CDZ Food for thought: Right to keep and bear arms.

[flacaltenn]

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

George Mason, of Virginia:
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia?

They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification
convention, 1788

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787





Are we all clear now on the Founder's intent now whether the 2nd Amendment was JUST about a militia or National Guard?

In fact, the 2nd Amendment was written to concisely COMBINE two concepts into one Amendment. The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms. And the right of the States to field militias.. It's that simple if you actually read their words and speeches..

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

And this matters why?

for legal purposes.

What legal purposes? The US Constitution is the law of the land.

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Natural Rights is a philosophy. No laws are written as Natural Rights. The only time N.R. were evoked by the Founders was in the Declaration of Independence as a justification for OPPOSING TYRANNY.. The rest of inspiration for minimalist Federal Powers was pure Enlightenment Liberalism..

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

And this matters why?

for legal purposes.

What legal purposes? The US Constitution is the law of the land.

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Natural Rights is a philosophy. No laws are written as Natural Rights. The only time N.R. were evoked by the Founders was in the Declaration of Independence as a justification for OPPOSING TYRANNY.. The rest of inspiration for minimalist Federal Powers was pure Enlightenment Liberalism..

Not sure why you believe that. Natural rights are a concept recognized in State Constitutions.

this is in Your State's, Bill of Rights:

That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

 

[WinterBorn]

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

George Mason, of Virginia:
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia?

They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification
convention, 1788

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787





Are we all clear now on the Founder's intent now whether the 2nd Amendment was JUST about a militia or National Guard?

In fact, the 2nd Amendment was written to concisely COMBINE two concepts into one Amendment. The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms. And the right of the States to field militias.. It's that simple if you actually read their words and speeches..

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

And this matters why?

for legal purposes.

What legal purposes? The US Constitution is the law of the land.

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Let me clarify something. If I ask you a question. And then you post an answer. Unless it is actually an answer to what I asked, it is irrelevant.

Now, as far as "natural rights", whatever that means, state constitutions do not, repeat DO NOT, overrule the US Constitution. So whether state constitutions are where you find "natural rights" or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

And this matters why?

for legal purposes.

What legal purposes? The US Constitution is the law of the land.

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Let me clarify something. If I ask you a question. And then you post an answer. Unless it is actually an answer to what I asked, it is irrelevant.

Now, as far as "natural rights", whatever that means, state constitutions do not, repeat DO NOT, overrule the US Constitution. So whether state constitutions are where you find "natural rights" or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

lol. Our federal Constitution says nothing about natural rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

And this matters why?

for legal purposes.

What legal purposes? The US Constitution is the law of the land.

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Let me clarify something. If I ask you a question. And then you post an answer. Unless it is actually an answer to what I asked, it is irrelevant.

Now, as far as "natural rights", whatever that means, state constitutions do not, repeat DO NOT, overrule the US Constitution. So whether state constitutions are where you find "natural rights" or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

lol. Our federal Constitution says nothing about natural rights.

It does not matter, as far as the topic of this thread goes.

We are discussing the 2nd amendment. That is a part of the US Constitution. And state laws cannot override the US Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

for legal purposes.

What legal purposes? The US Constitution is the law of the land.

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Let me clarify something. If I ask you a question. And then you post an answer. Unless it is actually an answer to what I asked, it is irrelevant.

Now, as far as "natural rights", whatever that means, state constitutions do not, repeat DO NOT, overrule the US Constitution. So whether state constitutions are where you find "natural rights" or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

lol. Our federal Constitution says nothing about natural rights.

It does not matter, as far as the topic of this thread goes.

We are discussing the 2nd amendment. That is a part of the US Constitution. And state laws cannot override the US Constitution.

yes; it must matter. There is nothing to override in our federal Constitution.

 

[WinterBorn]

What legal purposes? The US Constitution is the law of the land.

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Let me clarify something. If I ask you a question. And then you post an answer. Unless it is actually an answer to what I asked, it is irrelevant.

Now, as far as "natural rights", whatever that means, state constitutions do not, repeat DO NOT, overrule the US Constitution. So whether state constitutions are where you find "natural rights" or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

lol. Our federal Constitution says nothing about natural rights.

It does not matter, as far as the topic of this thread goes.

We are discussing the 2nd amendment. That is a part of the US Constitution. And state laws cannot override the US Constitution.

yes; it must matter. There is nothing to override in our federal Constitution.

In a discussion of the 2nd amendment, state constitutions do not matter. They cannot address the 2nd amendment.

But at least you, apparently, figured out that the state constitutions are secondary to the US Constitution. So at least you learned something.

 

[PredFan]

And you get shot down every time.

Only in right wing fantasy.

