2nd Amendment Discussion

[Daryl Hunt]

anybody can Talk.

Men have valid arguments.

So you're a woman???

only wo-men can get way with having no valid arguments.

So Missy, that is how you've made over 52,000 posts here spouting a few words strung together that only you understand.

only incompetent right wingers, say that.

Only dumb asses keep repeating the same horseshit you just posted. It's meaningless partisan drivel. You need some new material and you need to get your head out of Chuck Schumer's ass.

Hey, watch it. A Republican Contractor is building a Stuckees in there so you can feel more comfortable in Rumps ass.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Pucket Gun had as much of a chance of blowing up in your face as it did sending a ball down range. It was a terrible and dangerous design. It was offered to the US Navy who bought the small cannons instead because they worked and didn't blow up the shooter usually.

As for canons in the hands of Civilians, those were purchased by companies to protect their assets. You would find one per community. And only the Rich owned them. If you were to give one to a normal person, he would take it home and reforge it into something useful (they didn't give them to normal people since that lesson was learned hundreds of years ago, swords to plowshares). The cost of that single canon would be the total income of a normal person for many years. So you don't make sense here either.

The post I was replying to said that the Founders could not imagine and certainly never intended. The most powerful weapons of the era, cannon, were in private hands. You admit that, and then downplay that fact with some of the truth. Yes, they were expensive. Just as true Machine Guns are expensive today.

But, let’s continue on with what the Founders intended. Show me in the Constitution where the Founders intended our rights to be adjudicated by the Courts. The First Amendment does not say that The Supreme Court Shall rule as invalid any law which abridges Freedom of Speech, Press..... you get the idea. It says Congress shall pass no law.

Since it specifies Congress. Does that mean the States can have an official Religion? Does that mean the States can restrict a Speech or the Press?

Or is it understood that the Founders intended it to be an individual right?

The Founders intended that if we had an issue with the Constitution that we would amend it, not litigate and have the Court rule on the nuances. Why don’t the anti-gun folks go that way? Why not amend the Constitution?

There is no issue with our Constitution but a lack of Faith. Our Founding Fathers knew what they are doing. There is nothing ambiguous about supreme law of the land, only right wing reading comprehension issues.

You are the one with a reading comprehension issue. This is backed up by your lack of supporting evidence to back whatever in the Hell it is you're selling.

guess i still need to dumb it down some more for the right wing.

Please, your dumb enough already.

Given your ignorance of the law, you’re in no position to refer to others as ‘dumb.’

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So you're a woman???

only wo-men can get way with having no valid arguments.

So Missy, that is how you've made over 52,000 posts here spouting a few words strung together that only you understand.

only incompetent right wingers, say that.

Only dumb asses keep repeating the same horseshit you just posted. It's meaningless partisan drivel. You need some new material and you need to get your head out of Chuck Schumer's ass.

Hey, watch it. A Republican Contractor is building a Stuckees in there so you can feel more comfortable in Rumps ass.

I am committed to NOT voting for Donald Trump. You lefties are partisan assholes.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The post I was replying to said that the Founders could not imagine and certainly never intended. The most powerful weapons of the era, cannon, were in private hands. You admit that, and then downplay that fact with some of the truth. Yes, they were expensive. Just as true Machine Guns are expensive today.

But, let’s continue on with what the Founders intended. Show me in the Constitution where the Founders intended our rights to be adjudicated by the Courts. The First Amendment does not say that The Supreme Court Shall rule as invalid any law which abridges Freedom of Speech, Press..... you get the idea. It says Congress shall pass no law.

Since it specifies Congress. Does that mean the States can have an official Religion? Does that mean the States can restrict a Speech or the Press?

Or is it understood that the Founders intended it to be an individual right?

The Founders intended that if we had an issue with the Constitution that we would amend it, not litigate and have the Court rule on the nuances. Why don’t the anti-gun folks go that way? Why not amend the Constitution?

