CDZ 2nd amendmant and arms

[Josf]

Everyone resorting to aggressive attack upon someone's character in the form of demonstrable deceptions are those confessing their weakness in viewpoint.

"Drawing inference from posse comitatus is a fallacy since a militia and a posse are two distinct bodies, politic."

If you had read the article you might have found precisely what you just claimed. That would be two people (at least) claiming the same thing, which is to say that would be 2 people sharing the same meaning, but that assumes that you actually intend to convey meaning with your words.

Then citation reinforcing the idea is taken from Wikipedia?

"Only Congress can..."

Of course any group with a lot of power can claim that they, and they alone, can do this or that, and in the case of said "congress" those people routinely consume children for fun and profit, so that case (not yet tried lawfully) is exemplary of what criminals do when criminals take over governments. They also find fools to give them power to perpetrate crimes with impunity.

I may return to read the rest from yet another character assassin showing their true colors in print.

 

[danielpalos]

Everyone resorting to aggressive attack upon someone's character in the form of demonstrable deceptions are those confessing their weakness in viewpoint.

"Drawing inference from posse comitatus is a fallacy since a militia and a posse are two distinct bodies, politic."

If you had read the article you might have found precisely what you just claimed. That would be two people (at least) claiming the same thing, which is to say that would be 2 people sharing the same meaning, but that assumes that you actually intend to convey meaning with your words.

Then citation reinforcing the idea is taken from Wikipedia?

"Only Congress can..."

Of course any group with a lot of power can claim that they, and they alone, can do this or that, and in the case of said "congress" those people routinely consume children for fun and profit, so that case (not yet tried lawfully) is exemplary of what criminals do when criminals take over governments. They also find fools to give them power to perpetrate crimes with impunity.

I may return to read the rest from yet another character assassin showing their true colors in print.

It is in Article 1, Section 8 regarding which Body politic may prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article III US Constitution

Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Constitution for the United States - We the People

 

[danielpalos]

Article 1, Section 8 - Powers delegated to Congress by the People

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article I Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

 

[Josf]

"It is in Article 1, Section 8 regarding which Body politic may prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States."

Ignoring the evidence that clearly proves a criminal take-over of government in 1787 is further evidence in every case where someone chooses to ignore that evidence. Those who tried - at length - to amend the criminal's "Constitution" of 1787 included George Mason and Patrick Henry who were behind the Bill of Rights.

Clearly, as a matter of fact having been demonstrated, the federation existed as a mutual defense force capable of defending against the largest criminal army and navy then perpetrating the crime of war of aggression then on the planet. When those like George Mason and Patrick Henry spoke out against the criminal Constitution they did so with experience as members of a working federation that had just proven to be a voluntary mutual defense association - federation - already existing. Any need to argue over who has control over other people, according to a written document, was already spelled out in The Articles of Confederation, concerning anything federal, such as a federal officer demanding blind obedience without question, or any other command issued by anyone within the geographical area covered by the voluntary federal union of free people.

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

That is a reactionary power grab made by the criminals who did not have the power to steal money from everyone in every state so as then to assemble a conscripted army of slaves to then crush any regulation by the people, of the people, and for the people of that state, such as the example that became known as Shays's Rebellion.

Directly opposite of the intended meaning of those words "regarding which Body politic may prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.," are the words written into State Constitutions, The Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation whenever, and wherever, volunteers volunteer to voice their opinions concerning how free people MUST, by their moral duty, throw out criminals in government, and replace those criminals in government with government that IS NOT criminal.



That is a brief explanation of what had happened in Massachusetts under the same federal compact that worked to get rid of the criminal British and their criminal government, actions that were defensive, and actions that were acted out thoughtfully by people, for people, and of people, who volunteered to be military defenders in their States, as regular Army, or as Militia, or as private military, or as a newly formed federal military (formed under a British sympathizer named George Washington unfortunately for many), and it was none of the business of the federal government to directly tax all the people in all the states to then pay for the conscripting (enslaving) of anyone targeted by "federal" officers, to then invade Massachusetts, to join forces with the criminals who took over the Massachusetts government, and to CRUSH THE SPIRIT OF LIBERTY out of the people in Massachusetts.

The criminals would have had a very hard time taking over any State government, as the criminals where learning in Massachusetts, as the people did not stand for it, and if the people in Massachusetts failed to regulate their criminals infesting their government the first time, then they may succeed in the next revolutionary battle in their State, and all the other people in all other States can learn from the example in Massachusetts as to what works, and what does not work, to regulate out the criminals in State governments.

