If Congress didn't call for you, you are not well-regulated Militia.

Did you get your wish?

Not in the way you might hope for.

This is your personal interpretation, and you're allowed to have it.

The only interpretations that matter, is the precedent in case law that the U.S. Supreme Court, since inception, as one of the checks and balances members of the 3 branches of Gov't has ruled throughout the short history of this nation.

Their interpretation of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, particularly the 2nd amendment throughout time, since 1789, and several opinions have found consistently that a specified defense mechanism that you've identified, is individual property subjective to the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment.

As such, stop seeking to infringe upon all your neighbors property rights, and tend to the upkeep and maintenance of your own property. Tend to your own business, and stay out of your law abiding neighbors business.

So have fun with your literal interpretation that doesn't matter, unless you're a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. Then it matters as 1/9th

Stop being a not nice person to your neighbors, and a Marxist Sympathizer, and grow up or move out.

"If that's what you enjoy visualizing, then I can't stop you....
you certainly can have that as the last word, as it is your meme.... I'm out."

Like I said, I leave my dignity at the door on the politics stream; I wouldn't want to waste it here.

Who said I was seeking to infringe? You're projecting your bias, you're free to do that, but it's wrong.

Ooh, saucy

/3 - "The 2A does not state: A well regulated miltia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the "militia" to keep and bear.... etc. etc. etc.

300 million defense mechanisms, legs and arms, are individual property legally and lawfully owned by individual PEOPLE

There are several other problems with the myopic vision narrowing focus on Article 1 section 8 clause 15 and 16 and that is that it was written in 1789. Anyone with any basic acquaintance with the BILL OF RIGHTS, understands that the 1789 Constitution replacing the 1783 Articles of Confederation, is aware that the Bill of Rights was written by VIRGINIANS to ensure individual rights, or they would not ratify, which they did upon the first 10 amendments inclusion in 1791. Which came first, your cited Article or the Bill of Rights. Sequential order and ratification matters, especially when the whole premise is anchored upon the equivocation of your clauses with the 2A. The 2A is an answer to those clauses, clarifying individual persons as PEOPLE."

Well stated, with that said, I quote Thomas Jefferson:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Bearing this quote in mind the intention is to prevent homicides and to defend those who would be law-abiding citizens from those who would seek to cause harm. I reiterate what I said earlier, I seek not to infringe upon rights, but to put the rights into context and apply some moderation to the rights and keep them intact.

No where in the constitution or its amendments does it describe the right to bear arms as having unmitigated access to the weapons of war. While it may be an appeal to extremes, arms are inclusive of nuclear weapons, stinger missile launchers, tanks, aircraft, etc. Should we permit all to have access to those?

You can in fact, buy stinger missiles and launchers. However, there are multiple permits that are required to have them and a stated reason for owning them. So, one must wonder, if there is a system that causes far more damage than a semi automatic firearm, why not use that? The answer -

is quite simple. Price and process in acquisition make the process not at all viable to a would-be murderer. I understand concern and trepidation in applying such processes to owning firearms. But let's look at the purpose of the process. Why would we make it hard to acquire these weapons, but not impossible?

I'll let you answer that.

I see no reason why such processes be applied to such weapons.

I also recognize that there is no way to stop a criminal from comitting a crime, for they will find a way. I agree on this point. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't make it illegal. In parallel with this argument, why would we make murder illegal if one is going to commit the crime anyway? So, why not make it more difficult for them to go on a rampage as they are so easily capable of doing so now? If they only have access to manual weapons (bolt-actions, pump, etc.) these will become more common.

It also baffles me that while the Right Wing is concerned about illegal immigrants, the gangs coming from Mexico and other parts of our sister continent, why would we make weapons so easily attainable for them? We're arming the criminals.

While the nature of your rights may change, your right to bear arms will remain intact. Weapons of a more lethal capacity in that it is designed to shoot many targets in a short time span*, should be kept in a communal storage facility that premits anyone to access it that owns a firearm and stores it there. The Nation knows that safe storage lowers gun violence... Yet, people are still getting guns from relatives... Hell, some are just buying weapons the week prior and go for a spree.

Gun Free Zones, I agree, they're quite a confusing concept. Because why would a shooter obey those laws? Yet if they didn't work, why do so many places have them? Court rooms? Airports? NRA meetings? Federal/State Offices? Very curious.

I finally recognize that some of these arguments you haven't made, however they are talking points within the context of gun violence in USA and are relevant to the discussion. I do not seek to characterize your arguments in this way, but merely to cover all the bases for discussion.

Could you maybe elaborate a little further?

Didn't you just say...

"If you need everything clarified and spelled out, then you need someone to do your work for you.
That doesn't make the cut on the PGA tour, let alone academia. Keep at it though."

Correct

So you're being intellectually disingenuous, or you have double standards you need to address.

2/ "If your point is to funnel people myopically into the rabbit hole of Article 1 section 8 clause 15 and 16 only, and make the leap to state that this is meant to define the language within the 2nd amendment is a leap of faith, and somehow that's your trump card to ignore piles of case law over nearly 2 centuries, that has established the U.S. Supreme Courts' long history of their interpretation of the 2A, which over time supports an individual right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear, for the ability to self defend and enforce the 3A,4A against Tyrants."

It's not entirely a leap of faith as no other instance of "Militia" is established within the Constitution. A candidate for Arizona State is running for State Secretary and seeks to challenge the laws under this provision. Given that children are dying primarily to gun violence, amendments may be possible by popular demand. The constitution is susceptible to amendments. The verbiage of the second amendment is not immortal or impervious to further amendment. For a case in point example, refer to the seventh amendment to the constitution: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." It seems, that summoning a jury over twenty dollars is no longer worth the hassle for a judicial proceeding. The diminishing returns far outweigh the success of any lawsuit. Clearly, twenty dollars is becoming (if not already) an obsolete benchmark.

