I’m not going to answer your rhetorical question. We both know the answer. If you want it so bad, just come out and say it. Or better yet, do a google search. I’m not going to do your research for you.
*sigh* Again, it's not rhetorical. Do you even know what "rhetorical" means? It's right there in the text. Here, let me help you:
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.
The militia is to be regulated, not guns. "Well regulated" means "in good working order." Not that it has heavy government regulations placed on it. This was written by the founding fathers who just won independence from tyranny and were putting a system in place to prevent further tyranny. It makes zero sense to put an amendment in place for government control. You would be extremely dense to believe otherwise.
A well regulated (in good working order) Militia (all able bodied citizens) being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people [the who?]
the people to keep and bear [to do what?]
to keep and bear (own and carry) arms, shall not be infringed.
Arms. Not muskets. Not rifles. Not flintlocks. Not "civilian weapons." Arms. Arms = weapons of war.
The right of the people [the who?] to keep and bear arms (weapons of war) shall not be infringed.
"Shall not be infringed." Do I need to explain this one to you or are you good with it?
I think you’re a troll
It would seem you're the troll.
reply
share
degree7 (821)
4 years ago
Do you even know what "rhetorical" means?
Yes, and evidently you don't. Which is even more hilarious because then you went right ahead and
answered your own question. Irony must be lost on you.
Do I need to explain this one to you or are you good with it?
Give yourself a good pat on the back explaining the obvious from your casual gleaning from wikipedia. Now I need to point out the delicious mockery you've made of yourself: by that same token, you'd have to be "incredibly dense" not to realize that no where in the second amendment does it mention protecting any individual's right to own a gun. In fact, it has
nothing to do with individual gun ownership. There is
nothing in the second amendment that prohibits government regulation. Private gun ownership was a holdover from English common law, and something that was controlled by a central authority for 200 years before the NRA came into being. The same NRA that somehow blindfolded everyone and convinced them that the second amendment specifically upholds the individual's right (when it is in fact the opposite). Do I need to explain this to you more, or are we good to go?
It would seem you're the troll.
Actually I'm just trolling your troll post.
reply
share
aavfreak (3322)
4 years ago
Yeah, sure. The second amendment of the bill of rights is not for the Right of the People. Even though it's in the Bill of Rights and says so right in the amendment "the right of the people."
Sure, the founding fathers put into the Bill of Rights a protection for the rights of a government organization.
Congratulations, you've come to the dumbest possible conclusion of anyone anywhere.
"A rhetorical question is one for which the questioner does not expect a direct answer" I expected a direct answer. And the answer was there in the first four words of the text. It can't get any simpler. And my question was in now way shape or for rhetorical. The fact that I answered the question because you continued to ignore it does not make it rhetorical.
reply
share
degree7 (821)
4 years ago
Are you seriously this stupid? Brain damaged in some way? You even explained it in your post. "Bear arms" refers to military activities. That is the right of the people. Nowhere in James Madison's notes during the 1789 constitutional convention did he mention anywhere that individuals had the unfettered right to own a firearm. That is ridiculous. If you can show me some evidence pertaining otherwise, I will admit defeat and hand this argument over to you. Go ahead. (p.s. you can't).
I answered the question because you continued to ignore it does not make it rhetorical.
Lmfao, that's only one definition lunkhead. The reason I refused to answer your question was because you already knew the answer. You posited a question that you already had your own narrative for and were going to ignore my response either way. That's why I didn't waste time with it. That's what made it "rhetorical."
Next time, just be more direct instead of dilly dallying around the subject like a little girl.
reply
share
aavfreak (3322)
4 years ago
The right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The people have the right to keep and bear weapons of war.
WTF is so hard here and why are you claiming that it says the opposite of what it clearly states?
reply
share
degree7 (821)
4 years ago
Well regulated militia. Not the average Joe blow. The second amendment has nothing to do with random retards. owning guns
reply
share
aavfreak (3322)
4 years ago
How very wrong you are. Try reading the thoughts of the founders on the subject sometime. Here are two quick ones:
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason
“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams
reply
share
degree7 (821)
4 years ago
LOL thanks for cluing is all in that you’re a moron. George Mason didn’t even sign the constitution, so his opinion means jack shit. And the latter quote is clearly referring to a militia. No where in the delegation did anyone mention joe blow and chuck chuckle-fuck having the right to own deadly weapons. Face it, you’ve been living a lie.
reply
share
aavfreak (3322)
4 years ago
So you think that out of the entire bill of rights, the second amendment is the only one that enumerates rights for a government organization? And you say I'm the moron?
The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to restrict government infringements on the rights of the individual. How is this hard?
A well regulated militia (all the people) = required for the security of a free state.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It doesn't say the right of the *militia* to keep and bear arms. It says the militia is required for a free state. It is the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms.
And the latter quote is clearly referring to a militia.
Yes, which is the entire populace, the people.
How about Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29? And many, many more. Any reading from the time from anyone at any level will show how misguided you are.
reply
share
degree7 (821)
4 years ago
So you think that out of the entire bill of rights, the second amendment is the only one that enumerates rights for a government organization? And you say I'm the moron?
Considering the fact that the amendments were ratified by ardent Federalists who sought to transfer power to a stronger central authority in the national government, yes, I would say you're a clueless moron. Good job.
It doesn't say the right of the *militia* to keep and bear arms. It says the militia is required for a free state. It is the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms.
The "people" as in "the militia."
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people
It's obvious to anyone that the "people" in this scenario are the militia. Not Joe Blow on his farm. There is nothing in the second amendment that prohibits keeping guns out of the hands of individuals.
Any reading from the time from anyone at any level will show how misguided you are.
And how about the fact that no wherein Madison's notes from the Consitutional Convention, nor anywhere when the House of Representatives ratified the Bill of Rights, is there ANY mention of an individual's right to own a gun. It's pure conjecture on your part. Based on a misreading of the second amendment. You appear to be suffering from severe mental conflict. Listen to the tiny voice in your head that knows deep down I'm right.
reply
share