2nd Amendment should not be infringed upon because of Las Vegas shooter.

[danielpalos]

Yes, the right wing has nothing but repeal and that form of ignorance.

No one is unconnected with the militia, only militia service, well regulated.

The People are the militia.

You are either well regulated or not.

Well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be infringed.

 

[Humorme]

Yes, the right wing has nothing but repeal and that form of ignorance.

No one is unconnected with the militia, only militia service, well regulated.

The People are the militia.

You are either well regulated or not.

Well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be infringed.

Are you STILL babbling on about nothing??? I repeat:

I'm a little perplexed. danielpalos keeps bringing up the same argument over and over and over again as if he isn't being responded to. What more is there to say after he's conceded defeat on his argument?

Let me repeat my applicable post once again. It fairly answers his illogical post:

Within four minutes of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:

YOU have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a FREE lesson in the law.

This is a quote from a government site:

"State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

All of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned NOT to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!

Respond to that information and maybe we can move forward. Otherwise you can keep repeating debunked B.S. and I can respond with the facts exposing what you say.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment declares a States' Right.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the militia. It says so in State Constitutions.

 

[Humorme]

The People are the militia. It says so in State Constitutions.

Your point?

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Pp. 2–53.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Do you understand the authority of the United States Supreme Court as the final arbiter of what the Constitution means? You do realize that above is the actual HOLDING in the Heller case, correct? Do you know what a HOLDING is?

Do you understand that a state, regardless of what "rights" you think they have are subservient to the guarantees of the Bill of Rights? We're not going to argue this B.S. this week about whether or not states have rights. You have a constitutionally protected Right to keep and bear Arms unconnected to service in a militia and those Rights, since protected by the Constitution take precedence over any state laws.

 

[Humorme]

I have to keep repeating the same posting until danielpalos answers. If not, he'll make yet another idiotic statement and another until he is arguing this circular reasoning that individuals don't have Rights, only states do. It's been debunked a hundred times, but he needs to respond to the post from earlier (repeated below):


Are you STILL babbling on about nothing??? I repeat:

I'm a little perplexed. danielpalos keeps bringing up the same argument over and over and over again as if he isn't being responded to. What more is there to say after he's conceded defeat on his argument?

Let me repeat my applicable post once again. It fairly answers his illogical post:

Within four minutes of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:

YOU have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a FREE lesson in the law.

This is a quote from a government site:

"State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

All of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned NOT to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!

Respond to that information and maybe we can move forward. Otherwise you can keep repeating debunked B.S. and I can respond with the facts exposing what you say.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is a States right.

 

[Humorme]

Our Second Amendment is a States right.

I have to keep repeating the same posting until danielpalos answers. If not, he'll make yet another idiotic statement and another until he is arguing this circular reasoning that individuals don't have Rights, only states do. It's been debunked a hundred times, but he needs to respond to the post from earlier (repeated below):


Are you STILL babbling on about nothing??? I repeat:

I'm a little perplexed. danielpalos keeps bringing up the same argument over and over and over again as if he isn't being responded to. What more is there to say after he's conceded defeat on his argument?

Let me repeat my applicable post once again. It fairly answers his illogical post:

Within four minutes of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:

YOU have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a FREE lesson in the law.

This is a quote from a government site:

"State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

All of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned NOT to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!

Respond to that information and maybe we can move forward. Otherwise you can keep repeating debunked B.S. and I can respond with the facts exposing what you say.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I have to keep repeating the same posting until danielpalos answers.

Actually, you're done.

 

[Humorme]

I have to keep repeating the same posting until danielpalos answers.

Actually, you're done.

Yep, until danielpalos posts the same nonsense requiring the same response.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is a States right.

I have to keep repeating the same posting until danielpalos answers. If not, he'll make yet another idiotic statement and another until he is arguing this circular reasoning that individuals don't have Rights, only states do. It's been debunked a hundred times, but he needs to respond to the post from earlier (repeated below):


Are you STILL babbling on about nothing??? I repeat:

I'm a little perplexed. danielpalos keeps bringing up the same argument over and over and over again as if he isn't being responded to. What more is there to say after he's conceded defeat on his argument?

Let me repeat my applicable post once again. It fairly answers his illogical post:

Within four minutes of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:

YOU have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a FREE lesson in the law.