There is no issue with our Constitution but a lack of Faith. Our Founding Fathers knew what they are doing. There is nothing ambiguous about supreme law of the land, only right wing reading comprehension issues.

You are the one with a reading comprehension issue. This is backed up by your lack of supporting evidence to back whatever in the Hell it is you're selling.

guess i still need to dumb it down some more for the right wing.

Please, your dumb enough already.

Given your ignorance of the law, you’re in no position to refer to others as ‘dumb.’

I've forgotten more about the law than you're capable of learning. Your arrogance makes your ignorance look like a stand up comedy routine. I'll damn well match my legal education and experience against yours any damn day of the week, son.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I'm not a political hack. I work in a firm that does legal research, shepardizing, legal investigations, and prepares briefs. How about you?

You can talk about the militia all day long. I'm talking about the Right to keep and bear Arms. Since neither the right nor the left concern themselves with the elements of Freedom, Liberty and Justice, it leaves a void wherein I can share something besides the typical political dumbassery that you apparently dabble in on a daily basis.

As someone familiar with the history of legal precedents, I try to follow the reasoning of how the Constitution today means 180 degrees opposite of what it did when the framers put their signature on it.

There is a higher principle in play. Nobody is ever required to disobey an unconstitutional law. The challenge is, we have to know when the United States Supreme Court oversteps their boundaries and give their unconscionable actions the same respect we'd give to any other illegal act.

Yet, the Judicature claimed it arose from our Second Amendment.

And, you cannot discount the traditional police power of a State and its Unitary not federal form of Government.

Do you know the difference between power and authority?

The way the court system works in this country is that a case starts at the trial court level. Depending on where it starts, it can be appealed several times until it reaches the United States Supreme Court. Then the high Court decides whether or not they want to hear it.

The Constitution of the United States allows the United States Supreme Court to interpret the law. That's it. They have NO further authority. In practice, however, the United States Supreme Court reviews their own court decisions and over-rules themselves!!! WTF? We call it legislating from the bench, but nobody officially challenges it.

Between Donald Trump ruling by Executive fiat and the United States Supreme Court legislating from the bench, the House and Senate serve NO purpose in this country.

The de jure / lawful / constitutional / legal law in this country is wherein the first time an issue landed on the desk of the United States Supreme Court and they granted cert (that is they agreed to hear the case) then that statute has been through the system and it is what it is. If the United States Supreme Court, the President, or Jesus himself has a problem with it, the ONLY constitutional way to change the law is to have the House and Senate write a NEW law and let the President sign it. George Washington predicted the way we're running the country and he warned:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The government we have today is an illegal / de facto / unconstitutional / unconscionable government that does not respect the law. Ex post facto laws are enacted in violation of the Constitution; the law is being perverted and even your nonsensical posts that lack meaning might make you a criminal tomorrow the way the ship is being run. NOBODY is safe from that kind of tyranny.

I'm telling you what the law is. In reality, NONE of you out there are safe. In reality, the various branches of the government have shit-canned the Constitution. George Bush declared that the Constitution was "just a god-damned piece of paper" while the United States Supreme Court destroyed over 130 tears of standing legal precedents with the Heller decision. So, my decision is simply to tell the government they did not have the authority to change the Constitution. That is done via Amendments. THAT sir is the very reason we have a Second Amendment. The greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government. So, the people have the authority to reject the unconstitutional acts whereby the United States Supreme Court has claimed that they grant you your Rights. If the government does not understand that... read the Declaration of Independence. It will give you the answer.

Our Second Amendment is expressly about the security of our free States. We have a First Amendment.

The Second Amendment does exactly what it says it does. It guarantees the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms as a measure to insure the security of a free state. It does not authorize nor create nor even secure ANYTHING. You have been provided with enough legal precedent to verify that.

Furthermore, the individual states ruled that the Second Amendment is absolute and is above the law making power.

Regardless of what it originally meant, that is all irrelevant. The Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on and there are no militias that enforce the Constitution or repel a dictator because most people live in total darkness of what their Rights and RESPONSIBILITIES are..

