Gentle Man wrote:
Yes, I find infringements of a right that the highest law of the land says "shall not be infringed" to be at most inconvenient...
"... shall not be infringed" in reference to your service in a militia. You seem to think the 2nd amendment is 1/2 a sentence, so you start out under a false premise (lie) when you leave out the 1st 1/2 of the only sentence that is the 2nd amendment.
But naturally, even if you were in a militia at the time, your right to bear arms was infringed if you were deemed a danger to others. So it's another lie for you to claim or imply that "... shall not be infringed" means they were writing a 'no holds barred' right, and threw out all common sense laws that would keep others safe.
Gentle Man wrote: ... Since you are one to insist on looking at the actual words of the 2nd Amendment time after time, kindly point out the references to slave patrols in it. If you can't find any, then cite the Supreme Courts opinions that have interpreted the 2nd Amendment as having a purpose related to slave patrols.
I cited the actual primary use of the miltias at the time, which as you know, was as slave patrols. So again, you flat out lie about this as well. By using your "logic" as a standard, then you'd have to explain why you'll be arrested for having certain kinds of arms, and not others, since the 2nd doesn't specify. You'd also have to explain why you can have anything other than the kinds of arms that were available at the time, since they could only be referring to the kinds of arms they were aware of. You'd also have to explain why you think you have the right to bear arms for personal self-defense. The 2nd says nothing about personal self-defense, but it does specify that the right to bear arms is to protect the security of the state.
Gentle Man wrote: Finally, since you putting such great weight-- in fact your entire argument-- on supposed comments about the intent of the Second Amendment why not consider these other comments about it's intent?
I put my weight on the notes of the people who wrote the 2nd amendment as they debated it on the house floor. Not on the opinions of others, like you have. Everyone has an opinion, but the only relevant questions are what was debated when the 2nd was written, and why was it included in the Bill of Rights. There's nothing in their notes or debates about personal self defense. It was all about keeping the militias. And it's written that way.
I also put my weight on the way every other part of the Constitution is interpreted. It's common sense to understand that there were regulations to arms even then, and that the right to bear arms was infringed for safety reasons.
There are always strong and/or varied opinions on any given issue, and strong opposing opinions on court rulings quite often. The question remains, why did the framers write the 2nd amendment and include it in the Bill of Rights. At least some of the Southern states, or slave states, wouldn't sign the Bill of Rights w/o a guarantee that they could keep their slave patrols. Perhaps all of them felt that way.
Yes, there were anti-slavery forces even then. It wasn't some new-fangled idea that only came up during the Civil War. So it was a genuine fear that the slaves would rebel and free themselves if not for the militias, which again, were primarily used to quell slave rebellions.
Gentle Man wrote: As for the judges only recently using the "NRA new-age interpretation" perhaps you would be enlightened by a reading of United States v. Cruikshank which dates from 1875 and included this statement: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." Now I recognize that the NRA had already existed for about 4 years at the time of this Supreme Court decision, but is this when the NRA started their "new age" interpretation of the Second Amendment?
That's cherry picking, hey?
And as a final note, as a few people here have also noted, the 2nd amendment doesn't make any sense when you read it as is. It looks like 2 seperate sentences juxtaposed together the way you interpret it, that seem confusing as a whole. But when you know why the 2nd was written, specifically to keep the militias together as they were of vital importance to States whose population consisted of 40% slaves, then it makes perfect sense.
And something else you'll have to explain: how you think that the founders had "divine" wisdom when they wrote the 2nd amendment if it means what you want it too, but were linguistic dumbasses at the same time for writing it the way they did, which is not in the way you interpret it.
“See, ... you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
Much of the Constitution was written as a resolution to the problems of the day. What would the framers say to the problem of gun violence in America today? What would they say about NRA $s controlling policy against the will of 90% of the people, and even the will of 3/4ths of NRA members? I think you know, and that's why you do the "NRA Shuffle" instead of taking an objective look at it.