Court unable to read second amendment.

[Plane]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/court-no-right-to-carry-concealed-weapons-in-public/ar-AAgRbfs?li=BBnb7Kz

The Second Amendment is clear.

The confusion is in the intentional misunderstanding of it.

 http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/other/amy-schumer-posts-bottomless-pic-to-raise-awareness-for-gun-control/vi-BBtPBzM

On the other hand , how much do you need to understand ?

[sirs]

The Second Amendment is clear.

The confusion is in the intentional misunderstanding of it.

BINGO!

[Xavier_Onassis]

YOu clowns do not understand that it was all about the "well-organized militia", all militias having vanished after the Civil War,

[Plane]

  If Militias are constitutionally required , then the government had best start encouraging the growth of militias. If these well organized militias are lacking , the government is not doing an important part of its job.
    But how would the lack of organization deprive the people of a right?
      Would a dearth of newspapers deprive the people of their first amendment rights?

     Who exactly is responsible for formation of militia?

[sirs]

And what are dear language impaired linguistics professor continues to not understand is that the COMMA, placed in the 2nd amendment makes clear that while a well regulated militia is a good thing, in the defense of this country, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, AS IN THE REST OF US, SHALL NOT HAVE OUR RIGHT TO FIREARMS INFRINGED. 

ITS JUST AS CONSISTENT WITH EVERY OTHER AMENDMENT TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS.....THAT OF AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, NOT SOME NEBULOUS SUB GROUP

That's why Plane is so spot on.....the only confusion is in the INTENTIONAL misunderstanding of what is clearly worded

[Xavier_Onassis]

The states have an obligation,as do the communities.
The problem was that in when the Civil War began, the militias were all there were. They were somewhat useful in the Mexican Warm but the militiamen had only a set obligation to serve, between 30 days and a year, depending on the locality. When the Civil War turned into a protracted one, some militiamen just went home. Others were dragooned into the regular army. Militias were voluntary and unpaid or poorly paid, so a lot of militiamen went home to tend to their families.

In the Confederacy, the Constitution of the US no longer applied, and the plantation owners rant the show in most places.  They decided to exempt anyone with 20 slaves or more (which meant themselves) and drafted the city people and the po' White trash into the Rebel Army.

After the Civil War was over, it became apparent that local militias were ineffective and impractical and that the entire idea of the Militias, which was useful during the War of 1812 and perhaps the Whisky rebellions, barely useful during the Mexican War and useless during the Civil War, was simply a bad and unworkable proposition.

Southern States would have had either a mostly Black militia or a mostly anti-Black militia, and so neither were formed. In the North, there was no perceived need for any militias and everyone was sick of war.

The need for a militia to recapture escaped slaves and to put down slave rebellions no longer existed.

Someone screwed up and failed to remove the right for individuals to own increasingly more deadly firearms.

[sirs]

The states are supposed to to anything and everything they so want to do...SO LONG AS IT DOESN'T INFRINGE ANY OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY, VIA THE CONSTITUTION

[Xavier_Onassis]

You should start your own militia sirs.

[sirs]

No need to.  I have a 2nd Amendment right to defend myself with a firearm, that's just as important as your 1st Amendment right to spew irrational nonsense

Let me modify the above, to be a tad less blunt & obnoxious.  Despite the ongoing inferrences, there is no indication, what-so-ever, in anywhere in the Constitution, that the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, had anything to do with slavery or hunting slaves, or hunting in general.  The fact that there were slaves back in the day the Constitution was formulated and ratified is irrelevent.  Doesn't matter what slave owners bitched and moaned about, the Constitution, in particular, the Bill of Rights, were specific rights GURANTEED to ALL its citizens....period.  The language couldn't be clearer.  The 1st, the 4th, the 10th, ALL of them are specific INDIVIDUAL rights. 

There are no sub set of rights.  There was no "*wink wink*, the 2nd is just for you folks to round up slaves, while all the others are for individuals".  There was no limited application to some form of militia.  The language of the 2nd amendment is clear, in that while its a good thing to have a well regulated militia, that's NOT to be confused that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Only those purposely trying to misrepresent the 2nd amendment, are trying to make it look confusing

[Plane]

  Look at it this way.

   Newspapers and Churches facilitate the rights of the first amendmendment.

   But if Newspapers and Churches were absent, should the rights of the first amendment be considered voided?

   Hardly.

   Militias are a good idea for the proper use of the Second amendment, but their absence does not void the right to defend oneself.

[sirs]

BINGO     

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Second Amendment says nothing about defending oneself .
There is no bingo.

[sirs]

The fact you have to proclaim no bingo, again demonstrates how much of a bingo it was.  And the 2nd amendment is EVERYTHING to do with defending oneself......ONE MORE TIME, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution are specific guaranteed rights, to all U.S. INDIVIDUALS....they are specific in defending oneself from enemies both foreign and domestic (domestic would included an ever worsening/expanding Socialist/Fascist oppressive Government)

CONTEXT is everything

[Plane]

The Second Amendment says nothing about defending oneself .
There is no bingo.

Would you like to state that there is no right for a person to defend himself?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Not with a gun, no.
There is no right to attack a person with a gun, either.