This is a quote from a government site:

"State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

All of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned NOT to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!

Respond to that information and maybe we can move forward. Otherwise you can keep repeating debunked B.S. and I can respond with the facts exposing what you say.

The People are the militia.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

 

[Humorme]

Our Second Amendment is a States right.

I have to keep repeating the same posting until danielpalos answers. If not, he'll make yet another idiotic statement and another until he is arguing this circular reasoning that individuals don't have Rights, only states do. It's been debunked a hundred times, but he needs to respond to the post from earlier (repeated below):


Are you STILL babbling on about nothing??? I repeat:

I'm a little perplexed. danielpalos keeps bringing up the same argument over and over and over again as if he isn't being responded to. What more is there to say after he's conceded defeat on his argument?

Let me repeat my applicable post once again. It fairly answers his illogical post:

Within four minutes of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:

YOU have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a FREE lesson in the law.

This is a quote from a government site:

"State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

All of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned NOT to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!

Respond to that information and maybe we can move forward. Otherwise you can keep repeating debunked B.S. and I can respond with the facts exposing what you say.

The People are the militia.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

It's half a position that is your standard fare. You have yet to answer the real question:

Do people have a Right to keep and bear Arms unconnected to service in a militia?

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, you have nothing but diversion which is a fallacy.

The security of a free State is the End

Well regulated militia of the People is the means.

The unorganized militia of the People, is not.

No one is unconnected with the militia only militia service, well regulated.

Any questions?

 

[Humorme]

Dude, you have nothing but diversion which is a fallacy.

The security of a free State is the End

Well regulated militia of the People is the means.

The unorganized militia of the People, is not.

No one is unconnected with the militia only militia service, well regulated.

Any questions?

Back to your same old bullshit of making idiotic allegations and accusations.

YOU have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a FREE lesson in the law.

This is a quote from a government site:

"State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

All of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned NOT to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled, danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!

DANIELPALOS READ THE HELLER DECISION - DANIELPALOS READ THE HELLER DECISION - DANIELPALOS READ THE HELLER DECISION

 

[danielpalos]

Willful blindness is a moral turpitude and that less moral form of appeal to ignorance of the law.

No one is unconnected with the militia only militia service, well regulated.

Any questions?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

It's half a position that is your standard fare. You have yet to answer the real question:

Do people have a Right to keep and bear Arms unconnected to service in a militia?

People have a right to own a weapon as allowed by law, as per the 1689 EBoR.
Danielpalos hasn't said otherwise, your inability to understand the English language is what is in question, along with your inane interpretation of historical fact.

 

[Humorme]

Willful blindness is a moral turpitude and that less moral form of appeal to ignorance of the law.

No one is unconnected with the militia only militia service, well regulated.

Any questions?

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570

Do you understand that HOLDING by the United States Supreme Court, danielpalos?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

What in Danielpalos comment doesn't say what you have quoted from wiki?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570

Do you understand that HOLDING by the United States Supreme Court, danielpalos?

Quoting wiki makes you look completely inept. Those phrases are not in Heller, nor are they even close to being the holding of the case.

Lets look at your 1) phrase, it's nothing but dicta, the phrase "service in a militia" comes up just 3 times in the entire opinion, the first time in section II A as a claim by the respondent, the second time in Section II A c in discussion of the 1689 EBoR, and the third time in Section II D 1 regarding post ratification commentary while discussing prior cases.

How about a), which is really nothing more then who ever wrote the wiki paragraph simply having interpreted from Heller.

And b) is in Section 2 A 3 which simply discussed what the right could do (in the PA III, and in VA, and finally as a US Citizen OCT 1788) prior to the USC.

You haven't presented the holding in Heller, and from what it looks like you don't understand the term to begin with.

 

[justinacolmena]

danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!

There was cyanide in the punch bowl. Someone arranged an automobile "accident." A "hooker" had a syringe in her purse and somebody died of a heroin overdose after "inviting" her into bed with him. Or a doctor performed unnecessary surgery on a vital organ, with fatal results.

Or someone was stabbed, doused with gasoline and set afire, or beaten to death by a mob. Or diagnosed with "cancer" and fatally treated with a miscalculated dose of radiation therapy.

Or stabbed with a knife, or garroted, or smothered to death with a pillow.

Banning guns prevents us from defending ourselves, but it does nothing to stop murder.