The criminals were inspired by the last revolutionary battle of regulation in Massachusetts and they were inspired to perpetrate a fraud by which the voluntary federation would be covered up by a false version of federation that would be, in the words of those who witnessed the crime in progress, a national government, not a federal government, as all the state governments would be consolidated into one dictatorship.

The proof of that actually happening is in the Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation of 1794 when the new Dictator Washington conscripted an army of slaves, paid for by the new Central Banking fraud and "national debt" direct tax extortion racket, so as to CRUSH THE SPIRIT OF LIBERTY out of Pennsylvania.

All the mumbo jumbo of which words mean what to free people was well expressed in the link offered earlier on the meaning of Posse Comitatus, including the so called Federal Proclamation whereby one Dictator over everyone in the newly formed legal fiction version of a "federation" enslaves everyone to pay for an army of bill collectors.

You all, here, or anyone anywhere, wanting to ignore these facts, and clearly acting by your willful decisions to help cover up that crime of the millennium, do so at your own cost. You want to keep on living a lie, you get your wish.

Read the facts, don't read the facts, respond with character assassination aimed at me personally, or no response at all, and move on to whatever new lie works to massage your guilty conscience, as you see fit, for the opposite of the truth setting people free is a measurable cost to individual people who start down the road of willfully choosing to be ignorant in the face of mounting piles of lies.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article III section 2 clearly states that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in all cases involving the federal Government and that they have the authority under law and the Constitution to determine what is and is not in fact legal and thus Constitutional.

 

[Josf]

"Article III section 2 clearly states that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in all cases involving the federal Government and that they have the authority under law and the Constitution to determine what is and is not in fact legal and thus Constitutional."

So long as those judges are acting according to moral law (supreme law, not dictatorial edicts or statutes, supreme law such as Matthew 7:12 explains in no uncertain terms) then LAW is exemplified by those judges.

As a matter of clear, unmistakable, understanding at the time when the federation was a federation, people, not things, either followed well established rules of law, or people, not things, did not follow well established rules of law.

RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1 U.S. 236 1788 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

Before the criminals took over with the Judiciary Act of 1789 there is in those words and in that link an established rule of law. Why are people ignoring these facts as if these facts vanish if people cover their eyes, cover their ears, and cover their mouths?

People wanting, needing, demanding, and then maintaining rule of law do not need the permission of criminals to do so, and that works that way even in times of war.

An Account of the My Lai Courts-Martial

"Hugh Thompson, by now almost frantic, saw bodies in the ditch, including a few people who were still alive. He landed his helicopter and told Calley to hold his men there while he evacuated the civilians. (One account reports Thompson told his helicopter crew chief to "open up on the Americans" if they fired at the civilians, but Thompson later said he did not remember having done so.) He put himself between Calley's men and the Vietnamese. When a rescue helicopter landed, Thompson had the nine civilians, including five children, flown to the nearest army hospital. Later, Thompson was to land again and rescue a baby still clinging to her dead mother."

Tribunals whereby people judge for themselves, based upon their own command of moral laws, go back a long way in time.

http://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44539282.pdf

"The tribunes of the people were at first five in number, tho afterward, their body was Increased to five more. They were always annually Ellected by the people, and Gennerally from their own body. They had Power of annuling. They had Power of anuling all Such acts of the Senate as they Considered to Distress upon the people and to Show their readiness to protect the meanest, their Doors Stood open night and day, to Receive Complaints."

The fraud of the Constitution of 1787 included the idea that conflicts concerning the meanings of words would be decided by the one and only group who wrote those words. Of course that could not be the sales pitch during the usurpation. Lies had to be told. No one here can claim that all those proceedings went as they did without opposition. The 6th President of the United States in Congress Assembled - Richard Henry Lee - was one of many opponents who spoke at length, and in great deal, against the proceedings as the criminals proceeded to cover up the working federation with a counterfeit version; including a counterfeit version of a court system that was later exposed in the form of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

 

[danielpalos]

"It is in Article 1, Section 8 regarding which Body politic may prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States."

Ignoring the evidence that clearly proves a criminal take-over of government in 1787 is further evidence in every case where someone chooses to ignore that evidence. Those who tried - at length - to amend the criminal's "Constitution" of 1787 included George Mason and Patrick Henry who were behind the Bill of Rights.

