Re: There is no "unorganized militia"

On 11/28/22 9:44 PM, OrigInfoJunkie wrote:
> On 7/6/2022 12:12 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message 
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 07:25:05 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>>> "Somebody too" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> I am allowed to have an AR-15
>>>>
>>>> Nothing allowed about it.... you have a right to have an AR-15
>>>
>>> Don't have a right to an M 16 or a cruise missile though.
>>>
>>> "Keep and bear *arms*"
>>
>> And which of those aren't arms?
> 
> I see scooter is in need of a refresher on Heller.
> 
>        There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
>        history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
>        to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
>        just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
>        e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
>        do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
>        to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
>        read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
>        speak for any purpose.
>        [...]


Yet FREE SPEECH IS NOT LIMITED and ARMS are NOT that which is on LIST of 
  Government accepted weapons...

Arms are what the Government issues to it's "people" for self defense 
(past and Present) as well as all the personal self defense that you 
might take hunting or for other self defense situations.

The LIST of what "ARMS" are is fluid and can't be limited since new ARMS 
can be developed by persons with that RIGHT every day for their own 
personal use. And then you have the ones the government attempted to ban 
that they called arms...  they are also all legal be they banned by law 
or NOT if they are "arms" the only way to prove they can be banned would 
be to prove they aren't what the people and the Government call "arms"
  as in what a soldier or civilian police or spies or other government 
entities have ever issued to their people as personal defense or 
security for a politicians personal defense and carried by their 
security teams.

Because calling them arms or using them as arms and issuing them as arms 
is the Government admitting that it's the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP 
AND BEAR THEM AS ARMS.  You see the PERJURY TRAP that the Government is 
in, they can't redefine all they did and make it disappear. They have 
already laid the precedence for the word "ARMS" by their own fear of 
being killed and how they protect themselves from it. The Government has 
armed it's people and those "they use" as protection are also arms 
guaranteed to us for protection as our RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS... 
the same arms that the government uses as arms.

And it's even more obvious today since Democrats have chosen to NOT 
protect WE THE PEOPLE, and now we see the dire need to be armed as well 
as the police and the THUGS the Government hires to for their mandates 
on us.




>        Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
>        *not unlimited*.

Of course it is, as far as arms are concerned... the number and type and 
the bullets it can carry and the rest as long as the Government used it 
and issued it we know it's safe enough and equal enough to be the same 
arms that we have a Constitutional access to keep and bear.

>        From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
>        commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
>        not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
>        manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Purpose is limited by the RIGHT of others that you may NOT violate... 
any manner of carrying is a question of safety and threat or where the 
line for assault or taking someone hostage when you use the gun or your 
size or a hammer as the threat.

>        [emphasis added]
> 
> 
> You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, scooter, but as a 
> matter of text, history and interpretation, it is not. 

That's False, the RIGHT is to keep and bear "ARMS" and it is unlimited 
although it is limited to the keeping and Bearing of "ARMS" as the 
unlimited RIGHT.  It's NOT unlimited to things like hammers and Weapons 
of MASS DESTRUCTION which aren't or should I say weren't issued to 
Government workers and soldiers and police for personal protection.

We don't carry those for hunting, or sport or to secure our homes or 
kill intruders intent on killing us... although we did see the Native 
Americans attacked with virus' and the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh Cult used 
salmonella and (E. coli) but neither were for personal protection from 
violence it was more of a general use for illegal acts.

> That is simply a 
> fact, and you crazed far-right-wingnut gun crackpots are going to have 
> to accommodate themselves to that fact.
>

The FACT is that it's "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS"

and that fact means that any guns knives or sticks or bullet proof vests 
that the Government issues as personal protection is also legal as per 
the U.S. Constitution and without infringement... for WE THE PEOPLE, 
because they are are all "ARMS" and the ONLY LIMITATION on the RIGHT to 
KEEP and BEAR is that it be "ARMS" and everything that the Government 
has is or will be issuing those people as personal protection for people 
working in Government or as contractors for Government or Military or 
security for politicians...  or protecting the heads of GIAN ASS 
CORPORATIONS is also ARMS that WE THE PEOPLE CAN KEEP AND BEAR.



> You do not have a right to just whatever arms you may wish to have,

Actually I do, read the U.S. Constitution where it openly says I do...

*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* .

> scooter. And your thoughts on just what arms *are* included with the 
> limits of the right is worthless and ignored, scooter.  Your 
> intellectual betters will tell you what arms are within the limits of 
> the right, scooter.


There are no limits on ARMS, and OUR omnipotent overlords have already 
told us what "arms" are.  It's a matter of Precedence that all things 
that they the Omnipotent OverLords might use in self defense is what we 
can use, so if they issue it to Government persons and personnel as 
personal protection in the past or present or future it is MOST 
DEFINITELY what is called "arms" and then we have other things that also 
define what they are like what a soldier carries for personal self 
protection. What a hunter is armed with and carries for self protection. 
  And what a Government spy might use for personal protection or the 
politicians require we pay for in arms for the personal security for 
themselves.

You see the Government by their own hand have already declared far more 
than the AR-15 as being "arms" and that is exactly what WE THE PEOPLE 
have the RIGHT to KEEP AND BEAR AS ARMS. In FACT the BATF has declared 
many things "arms" in the very language of the laws and regulations they 
attempt claim are Constitutional, the irony is that when they called 
them arms or suggest it's armed robbery or call it personal protection 
it defined that object as "arms" so we now have well over 30,000 pages 
of official legal documents claiming that things like an AR-15 is what 
they call fire-"arms" as in arms that are protected by the U.S. 
Constitution and arms that the Government issues to to people as 
personal protection.  Making their laws and regulations a contradiction 
of themselves.... because "arms" can't be regulated or banned when it 
comes to keeping and bearing those arms as per Amendment 2. where it 
says *the right of the people to keep and* *bear* *Arms* , *shall not* 
*be* *infringed* .

Which means if the Government can issue it to a person to performs their 
duty, it was is and always will be personal protection and what we all 
call "arms".


-- 
-Reality Matters-