Supremes have granted cert to the DC gun ban case

[Joe Steel]

This is going to be the most important case the USSC has heard for many, many years.

Myself, I can't see how this statement is that hard to understand.

"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."

If they decide that it is unlawful for people to keep and bear arms, we will be closer to a another civil war than ever before. I for one, will NEVER give up my guns. I'll die first.

"People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art meaning the citizenry consider collectively. The People have a right to arms but no person or persons have a right to arms.

In the plain English of the late 18th century "keep" meant manage and "arms" was a metaphor for armed force. To "keep arms" meant manage an armed force.

"Bear arms" meant "serve in an armed force."

The Second Amendment, then, is a declaration by the People of their right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens and was controlled by the citizens collective.

[Pale Rider]

"People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art meaning the citizenry consider collectively. The People have a right to arms but no person or persons have a right to arms.

In the plain English of the late 18th century "keep" meant manage and "arms" was a metaphor for armed force. To "keep arms" meant manage an armed force.

"Bear arms" meant "serve in an armed force."

The Second Amendment, then, is a declaration by the People of their right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens and was controlled by the citizens collective.

I disagree. People means me, one among many. And I'll shoot the first person that tries to take my guns. You wanna try?

[Joe Steel]

I disagree. People means me, one among many. And I'll shoot the first person that tries to take my guns. You wanna try?

Tell it to David Koresh.

[diuretic]

It's being reported here on domestic radio, creating some interest. I'll be keen to see the interpretation by the Supreme Court for legal reasons, nothing to do with gun control (it's one of the American domestic issues I try to stay away from). I think it will be a fascinating read.

[Pale Rider]

Tell it to David Koresh.

I'm telling you.

[5stringJeff]

Tell it to David Koresh.

The example of David Koresh is exactly why we should fear a government that wants to disarm the populace.

[Monkeybone]

if they can do it to the 2nd Amendment...even is they make it in just 'urban' areas, what is to keep them from doing it to any of the other rights that we have? that was my first thought.

[Jeep Driver]

"People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art meaning the citizenry consider collectively. The People have a right to arms but no person or persons have a right to arms.

In the plain English of the late 18th century "keep" meant manage and "arms" was a metaphor for armed force. To "keep arms" meant manage an armed force.

"Bear arms" meant "serve in an armed force."

The Second Amendment, then, is a declaration by the People of their right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens and was controlled by the citizens collective.

The Militia of the time of the writting of the Bill of Rights kept thier guns at home because they were
"thier guns."
Many of them were some of the most advanced wepons of thier day.(ie Rifles instead of Muskets)
We the People have an obgliation to own Machine Guns , Tanks , Artillery, Air power,
The Declateration requires that we the people have a duty to alter or abolish
Those forms of goverment that no longer serve to provide for our personal defense and therby instute new goverment to preserve the consent of the governed.

Our founders ment for us to control our goverment by whatever means nessary . Period
But If the people of this nation decide to use thier power of voteing to place us into slavery. we the people have it with in our power to place ourselves into A form of slavery that we can never vote ourselves out of, ever again.

And armed man is a citizen an unarmed man is a slave.

It started before with taxes. Otherwise known as Robbery.

When I read the Declaration, I see Bravery that has few equals in human history.

[5stringJeff]

"People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art meaning the citizenry consider collectively. The People have a right to arms but no person or persons have a right to arms.

In the context of 20th century Marxism, yes, people has a collective meaning to it. In the context of 18th century leaders who believed in liberty and freedom, no. People = >1 person.

In the plain English of the late 18th century "keep" meant manage and "arms" was a metaphor for armed force. To "keep arms" meant manage an armed force.

"Bear arms" meant "serve in an armed force."

Wrong. Keep means keep, and arms means arms. To keep and bear arms means just that: keep (i.e. have with you) and bear (i.e. be able to use or threaten to use) arms (guns, muskets, pistols, etc.).

The Second Amendment, then, is a declaration by the People of their right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens and was controlled by the citizens collective.

Since your two premises (above) are both incorrect, then obviously, your conclusion is wrong.

[Little-Acorn]

"People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art meaning the citizenry consider collectively. The People have a right to arms but no person or persons have a right to arms.

In the plain English of the late 18th century "keep" meant manage and "arms" was a metaphor for armed force. To "keep arms" meant manage an armed force.

"Bear arms" meant "serve in an armed force."

The Second Amendment, then, is a declaration by the People of their right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens and was controlled by the citizens collective.

Well well, the flower of public education speaks.

You need serious training in basic English usage and grammar.

Your "definitions" are completely cockeyed, apparently pulled from thin air.

"The people" does, in fact, mean ordinary Joes (plural) like me, my wife, the guy walking down the street... and even you. Each and every one of us has the right to keep and bear arms.

"Keep" meant to own. Management is only a part of that. Your attempt to carefully cut out the rest, is laughable.

"Arms" isn't a metaphor at all. It's a word. And it refers to weapons, like the ones you can hold in your hands, both in 1789 and now. Not some far-off armed force. I'm at a loss to understand how you got this one so completely wrong... and how you could possibly expect any sensible person to believe your desperate newspeak.

Your "Bear arms" definition is equally crazy. It simply means to carry those weapon(s) with you. It's in there to keep gun-hating ignoramouses such as yourself from claiming that if someone owns a gun but is required to keep it disassembled and locked up in his house 24/7/365 (as the DC gun ban did with most long guns), somehow his rights aren't violated.

I can't think of a better example of some rabid zealot twisting and redefining straightforward language in insane ways, all to pretend the Constitution said what he wanted it to say instead of what it really says, than yours.

I've heard people say that we should always keep one or two liberals around to remind us of just how kooky they can get. Thanks for volunteering!