic republic is representative of 'the people') is a direct result of his comments in posts #10 and #12.

[keystone183]

I suggest you take up your objections with cory. The discussion to which you refer (which has not been about whether a democratic republic is representative of 'the people') is a direct result of his comments in posts #10 and #12.

Cory, i doth protest. Arguing with stanc is like wrestling a pig! Responding to his posts, which only serve to show his superior knowledge and intelligence, is futile! He seeks not to advance the conversation or issue at hand, but simply to ARGUE!

Now, stanc.......his comments in those posts were a direct result of your earlier comments which simply took issue with his wording or context or poked at some other minutiae, while providing absolutely no productive discussion or counter points.

I think we've all (mostly) decided that discussion is healthy and being able to make cogent arguments relies on an understanding of the topic, and this is a great way to improve all of that. However, you seem not to want to engage in that, and instead simply be...........argumentative.......at any and every opportunity!

[BjornF16]

Quite simply as I explained. It is no longer a right when it is a requirement. A right means having the option, a choice to exercise a behavior if so desired. The first Militia Act of 1792 took away that right as it was no longer a choice. Anything that you are required to do by law is not a right, plain and simple. That they were in the militia, was not by their choice, but required by law. That they had to provide their own arms for the state actually made it a tax.

I know I'm late to this fight (but have been out of the country for last 2 months...)

The Militia Act only required certain firearms and accoutrements to be maintained. Surely there are other types of "arms" available that weren't required by the Militia Act to be possessed.

Militia Act only required those active members of the militia to own and maintain a "standardized" weapon system and amount of lead and powder.

They could then choose to have other personal "arms" for 2A protected purposes (e.g. hunting, self-defense, etc).

[bj139]

BjornF16,
Room 2A has been closed for the past month or two. This is the first time I've seen it open.
I think you are just in time for the grand re-opening.

[LR1955]

BjornF16,
Room 2A has been closed for the past month or two. This is the first time I've seen it open.
I think you are just in time for the grand re-opening.

Negative.

BFT re-opened the 2A forum several weeks ago.

I imagine that it will be pretty quiet until Stan comes off of his banned status in a week or so.

LR55

[BjornF16]

Negative.

BFT re-opened the 2A forum several weeks ago.

I imagine that it will be pretty quiet until Stan comes off of his banned status in a week or so.

LR55

LOL...guess I missed all the fireworks

[stanc]

LOL...guess I missed all the fireworks

You didn't miss much. There was no heated discussion or flaring tempers. It was all pretty mundane.

I started a thread I should not have. I was asked a direct question, to which I gave an honest answer.

LR55 deemed my answer to merit a ban. http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...post204370

[Double Naught Spy]

I know I'm late to this fight (but have been out of the country for last 2 months...)

The Militia Act only required certain firearms and accoutrements to be maintained. Surely there are other types of "arms" available that weren't required by the Militia Act to be possessed.

Militia Act only required those active members of the militia to own and maintain a "standardized" weapon system and amount of lead and powder.

They could then choose to have other personal "arms" for 2A protected purposes (e.g. hunting, self-defense, etc).

Under the militia act, you did not have a voluntary choice to be a member, but a requirement of members was to own particular weaponry and supplies. A right is no longer a right when it is a requirement. Under the first amendment, you have the freedom of religion, but would you consider that right violated if the government mandated that you worship and tythe at a religion not of your own choosing, particularly if you didn't want to worship anywhere. A right means having a choice to do something or not and ceases to be a right when that choice is taken away.

[stanc]

Under the militia act, you did not have a voluntary choice to be a member, but a requirement of members was to own particular weaponry and supplies. A right is no longer a right when it is a requirement.

Not exactly. A right means the government cannot lawfully prohibit you from doing something.

Under the Militia Act of 1792, militia members were not denied the right to keep and bear arms.

[dammitman]

is this it?,,,,seriously? anything else?

[dammitman]

cmon, there must be something better to discuss,,,,,,

[BjornF16]

Under the militia act, you did not have a voluntary choice to be a member, but a requirement of members was to own particular weaponry and supplies. A right is no longer a right when it is a requirement. Under the first amendment, you have the freedom of religion, but would you consider that right violated if the government mandated that you worship and tythe at a religion not of your own choosing, particularly if you didn't want to worship anywhere. A right means having a choice to do something or not and ceases to be a right when that choice is taken away.

I'll say it again...the Militia Act required active militia members to maintain a standardized firearm, amount of lead and powder. They were free to choose to have other personal firearms or to choose not to have them.

As militia members, they already were providing their firearm, lead and powder. The Militia Act was standardizing what they were bringing to the fight.

Conscientious objectors were NOT required to maintain the standardized militia weaponry (as they were not active members of the militia).

Those who were outside the age of militia service weren't required to maintain the standardized militia weaponry.

Those who were excluded from militia service due to disability weren't required to maintain the standardized militia weaponry.

Women weren't required to maintain the standardized militia weaponry.

Another more realistic example: We have 1A rights to free speech in public forum (meaning government can't suppress our speech in the public square). However, government can compel us to speak in certain circumstances (e.g. in a court of law).