Where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

STFU you imbecile. "Well-regulated" meant "In proper working order" in those times.

No, you don't get free hand jobs and to grope girls, dumbass!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Given your ignorance of the law, you’re in no position to refer to others as ‘dumb.’

Speaking of your ignorance of the law...
Still waiting for you to address this post:
District Court Upholds California AWB

And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.

Tell us how this satisfies the holding from the USSC that the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear ALL "bearable arms" for traditionally lawful purposes.
Try to not lie while doing so.

 

[danielpalos]

anybody can Talk.

Men have valid arguments.

So you're a woman???

only wo-men can get way with having no valid arguments.

So Missy, that is how you've made over 52,000 posts here spouting a few words strung together that only you understand.

only incompetent right wingers, say that.

Only dumb asses keep repeating the same horseshit you just posted. It's meaningless partisan drivel. You need some new material and you need to get your head out of Chuck Schumer's ass.

making up stories is what the right wing seems best at. Men have arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

Yet, the Judicature claimed it arose from our Second Amendment.

And, you cannot discount the traditional police power of a State and its Unitary not federal form of Government.

Do you know the difference between power and authority?

The way the court system works in this country is that a case starts at the trial court level. Depending on where it starts, it can be appealed several times until it reaches the United States Supreme Court. Then the high Court decides whether or not they want to hear it.

The Constitution of the United States allows the United States Supreme Court to interpret the law. That's it. They have NO further authority. In practice, however, the United States Supreme Court reviews their own court decisions and over-rules themselves!!! WTF? We call it legislating from the bench, but nobody officially challenges it.

Between Donald Trump ruling by Executive fiat and the United States Supreme Court legislating from the bench, the House and Senate serve NO purpose in this country.

The de jure / lawful / constitutional / legal law in this country is wherein the first time an issue landed on the desk of the United States Supreme Court and they granted cert (that is they agreed to hear the case) then that statute has been through the system and it is what it is. If the United States Supreme Court, the President, or Jesus himself has a problem with it, the ONLY constitutional way to change the law is to have the House and Senate write a NEW law and let the President sign it. George Washington predicted the way we're running the country and he warned:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The government we have today is an illegal / de facto / unconstitutional / unconscionable government that does not respect the law. Ex post facto laws are enacted in violation of the Constitution; the law is being perverted and even your nonsensical posts that lack meaning might make you a criminal tomorrow the way the ship is being run. NOBODY is safe from that kind of tyranny.

I'm telling you what the law is. In reality, NONE of you out there are safe. In reality, the various branches of the government have shit-canned the Constitution. George Bush declared that the Constitution was "just a god-damned piece of paper" while the United States Supreme Court destroyed over 130 tears of standing legal precedents with the Heller decision. So, my decision is simply to tell the government they did not have the authority to change the Constitution. That is done via Amendments. THAT sir is the very reason we have a Second Amendment. The greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government. So, the people have the authority to reject the unconstitutional acts whereby the United States Supreme Court has claimed that they grant you your Rights. If the government does not understand that... read the Declaration of Independence. It will give you the answer.

Our Second Amendment is expressly about the security of our free States. We have a First Amendment.

The Second Amendment does exactly what it says it does. It guarantees the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms as a measure to insure the security of a free state. It does not authorize nor create nor even secure ANYTHING. You have been provided with enough legal precedent to verify that.

Furthermore, the individual states ruled that the Second Amendment is absolute and is above the law making power.

Regardless of what it originally meant, that is all irrelevant. The Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on and there are no militias that enforce the Constitution or repel a dictator because most people live in total darkness of what their Rights and RESPONSIBILITIES are..

Where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

STFU you imbecile. "Well-regulated" meant "In proper working order" in those times.

No, you don't get free hand jobs and to grope girls, dumbass!

lol. Where does the right wing find their propaganda and rhetoric?