Clearly, as a matter of fact having been demonstrated, the federation existed as a mutual defense force capable of defending against the largest criminal army and navy then perpetrating the crime of war of aggression then on the planet. When those like George Mason and Patrick Henry spoke out against the criminal Constitution they did so with experience as members of a working federation that had just proven to be a voluntary mutual defense association - federation - already existing. Any need to argue over who has control over other people, according to a written document, was already spelled out in The Articles of Confederation, concerning anything federal, such as a federal officer demanding blind obedience without question, or any other command issued by anyone within the geographical area covered by the voluntary federal union of free people.

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

That is a reactionary power grab made by the criminals who did not have the power to steal money from everyone in every state so as then to assemble a conscripted army of slaves to then crush any regulation by the people, of the people, and for the people of that state, such as the example that became known as Shays's Rebellion.

Directly opposite of the intended meaning of those words "regarding which Body politic may prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.," are the words written into State Constitutions, The Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation whenever, and wherever, volunteers volunteer to voice their opinions concerning how free people MUST, by their moral duty, throw out criminals in government, and replace those criminals in government with government that IS NOT criminal.



That is a brief explanation of what had happened in Massachusetts under the same federal compact that worked to get rid of the criminal British and their criminal government, actions that were defensive, and actions that were acted out thoughtfully by people, for people, and of people, who volunteered to be military defenders in their States, as regular Army, or as Militia, or as private military, or as a newly formed federal military (formed under a British sympathizer named George Washington unfortunately for many), and it was none of the business of the federal government to directly tax all the people in all the states to then pay for the conscripting (enslaving) of anyone targeted by "federal" officers, to then invade Massachusetts, to join forces with the criminals who took over the Massachusetts government, and to CRUSH THE SPIRIT OF LIBERTY out of the people in Massachusetts.

The criminals would have had a very hard time taking over any State government, as the criminals where learning in Massachusetts, as the people did not stand for it, and if the people in Massachusetts failed to regulate their criminals infesting their government the first time, then they may succeed in the next revolutionary battle in their State, and all the other people in all other States can learn from the example in Massachusetts as to what works, and what does not work, to regulate out the criminals in State governments.

The criminals were inspired by the last revolutionary battle of regulation in Massachusetts and they were inspired to perpetrate a fraud by which the voluntary federation would be covered up by a false version of federation that would be, in the words of those who witnessed the crime in progress, a national government, not a federal government, as all the state governments would be consolidated into one dictatorship.

The proof of that actually happening is in the Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation of 1794 when the new Dictator Washington conscripted an army of slaves, paid for by the new Central Banking fraud and "national debt" direct tax extortion racket, so as to CRUSH THE SPIRIT OF LIBERTY out of Pennsylvania.

All the mumbo jumbo of which words mean what to free people was well expressed in the link offered earlier on the meaning of Posse Comitatus, including the so called Federal Proclamation whereby one Dictator over everyone in the newly formed legal fiction version of a "federation" enslaves everyone to pay for an army of bill collectors.

You all, here, or anyone anywhere, wanting to ignore these facts, and clearly acting by your willful decisions to help cover up that crime of the millennium, do so at your own cost. You want to keep on living a lie, you get your wish.

Read the facts, don't read the facts, respond with character assassination aimed at me personally, or no response at all, and move on to whatever new lie works to massage your guilty conscience, as you see fit, for the opposite of the truth setting people free is a measurable cost to individual people who start down the road of willfully choosing to be ignorant in the face of mounting piles of lies.

I have Only the legal facts of our supreme law of the land.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws. It is either in our supreme law of the land or it doesn't exist. There is no "pulling rabbits out of hats" if they are not specifically enumerated in our supreme law of the land. It is what is meant by Limited Government.

It really is that simple, except to the right.

 

[danielpalos]

Article III section 2 clearly states that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in all cases involving the federal Government and that they have the authority under law and the Constitution to determine what is and is not in fact legal and thus Constitutional.

So what; Article 3 And our Second Amendment do not exist in a vacuum of special pleading. The terms have to be in our supreme law of the land to make your case.

And, the People know what they delegate or they are incompetent in legal venues.

 

[danielpalos]

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

That social Power is delegated by the People.

Thus, there can be no Individual Rights of the People to keep and bear Arms when the power to Arm the Militia is declared socialized by the People (who are the militia).

 

[Josf]

That social Power is delegated by the People.