These past few years, we've seen many changes to people's rights and complete disposal of previous arguments by saying that previous justices were "just wrong" without speaking to the merits of their decisions or opinions. (See Roe v. Wade.) Once again, I remind you, I am not here to infringe upon any rights whatsoever.

The Constitution was not also put in place to be spliced and be used in semantic arguments to match your agenda, because if this was the case, anyone could point to any leader at any given time and define how they are a tyrant. The Constitution is specific and it is meant to be. It is also meant to be changed, which we may now be looking at. I see change becoming more likely as a staunch 2A defender on Fox News gave up and stated he was tired of standing infront of a camera covering shooting after shooting. If 2A Absolutionists on

... (cont) Fox News are getting tired of the violence, then people in the 2A Absolutionist camp should take note and start preparing some concessions or suggestions that doesn't involve placing more guns out into the free market.

Brilliant!

Good gracious, those points are suffering, intolerable, & quite indicative of the perceived group "struggles" of individual cognitive dissonance.

One imagines a person is better off to Put Karl Marx in their own ear wax. Then, twist.

So tiresome, so boring, and so tedious...

These points do not need your approval for validity.

Valid point bro.

So, esoteric.... and ethereal at the same moment.

Go a little further upon the existential notion of validity and approval, if you would please.

I don't see the point in continuing the discussion with you.

Thanks for the complement

If you say so, there was no compliment or rebuke - only a statement.

1/
-Well, I can't help you there. Some are able to hold two thoughts at once. Your inability to understand is your own mystery. One suggestion might be to research, read and reflect.

>> Whenever I speak to anyone across the aisle, I always ask them to be specific, because often they try to socially engineer the Barnum effect into people they speak with by letting them fill in the blanks, then promptly correct them over the errors of their words by saying that their meaning was something (anything) other than what their conversation partner had assumed the party of the first part had suggested. So, I ask you to be specific to do yourself some credit so I won't have to ask you for clarification for you to define your terms every time.
This is further exacerbated by how terms are defined differently across the aisle, and within each party. So, being the responsible conversationalist that I am, I ask you to clarify. If you don't want to clarify, while it may be a failure to comprehend on my part, the failure rests with your inability to effectively communicate. Any first-year history teacher in any college or university would tell you to be specific, citing who, what, and when referencing any document, person, artifact, or place.

So again, to which Magna Carta do you are you referring? A rhetorical device? The English Magna Carta of June 1215 in which a copy is kept and protected on US Soil? I need something more than "Magna Carta."

Brilliant!
Okay Sherlock, you found it! 1215 and King John. The basis for English Common Law.
Also, Sherlock, the foundation upon which derives all US Legal Procedures. Trace it. You can do it!
You're a concrete thinker. That's okay. This is a world of higher order thinkers with you though, make note, and tell your history 'teachers' in any college or university. Even those in the process of trying to earn a graduate degree. Some day, they too may become an Associate Professor, or an actual published Professor. Meanwhile they must learn to suffer fools. Just as long as the current campus Marxist Agenda from Sofia, Bulgaria doesn't get in their path.

If you need everything clarified and spelled out, then you need someone to do your work for you.
That doesn't make the cut on the PGA tour, let alone academia. Keep at it though.

Okay, so we can consult the Magna Carta, but it has no bearing on US Law. It may be derived from that, but it is a fools errand as it only indirectly influenced American Law. I see no point in consulting it; it is irrelevant.

"Ambiguities are naturally found in languages and [are] largely categorized into lexical and syntactical ambiguities. They are responsible for ambiguous expressions and may cause confusion in readers; therefore, accurate evaluation of them is critical for clear writing which is one of the prominent prerequisites for academic writing."

"Lexical and structural ambiguities in student writing: An assessment and evaluation of results"
Cüneyt Demir

And by the way, it was a professor who taught me to avoid passive writing and lexical ambiguity.

As long as you say so....

I’m pretty sure you are not the first to come to this erroneous conclusion

Do tell what is erroneous about it.

Such a fabulous point, Einstein.

Now, everyone in the USA will finally understand that you mean no infringement,
and now your neighbors across the Purple Mountains Majesty and Fruited Plains can see the light,

,,,and understand that your interpretation is THE TRUE INTERPRETATION, fall down on their knees,
beg for your goddess-like forgiveness, and hope that like in recent AUSTRALIA, that all the Garbage Trucks can pull up to the front door within the week,

,,,where everyone can dump their defensive items into the receptacle, and all can be taken to a reception center for destruction or redistribution on the underground market.

And then, we can all drink the rainbow colored excrement of Unicorns, and toast to your Omnipotent Prowess. Thank you for exerting your brain. Whew, mankind is now complete. Nirvana is here.
And the best thing is we have Cerebrophage to thank for it.
Brilliant!

Whatever you're smoking must be good. Though, I think I'm seeing a serious theme here in your imagination. You've got rainbows on the brain.

Wow! A clairvoyant.
You never cease to amaze with your seeing things!
Nice try attempting to relate your own smoking experience with others...

...nothing but oxygen here, and the love that eminates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRgWvvkSvfk

It amuses me that within your availability heuristic bias, you assume that "seeing" means to perceive something through supernatural means.

Oh yeah...
Lay off the Koolaid?

Oh.... It makes sense now. I donno why I didn't see it before...

Nothing but oxygen.