Well regulated must be defined by our federal Congress, for the militia of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

The unorganized militia is a legitimate part of the country's militia, composed of those who are not in the organized militia (minus some public officials.) Yes, when you infringe on their Rights, they complain.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
-Patrick Henry, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So you're a woman???

only wo-men can get way with having no valid arguments.

So Missy, that is how you've made over 52,000 posts here spouting a few words strung together that only you understand.

only incompetent right wingers, say that.

Only dumb asses keep repeating the same horseshit you just posted. It's meaningless partisan drivel. You need some new material and you need to get your head out of Chuck Schumer's ass.

making up stories is what the right wing seems best at. Men have arguments.

So, you think you're making up good stories with sentence fragments?

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
– Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

 

[danielpalos]

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

The unorganized militia is a legitimate part of the country's militia, composed of those who are not in the organized militia (minus some public officials.) Yes, when you infringe on their Rights, they complain.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
-Patrick Henry, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

This is what the left wing has a doctrinal problem with:

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. It says so in the first clause, which the second clause must follow.

 

[danielpalos]

only wo-men can get way with having no valid arguments.

So Missy, that is how you've made over 52,000 posts here spouting a few words strung together that only you understand.

only incompetent right wingers, say that.

Only dumb asses keep repeating the same horseshit you just posted. It's meaningless partisan drivel. You need some new material and you need to get your head out of Chuck Schumer's ass.

making up stories is what the right wing seems best at. Men have arguments.

So, you think you're making up good stories with sentence fragments?

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
– Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

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.

That is a State's sovereign right, secured by our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

 

[hunarcy]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

And I would argue that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen what the internet would do to communication and would never have intended Freedom of Speech to be used to advocate restricting rights as it is done today. Perhaps we should also look at the outdated First Amendment.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So Missy, that is how you've made over 52,000 posts here spouting a few words strung together that only you understand.

only incompetent right wingers, say that.

Only dumb asses keep repeating the same horseshit you just posted. It's meaningless partisan drivel. You need some new material and you need to get your head out of Chuck Schumer's ass.

making up stories is what the right wing seems best at. Men have arguments.

So, you think you're making up good stories with sentence fragments?

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
– Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

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.

That is a State's sovereign right, secured by our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

You need some new material dannyboy.

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

That is an actual HOLDING from a state court. It's not my fault that the state courts disagree with dipwad.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

The unorganized militia is a legitimate part of the country's militia, composed of those who are not in the organized militia (minus some public officials.) Yes, when you infringe on their Rights, they complain.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
-Patrick Henry, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

This is what the left wing has a doctrinal problem with:

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. It says so in the first clause, which the second clause must follow.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Do you know the difference between power and authority?

The way the court system works in this country is that a case starts at the trial court level. Depending on where it starts, it can be appealed several times until it reaches the United States Supreme Court. Then the high Court decides whether or not they want to hear it.

The Constitution of the United States allows the United States Supreme Court to interpret the law. That's it. They have NO further authority. In practice, however, the United States Supreme Court reviews their own court decisions and over-rules themselves!!! WTF? We call it legislating from the bench, but nobody officially challenges it.

Between Donald Trump ruling by Executive fiat and the United States Supreme Court legislating from the bench, the House and Senate serve NO purpose in this country.

The de jure / lawful / constitutional / legal law in this country is wherein the first time an issue landed on the desk of the United States Supreme Court and they granted cert (that is they agreed to hear the case) then that statute has been through the system and it is what it is. If the United States Supreme Court, the President, or Jesus himself has a problem with it, the ONLY constitutional way to change the law is to have the House and Senate write a NEW law and let the President sign it. George Washington predicted the way we're running the country and he warned:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The government we have today is an illegal / de facto / unconstitutional / unconscionable government that does not respect the law. Ex post facto laws are enacted in violation of the Constitution; the law is being perverted and even your nonsensical posts that lack meaning might make you a criminal tomorrow the way the ship is being run. NOBODY is safe from that kind of tyranny.

