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

Discussion in 'Congress' started by 52ndStreet, Oct 11, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    25,214
    Thanks Received:
    669
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +3,096
    The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.
     
  2. Humorme
    Offline

    Humorme Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings:
    +307
    What's your point? You keep stating the obvious. Why don't you address the points you're wrong on?

    You have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms unconnected to service in a militia.
     
  3. justinacolmena
    Offline

    justinacolmena Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2017
    Messages:
    25
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    fairbanks, alaska, usa
    Ratings:
    +9
    The Second Amendment is about bearing Arms. It is not about cutting hair.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  4. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    25,214
    Thanks Received:
    669
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +3,096
    Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary and may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.
     
  5. Humorme
    Offline

    Humorme Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings:
    +307
    No, it certainly may not be. Why don't you take a little time to educate yourself instead of embarrassing yourself with this seven day a week routine of spouting shit that you have provided ZERO basis for?

    Are you really that starved for attention?

    Let's educate you with the Supreme Court's most recent ruling. This is the bottom line:

    "Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. filed a concurring opinion in which he reiterated the importance of access to self-defense and the rights afforded by the Second Amendment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined in the concurring opinion."

    {{meta.pageTitle}}
     
  6. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    25,214
    Thanks Received:
    669
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +3,096
    Projecting much? The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.

    Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, that makes it a States right, not an Individual right.
     
  7. Humorme
    Offline

    Humorme Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings:
    +307

    YOU are the only one projecting. So, let's see what this term "well regulated" really means, danielpalos:

    "(Those) who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right (are) courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

    -- Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School

    "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

    Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

    "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

    James Madison, The Federalist Papers

    "No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave."

    "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

    "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence 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, speech of June 9 1788

    "The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."

    Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

    "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

    -- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

    "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

    -- Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5

    "Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns."

    -- U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse," August 1995.

    "Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right."

    U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, in re U.S. vs Emerson (1999)

    We already know the response by danielpalos. The facts are logical fallacies and ONLY danielpalos has the understanding to prove gun owners wrong by reciting his usual canard. Can you day delusional?
     
  8. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    25,214
    Thanks Received:
    669
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +3,096
    Right wing fantasy is all you have.

    The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

    It is a States right, secured by our Second Amendment.

    The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.

    The context is fixed as that standard by the first clause.
     
  9. Humorme
    Offline

    Humorme Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings:
    +307
    Yeah right, danielpalos... I fantasized all of that. You are a fucking idiot.

    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!
     
  10. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    25,214
    Thanks Received:
    669
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +3,096
    Which part actually refutes Anything I have written?

    Please cite my argument and your rebuttal.

    The People are the militia.

    The context is, what is necessary to the security of a free State.

    The People are either well regulated or unorganized.

    There is no other option.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

best cameras