Thus, there can be no Individual Rights of the People to keep and bear Arms when the power to Arm the Militia is declared socialized by the People (who are the militia).

I have Only the legal facts of our supreme law of the land.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws. It is either in our supreme law of the land or it doesn't exist. There is no "pulling rabbits out of hats" if they are not specifically enumerated in our supreme law of the land. It is what is meant by Limited Government.

It really is that simple, except to the right.

That above clearly contradicts red text and blue text. The use of words intending to deceive looks the same as the use of words intending to inform, otherwise the use of words intending to deceive fails to work when the use of words intending to deceive looks deceptive. Fewer people are buying into a purchase of the Brooklyn Bridge because the "salesmen" selling the Brooklyn Bridge are running out of potential fools to buy it.

Simple is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Not so simple is the understanding of the meaning of the words "redress of grievances," which are potential sources of deceptive words intended to "explain" what "redress of grievances" means in the context of Amendments to a "Constitution" of dubious origins.

Redress of grievances places every single public officer hired for the mutual defense of everyone liable for any crime perpetrated by said public official while public official acts in a public office for mutual defense of everyone. The list of possible crimes that are known to be perpetrated by people in public office is the censorship of accusations against said public official by anyone, anywhere, anytime.

The counter idea to the idea of rule of law is the idea where the criminals write the laws, pardon themselves, and pay themselves whatever they think their victims can afford to lose and still remain productive enough to keep on paying extortion fees that shift power from the victims to the criminals who write the so called laws.

Precisely this:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Pay, and don't question the payments.

That is directly opposite the Declaration of Independence, many of the original State Constitutions, the original federal Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. That is simply this:

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.



The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

The Russian people allowed their government to be sold to Central Bankers who hired people like Marx and Engels, hiring people like Josef Stalin, to run a false government organ, the organs, to take away the means by which the Russian people defend themselves from enemies foreign and domestic. They did not learn soon enough.

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur -- what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"

The Best of Solzhenitsyn Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty

"Salesmen" selling security for a price, where the price is everything you can earn in your lifetime, are not rare, they are plentiful. Who wants them? Who pays them? Not me, I'm against them in words if words are good enough, and if not, then I still have the means to be against them in other ways.

 

[danielpalos]

The powers delegated to Congress by the People are in Article 1, Section 8. The People delegated those social Powers. Thus, the part about Congress having the social Power to Arm the Militia of the People cannot mean to imply, in our Second Article of Amendment that there are rights in private property; simply because, our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself and has no social Power without the rest of our supreme law of the land to provide Context.

 

[Josf]

"The powers delegated to Congress by the People are in Article 1, Section 8. The People delegated those social Powers."

Falsehoods arrive in many forms. Many individuals (people) offer said falsehoods. Many individuals (people) offer the facts instead.

Example:
No Treason No. 1 LysanderSpooner.org

Quote:____________________________________
The Constitution says:

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution.

The necessity for the consent of "the people" is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the people of the United States" would be bound by it, who [*4] did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure.

The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say: We, the people of the town of A-----, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children.

Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of "the people of the town of A-----," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such.

Neither the conduct nor the rights of these signers would be improved at all by their saying to the dissenters: We offer you equal rights with ourselves, in the benefits of the church, school, hospital, or theatre, which we propose to establish, and equal voice in the control of it. It would be a sufficient answer for the others to say: We want no share in the benefits, and no voice in the control, of your institution; and will do nothing to support it.

The number who actually consented to the Constitution of the United States, at the first, was very small. Considered as the act of the whole people, the adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon nobody.

The women, children, and blacks, of course, were not asked to give their consent. In addition to this, there were, in nearly or quite all the States, property qualifications that excluded probable one half, two thirds, or perhaps even three fourths, of the white male adults from the right of suffrage. And of those who were allowed that right, we know not how many exercised it.
____________________________________________

Pick a side?

Side A: The criminals fight over who gains the most from the supply of ready victims within a geographical area and the tools used in order to maintain this criminal power includes deception.

Side B: The potential victims refuse victimization and the potential victims work effectively for their mutual defense in each case where a criminal intends to create a crime.

Obviously those who claim that the so called Constitution of 1787 is a "contract" agreed to by everyone, assuming the claimant actually knows what they are claiming, is false.

 

[danielpalos]

Which falsehood is that. Are you claiming the People did not delegate those social Powers according to our Social Contract and supreme Social law of the land?

