I have a question for Americans on OT

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the constitution is on your part. It doesn't actually grant any one right nor guarantee access to guns or religion or speech; it simply bars the government from restricting exercise of those rights. Self defense is a natural right to any person, however health care isn't a right, it's a service. It's also misleading to conflate gun rights with issues of health care, since the former is discussion of restriction to purchase gun (which individuals are still responsible for paying for) while latter is discussion of having a service provided to you either free or at reduced cost. Now if we are discussing a government program to provide subsidized guns to people who can't afford it, then you'd be comparing apples to apples but obviously that's not the topic on hand.

lets parse it shall we.

1. 'A well regulated Militia', (regulated....milita) how is random mob of people who dont even know each other in any way a Militia by any use of the word let alone 'well regulated' one?

2. 'being necessary to the security of a free State' (State...means government, its not just a group of people, they are talking about themselves, the country)

3. the first amendment doesn't specify a reason, the second amendment does, meaning the reason is important here.

4. looking at the historical context of when it was written its ABSOLUTELY clear that this is the intent.

5. If they wanted to make overthrowing a goverment as easy as violence they would not have put so much check and balances in the goverment to make it hard to do without violence

The U.S. Goverment could if they wanted to actually remove your so called 'right to bear arms' fairly easily and the case could be argued very easily.

but they dont want to.

It's a justification, but it doesn't and isn't meant to expand or limit the actual statement that follows. For example, to reduce vehicle fatality in public roadway, everyone should obey the traffic signals. You think that statement only applies to operators of vehicles?

The incoherence aside, that's your interpretation of the second amendment, one which majority of SCOTUS judges and legal experts happen to disagree with.

And no, "US Government" could not "fairly easily" nullify any of the bill of rights. It would fundamentally shake the foundation of this country, not something that can be easily accomplished without destabilizing society as we know it. Again those check and balances are there to prevent the government from doing that "very easily".

this is not up for debate.

the language is clear. a 'well regulated militia' that is to 'to the security of a free State' is definition 1 of 'militia' not definition 2. a random mob is not 'regulated' in ANY context

completely absurd to think otherwise, and I have 100% confidence that if they wanted to they could shut the whole thing down in an afternoon of legal debate over that one line.

its pretty %^&*( clear and you know it

actually I dont think any judge or court has said that the second admenment is your right to bear arms actually.

just because the state allows you to, dosent mean they are interpreting 'a well regulated militia'...'for the state' to mean a random mob of people who might want to take over the government.

so just because you can buy a gun and own a gun does NOT mean the court ruled specifically a you claim

in other words, the language of the amendment allows the government to infringe on your gun ownership in cases not specified....

if they want to. but they dont HAVE to

And it's still irrelevant. The justification clause could be complete nonsense and it won't change the operative clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You should seriously educate yourself on the legal terminology of the period: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

it has everything to do with the 2nd

where is

'a well regulated milita'

you tell me...what is that?

nope..

sorry but you are wrong. because of the words before it

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms.

at best its just arguable. to me however the sentence is well thought out and very clear...here is some more

'The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U.S. at 178.'

The second amendment states: "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."

Notice the comma after the well regulated Militia part. It's not a caveat on gun ownership that you must be in a militia; it's the general reasoning for keeping firearms is that militia, who are the people, need them to protect the free state. The reasoning being the militia (aka anyone who isn't government military) has the duty and right to defend the free state, they themselves being part of the free state. They are the people who's right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

courts appear to not agree

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

'In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms.'

'The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U.S. at 178.'

in short 'well regulated milita' is a phrase that the Supreme Court takes seriously

I dont have to, Supreme Court agrees with me

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U.S. at 178.

Bravo for failing to read your own source.

n its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

that doesnt affect the ruling or what I said in the least.

you are really struggling here I think this has been over for awhile now, time to move on

"actually I dont think any judge or court has said that the second admenment is your right to bear arms actually."
So much for your thoughts...

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

you CAN bear arms

nobody says you cant. the 2nd just says if it WANTS it can restrict

so again, how is this true but actually not true?

]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U.S. at 178.'

Yeah I think it's time to move on since all your points have been thorough defeated.

your quote doesnt remotely challenge what I said, or what I quoted in the least.

but yeah..moving on.

you can make as many militas as you want, you can even carry weapons if you want. but they can regulate you if its not a 'well regulated milita' within the context of the statement and they do have the power to regulate your weapons if its not specifically in a 'well regulated milita'

jesus h christ

Keep digging...

no actually it doesnt.

the 2nd does not restrict you from forming a militia. you can do that.

the 2nd does not restrict you from owning a gun either. you can do that.

what the second does is allow the state to REGULATE your gun as long as its not use for a 'well regulated milita' of which brings the question of 'regulated' now doesnt it? thus...highly debateable at best

I am right and what you posted doesnt change that.

:)

I mean just look at this quote:

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does notlimit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

'....limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.''

who posts that as a rebuttle to what I said and the evidence of rulings I posted?

not to mention that quote doesnt even remotely come close to defininig what a militia is in this context

As I said, the right is "protected by the constitution". I literally never said the thing you're accusing me of misunderstanding. I acknowledged that yes you have to buy a gun to own one just as you currently have to purchase health care, but to the point of the OP the idea that people get so bent out of shape over anything pertaining to gun rights while not being nearly as interested in health care for all citizens that won't bankrupt many of the people who need it seems nuts, and I get that.

So the Bill of Rights shouldn't messed with because it's foundational to our system of government and no right should be a "service" that other people have to provide for you?

-Byshop

Did you actually comprehend ANYTHING I've posted? Again DC vs Heller, majority ruled that "the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause."

That means all your debate over "well regulated militia" is moot. As the entire justification/prefatory clause "does not limit the operative clause". Whether it states well regulated militia or poorly regulated militia or group of furry storm troopers, it doesn't matter; only the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" matters.

I dont know what that has to do with anything so I am not sure I want to answer.

the courts do not agree with you, what you posted as a rebuttle doesnt change that observation. nobody is saying you can not form a milita, nobody is saying you cant even have weapons for said milita

but I do ask you...what do YOU think 'well regulated Militia' is?

now THAT is the only thing I have read thus far that even touches the ruling

so ....that leaves us with the ruling and makes me wonder the source of your quote and how it affects the ruling.

should I look into the context connection between the two or would you rather I not?

FOUND IT!

it appears that you have quoted is a majority opinion but not related to the case I posted directly and directly under that paragraph is this wonderful bit

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

which is why I have said, its argueable at best

ah...

it ''allows it' by not addressing it at all. in other words, it doesnt explictly say it cant or can, so it can

but that wasnt the ruling.

so I think its fair to say at best, its highly argueable

ok fair enough, but is also doesnt do the inverse now does it?

so it doesnt protect you from being regulated for your lunch either.

also I found this nice gem:

Since United States v. Miller, most federal court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias. Several of the post-Miller lower court opinions are discussed here (PDF).

so I think its fair to say, it is at best arugable

no I think its fair to say that if Supreme court cases can not unanimously agree in every case that its fair to call it 'argueable'

no I agree! there are countless things the 2nd does not say

INCLUDING...protecting you from regulation on your gun ownership. So you cant claim that this is what it does when it DOESNT.

I was making the inverse assertion of an assertion that was made that the 2nd does not assert.

get it?

and I am sorry but some Surpreme Court Justices do not agree with others. so its debatable.

but it does!

it also allows the state to regulate your lunch

why are you getting lost in the minutiae? this point really doesnt change much, in fact really nothing at all of importance

think on this, if I say 'yeah that is wrong' what does it change exactly?

Again the two are distinctly separate and fundamentally different issues; kinda moronic to draw comparison between the two to begin with. From what I've seen people are pretty "bent out of shape" over health care as well back when it was the favor of the week; this week just happens to be gun control. And for your information, the government is very focused on the issues of healthcare. Federal government (democrats and republicans alike) spends some 50-70 BILLIONS annually on healthcare, care to guess how much they spend on issues of gun rights/gun control? I don't know the answer but it's too low to be registered on any federal spending charts.

No, I don't believe that bill of rights should never be "messed with". Yes, I do think its basis of what makes America America. There might come a time when those principles are no longer relevant or applicable that when it should be amended. Do you believe you have a right to services of others whether it's that of a doctor, policeman or firefighter? At what point does your right end and theirs begin? Is your "right" to police protection service extend to asking them to risk their lives?