I'm telling you what the law is. In reality, NONE of you out there are safe. In reality, the various branches of the government have shit-canned the Constitution. George Bush declared that the Constitution was "just a god-damned piece of paper" while the United States Supreme Court destroyed over 130 tears of standing legal precedents with the Heller decision. So, my decision is simply to tell the government they did not have the authority to change the Constitution. That is done via Amendments. THAT sir is the very reason we have a Second Amendment. The greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government. So, the people have the authority to reject the unconstitutional acts whereby the United States Supreme Court has claimed that they grant you your Rights. If the government does not understand that... read the Declaration of Independence. It will give you the answer.

Our Second Amendment is expressly about the security of our free States. We have a First Amendment.

The Second Amendment does exactly what it says it does. It guarantees the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms as a measure to insure the security of a free state. It does not authorize nor create nor even secure ANYTHING. You have been provided with enough legal precedent to verify that.

Furthermore, the individual states ruled that the Second Amendment is absolute and is above the law making power.

Regardless of what it originally meant, that is all irrelevant. The Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on and there are no militias that enforce the Constitution or repel a dictator because most people live in total darkness of what their Rights and RESPONSIBILITIES are..

Where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

STFU you imbecile. "Well-regulated" meant "In proper working order" in those times.

No, you don't get free hand jobs and to grope girls, dumbass!

lol. Where does the right wing find their propaganda and rhetoric?

Well regulated must be defined by our federal Congress, for the militia of the United States.

Not being plugged into the "right wing," I don't know where they get their "propaganda and rhetoric" (sic) from. As someone who has worked IN the field of law and hobnobbing with historians the only thing I can do for you is to bring you the truth. And know this dishonest dan, the right rails against me with a fervor that borders on fanaticism when I start talking about unalienable Rights.

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”

John Adams, Notes for an Oration at Braintree, Massachusetts, 1772

It appears to me that on your rhetoric and propaganda, you just pull it out of your ass.

 

[danielpalos]

only incompetent right wingers, say that.

Only dumb asses keep repeating the same horseshit you just posted. It's meaningless partisan drivel. You need some new material and you need to get your head out of Chuck Schumer's ass.

making up stories is what the right wing seems best at. Men have arguments.

So, you think you're making up good stories with sentence fragments?

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
– Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

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.

That is a State's sovereign right, secured by our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

You need some new material dannyboy.

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

That is an actual HOLDING from a state court. It's not my fault that the state courts disagree with dipwad.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

The unorganized militia is a legitimate part of the country's militia, composed of those who are not in the organized militia (minus some public officials.) Yes, when you infringe on their Rights, they complain.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
-Patrick Henry, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

This is what the left wing has a doctrinal problem with:

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. It says so in the first clause, which the second clause must follow.

The People are the Militia.

Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is expressly about the security of our free States. We have a First Amendment.

The Second Amendment does exactly what it says it does. It guarantees the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms as a measure to insure the security of a free state. It does not authorize nor create nor even secure ANYTHING. You have been provided with enough legal precedent to verify that.

Furthermore, the individual states ruled that the Second Amendment is absolute and is above the law making power.

Regardless of what it originally meant, that is all irrelevant. The Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on and there are no militias that enforce the Constitution or repel a dictator because most people live in total darkness of what their Rights and RESPONSIBILITIES are..

Where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

STFU you imbecile. "Well-regulated" meant "In proper working order" in those times.

No, you don't get free hand jobs and to grope girls, dumbass!

lol. Where does the right wing find their propaganda and rhetoric?

Well regulated must be defined by our federal Congress, for the militia of the United States.

Not being plugged into the "right wing," I don't know where they get their "propaganda and rhetoric" (sic) from. As someone who has worked IN the field of law and hobnobbing with historians the only thing I can do for you is to bring you the truth. And know this dishonest dan, the right rails against me with a fervor that borders on fanaticism when I start talking about unalienable Rights.

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”

John Adams, Notes for an Oration at Braintree, Massachusetts, 1772

It appears to me that on your rhetoric and propaganda, you just pull it out of your ass.

lol. nothing but continuance, diversion, and other forms of frivolous fallacy?