No, it could not be any form of usurpation or lie since we have rules on what it takes to reach a quorum and how everyone has to go along with what the majority votes for, within the limits of our supreme law of the land.

The rest of your alleged truths also fail pass any true witness bearing muster.

 

[Josf]

"Which falsehood is that. Are you claiming the People did not delegate those social Powers according to our Social Contract and supreme Social law of the land?"

If you claim that "all the people" are in a contract, then state your claim as such. If you claim something else, then state whatever else is it that you claim.

"No, it could not be any form of usurpation or lie since we have rules on what it takes to reach a quorum and how everyone has to go along with what the majority votes for, within the limits of our supreme law of the land."

The lie was exposed by those against the lie.

Here:
Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia in the year 1787
Page 13 Luther Martin

"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."

Any so called law enacted by fraud is no law.

"The rest of your alleged truths also fail pass any true witness bearing muster."

That is a failed attempt to claim that I am the single source of the information you challenge. I am not. Failure is a routine with people whose only refuse is deception.

The truth is said to set people free; and unsaid is what happens to those who are invested so heavily into deception that they begin to believe their own lies.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Which falsehood is that. Are you claiming the People did not delegate those social Powers according to our Social Contract and supreme Social law of the land?

No, it could not be any form of usurpation or lie since we have rules on what it takes to reach a quorum and how everyone has to go along with what the majority votes for, within the limits of our supreme law of the land.

The rest of your alleged truths also fail pass any true witness bearing muster.

Actually you loon, an amendment is PART of the Constitution and grants powers based on what the amendment says is granted. An amendment can clarify a power like the one granting the Government the right to tax income or it can grant a power not granted elsewhere in the document. The 2nd is personal due to the 14th and incorporation. Again the 14th amendment is part of the Constitution and grants its own set of powers and responsibilities. There is NOTHING in Article I II or III that conflicts with the 2nd granted a right to individuals.

 

[danielpalos]

Which falsehood is that. Are you claiming the People did not delegate those social Powers according to our Social Contract and supreme Social law of the land?

No, it could not be any form of usurpation or lie since we have rules on what it takes to reach a quorum and how everyone has to go along with what the majority votes for, within the limits of our supreme law of the land.

The rest of your alleged truths also fail pass any true witness bearing muster.

Actually you loon, an amendment is PART of the Constitution and grants powers based on what the amendment says is granted. An amendment can clarify a power like the one granting the Government the right to tax income or it can grant a power not granted elsewhere in the document. The 2nd is personal due to the 14th and incorporation. Again the 14th amendment is part of the Constitution and grants its own set of powers and responsibilities. There is NOTHING in Article I II or III that conflicts with the 2nd granted a right to individuals.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself; our Founding Fathers were wise enough in crafting our supreme law of the land to leave no room for ambiguity; except to the clueless and Causeless.

 

[Josf]

"clueless and Causeless"

That may work as an exemplification of transference or projection. I don't know. My subjective opinion is such that the author of that claim is himself (or herself, or itself) clueless and causeless and the idea behind - the inspiration behind - the accusation is a method by which internal faults are shared in a fictitious construction of a fellow who also has these problems, and in that way the suffering of these problems creates an imaginary person (legal fiction) who shares the viewpoint of the creator of this legal fiction entity.

The legal fiction entity, in reality, does not exist.

 

[danielpalos]

"clueless and Causeless"

That may work as an exemplification of transference or projection. I don't know. My subjective opinion is such that the author of that claim is himself (or herself, or itself) clueless and causeless and the idea behind - the inspiration behind - the accusation is a method by which internal faults are shared in a fictitious construction of a fellow who also has these problems, and in that way the suffering of these problems creates an imaginary person (legal fiction) who shares the viewpoint of the creator of this legal fiction entity.

The legal fiction entity, in reality, does not exist.

Do you know you have nothing but appeals to ignorance of the law to work with?

 

[Josf]

"Do you know you have nothing but appeals to ignorance of the law to work with?"

Transference piled on with projection?

RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1 U.S. 236 1788 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The case in Waco, for one of many examples, is a case where someone thought that a suspect might have failed to pay a tax on a gun. The suspect was not only held, without due process, without a Grand Jury presentment, the suspect and at least 80 people were burned alive, and the criminals perpetrating that crime, from the top of the criminal heap down, gave themselves extra credit for a crime well done.

You can go on writing your false claims of authority over the facts while those facts can persist to be available for anyone who cares to actually understand.