Preaching to the Choir

[stanc]

Huh? No mention of tyrannical government equals "tyrannical government is a free state" in your mind??? My only response to that "logic" is: Wow!

A state which is not free is a tyrannical government- my logic

Now, that is not a totally unreasonable statement. However, what you said is that not mentioning "tyrannical government" is the same thing as saying a "tyrannical government is a free state." Big difference.

Your quote; Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment says absolutely nothing about the purpose of either the militia or the "right to keep and bear arms" as being defense against a tyrannical government.

So the right of the people to own and bear arms for a free state says nothing about the purpose of the militia or the right to bear arms when it states exactly that??? put that WOW and logic right back at yourself.

The only thing it says in regard to the reason for having a militia is security of the State. It does not say that waging war on the Federal government is a reason for having a militia.

It would be helpful if you didn't ascribe your own (and usually erroneous) meanings to what I say.

When I said I wasn't interested in interpretations, that includes those of progressives.

So you are not interested in the interpretations of progressives on the court but then you state:

The courts' interpretations cannot be ignored or dismissed, however, since they determine law, whether the opinion of the court is rendered by progressive judges, or conservative ones.

But the actual creators of the Second amendment has no bearing to you or the actual meaning ????

Correct. It's written in plain English, so I take it to mean what it says, whereas you and most other people want it to mean something else, so you "interpret" it to mean what it doesn't say.

If the framers really meant something else, I think they were intelligent enough to have written it so that it says what they meant.

As for the opinions of the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they were not in unanimous agreement on these issues. Some wanted power to reside in the Federal government; others wanted power to be with the States. The resulting compromise gave us the vague wording in the 2nd Amendment, which -- as I previously stated -- does not say the purpose of a militia is for the people to be able to wage war against the government.

It states exactly that...

Really? Is it written in invisible ink or something? Because when I read it, I sure don't see:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the people to be able to wage war against the government, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

...and they were in agreement on that subject. Show me quotes from the framers of the second amendment that shows division about the Second amendment since you just proclaimed they were divided on this subject. Yes there was much division with centralized power vs states powers, we had a civil war over it.

And part of that division was reportedly over the subject of militias, and who should control them. The prefatory clause in the 2nd was a compromise that appears to me to be intentionally rather vague, so as to get both sides to approve it, even though it doesn't explicitly address the matter.

Heh, heh. You can make up your own definition of "insurrection" if you wish, but don't expect it to have the force of law.

You may not consider a government ignoring constitutional law and due process as an insurrection but that is exactly what it is since no one is above the law.

Again, that's only your definition.

insurrection : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government ~ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection