Are you implying that only people who are in the militia have the right to keep and bear arms?

If not, then does someone who doesn't keep and bear arms have to be well regulated, to the extent of actual participation in a militia or armed forces?

It is my view that only people who keep and bear arms are to be well regulated, as a militia of people who keep and bear arms. The ninth amendment would apply to people who do not keep and bear arms and do not have to be as well regulated as someone who does keep and bear arms.

Ok, I didn't read the communist manifesto (looks like you did) but I do know that banning guns was part of the plan of communist leaders. Without guns, the communist leaders have better control over their subjects. There are quotes that attest to this. I'm sure you heard some of them.

By the way, I've never owned a gun in my life nor do I plan on owning one at some time in the future.

Kramer

Yeah, there have been quite a few communists/socialists that support gun control. However, communism isn't really an agreed upon setof principles and there are a lot of differences and factions between communists. Some advocated gun control, some don't, but it's not really a tenant of communism.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

You are quickly removing my ability to see you as an intelligent human being. The militia, when functioning as such, is to be well regulated. Regulating individual citizens is both unconstitutional and, as we've seen from other cultures, unforgiveable.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

Nowhere have I mentioned that private individuals who do not keep and bear arms should be regulated in the same manner as people who do keep and bear arms. If you consider this point from the perspective that everyone who chooses to keep and bear arms should be in the militia, then this concept is easier to understand.

Why should ANY citizen be regulated? Have you forgotten that in this country the government is accountable to the people and not the other way around?

How on earth do you arrive at your conclusion that the 2nd Amendment in any way expands federal powers? Do you not realize that is a logical inconsistency with the rest of the Bill of Rights?

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.

A basic understanding of English Grammar will make it much easier to understand the language of the Second Amendment.

__________________

Some citizens are required to be regulated according to our constitution. The second amendment simply reiterates the specific power of the federal government to regulate an armed citizenry (not ANY citizenry), but a militia of people who keep and bear arms. I am not sure how you reached your conclusion that ANY citizen cannot be regulated. Isn't that what laws do; regulate people?

I didn't arrive at any conclusion that the second amendment expands any federal powers beyond those expressly granted to it by the constitution. From my perspective, by not enforcing the second amendment, the federal government is able to expand its own powers beyond those expressly granted it by our constitution, and enact any gun control legislation it wants, and is not restricted to regulating only people who keep and bear arms (as in a militia of people who keep and bear arms).

From my understanding of the Bill of Rights, the second amendment does not deny the power of the federal government to regulate people who keep and bear arms; the ninth amendment, however, does declare that any rights not expressly granted to the federal government shall be retained by the people (individuals). Thus, anyone who does not keep and bear arms should not be regulated in the same manner as someone who does keep and bear arms.

In this country, you can have any view you want. But, if you wanted the right view, all you would have to do is go back in time and see that right after the country was founded, private citizens were allowed to have guns and NOT required to be in a miltia Or, you can read direct quotes from many of the people who wrote the Constitution that also say as much.

I'm sorry to say to you that both history and many of the people who wrote the constitution disagree with your incorrect view.

Kramer

Really? Could you please point those sections out?
No it doesnt, you just WANT it to say that. The Bill of Rights specifically limits federal power.
I reached it quite plainly as the government is not given that authority. Laws address BEHAVIOR, not people.
Um...yes as a matter of fact you did.
That makes almost no sense.
OUCH! Ok - that distortion of logic actually hurt my brain.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.

You are welcome to your opinion. Do you have any references to cite that support your contention? The second amendment, clearly does not deny the power to the federal government to regulate people who keep and bear arms. That the 2A is not enforced according to its logic is a separate issue.

Daniel

According to Section 8, the federal government has the power to regulate citizens who keep and bear arms (i.e. Militia, regular military, etc).

"Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...
To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."

The second amendment simply reiterates the specific power of the federal government to regulate an armed citizenry (not ANY citizenry), but a militia of people who keep and bear arms.

"Amendment II
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."

While you may be correct in your sophistry about regulating BEHAVIOR and not people; it isn't possible to regulate behavior without also regulating the person exhibiting the regulated behavior.

Can you cite where I mentioned that the second amendment expands any federal powers beyond those expressly granted to it by the constitution. Merely stating so, doesn't make it so.

What part of the following statement doesn't make sense to you, from my perspective, by not enforcing the second amendment, the federal government is able to expand its own powers beyond those expressly granted it by our constitution, and enact any gun control legislation it wants, and is not restricted to regulating only people who keep and bear arms (as in a militia of people who keep and bear arms). Why is there any gun control regulation outside of S8 and 2A if the bill of rights is supposed to limit federal authority?

Responding with non sequiturs is not a rational rebuttal to any logic. What do you think the 2A is actually for, if not ensure a well regulated militia of people who keep and bear arms for the security of a free state?

Simple English Grammar proves you wrong ... you're making the Millitia the subject of the sentence, which it is not. There are two parts of a sentence ... the subject and the predicate The subject of the sentence is "the right" and the predicate of the sentence is "shall" .. the predicate tells what the subject is doing .. in this case, the right [subject] shall not be infringed [predicate]. This is a complete thought or clause.

Now, the part you keep focusing on is not a clause and does not express a complete thought ["A well organized militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"].

The intent of the Second Amendment was not to grant anything, but to guarantee [and preserve] the already existing right to bear arms. Please note, it was/is not a prerequisite to be a member in any militia in order to bear arms. The milita clause states a declaration of purpose, and to preserve that right to bear arms ensures the continuation of that militia.

__________________

I notice that my arguments here go unanswered, unreplied and thus undisputed?

How about them Ruskies, Ukrainians and Poles overthrowing their oppressive governments without the need for guns...

Or the fact that liberals are no where near as opposed to gun ownership as the rightwing NEEDS them to be. Any reasonable assessment of the issue will show that gun control is not a core issue to the majority of 'liberals' in the USA nor is it a core issue to the Democratic party. However, pretending that all liberals hate guns more than they hate GWBush seems to be integral to the rightwing. Without their boogieman to play with, would gun rights be as strong as they are?

Or my observation that the only government in the Western world trending toward authoritarianism happens to be the one that rules over the largest body of well-armed citizens on the planet. Odd wouldn't you say given the usual arguments given in justification of gun rights.

(And before people blow their gaskets and get their knickers in a knot, I am a liberal and I don't favour gun control, do not hunt and do not own a gun - I just like playing devil's advocate against propaganda arguments).

Simple English Grammar is no substitute for logic and reason. Everybody agrees that the constitution was deliberately kept brief for a reason. Why did the founding fathers include the phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" if it were to be non functional and not an expressly written condition (responsibility) for the right to keep and bear arms? In any case, the 2A does not prohibit the authority to the federal government or the states from regulating people who keep and bear arms, as a militia of people who keep and bear arms.