No, in actual reality, like right here in this thread.

this thread is mostly right wing fantasy, not valid argumentation.

Lies don’t become truth simply because you keep saying them.

it is why, I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies; whenever this issue comes up.

You keep repeating a lie over and over and you do exactly what a liar always does, claim that you don't lie. No one here believes anything you say save for other left wing liars.

 

[OldLady]

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

George Mason, of Virginia:
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia?

They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification
convention, 1788

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787





Are we all clear now on the Founder's intent now whether the 2nd Amendment was JUST about a militia or National Guard?

In fact, the 2nd Amendment was written to concisely COMBINE two concepts into one Amendment. The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms. And the right of the States to field militias.. It's that simple if you actually read their words and speeches..

They also had legal slavery then. Times change.

Slavery got fixed toute suite. This doesn't NEED to get fixed. Did you read the Jefferson quote? It translate to "if you take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens -- then only criminals will have guns"...

Did you think the NRA just made up that slogan? The entire basis of PROTECTING the Constitution in the minds of the founders was to GUARANTEE an armed citizenry.. As a deterrent to both tyranny and crime.

No one is talking about taking all your guns. What the founders did was devise a governmental system that could be changed as times changed. They had just spent seven years duking it out with the best army in the world. Of course they had fighting the government on their mind.
But as you said, slavery got fixed. So can the Second Amendment.
Running back to a time 250 years ago to defend owning AR's is pretty desperate, if you ask me.

HOPING that your govt stays accountable to the Constitution and the law is pretty desperate if you ask me. ESPECIALLY as we currently sliding down into the hole at the bottom of the Federal respect and accountability toilet right now..

CLEARLY the Founders were savvy enough to understand what causes a government to have RESPECT for the citizens they are elected to represent. I don't think that MOST of our elected politicians currently serving that want to ATTACK the 2nd Amendment have that kind of respect for the citizenry..

For PROOF of that -- refer to the failed Dem candidate who just this week is STILL blaming her lukewarm campaign losses on the "backward, deplorable, and evil" parts of the country that didn't vote for her. SHE is a prime example of not respecting the WHOLE of the citizenry... And one who sees (as you do) the Constitution as a "living document" subject to change. That's a danger to ANY TRUE Liberal. Or should be. But there's damn few TRUE Liberals left who HAVE that innate fear of Fed powers being abused by meglo power whores..

Let's pray that YOUR fears of the current Admin leading to tyranny and abuse don't happen either. What would YOU do --- if it did?????

I don't fear the current Admin leading to tyranny and abuse (or no more than usual). What made you think that? Are you mixing me up with someone else?

There is no way to defend against our military with our AR's!!!. Be realistic. To win a tussle with our government, we would have to ally with China or someone, like we allied with the French to win the Revolution.

 

[WinterBorn]

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

George Mason, of Virginia:
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia?

They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification
convention, 1788

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787





Are we all clear now on the Founder's intent now whether the 2nd Amendment was JUST about a militia or National Guard?

In fact, the 2nd Amendment was written to concisely COMBINE two concepts into one Amendment. The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms. And the right of the States to field militias.. It's that simple if you actually read their words and speeches..

They also had legal slavery then. Times change.

Slavery got fixed toute suite. This doesn't NEED to get fixed. Did you read the Jefferson quote? It translate to "if you take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens -- then only criminals will have guns"...

Did you think the NRA just made up that slogan? The entire basis of PROTECTING the Constitution in the minds of the founders was to GUARANTEE an armed citizenry.. As a deterrent to both tyranny and crime.

No one is talking about taking all your guns. What the founders did was devise a governmental system that could be changed as times changed. They had just spent seven years duking it out with the best army in the world. Of course they had fighting the government on their mind.
But as you said, slavery got fixed. So can the Second Amendment.
Running back to a time 250 years ago to defend owning AR's is pretty desperate, if you ask me.

HOPING that your govt stays accountable to the Constitution and the law is pretty desperate if you ask me. ESPECIALLY as we currently sliding down into the hole at the bottom of the Federal respect and accountability toilet right now..

CLEARLY the Founders were savvy enough to understand what causes a government to have RESPECT for the citizens they are elected to represent. I don't think that MOST of our elected politicians currently serving that want to ATTACK the 2nd Amendment have that kind of respect for the citizenry..

For PROOF of that -- refer to the failed Dem candidate who just this week is STILL blaming her lukewarm campaign losses on the "backward, deplorable, and evil" parts of the country that didn't vote for her. SHE is a prime example of not respecting the WHOLE of the citizenry... And one who sees (as you do) the Constitution as a "living document" subject to change. That's a danger to ANY TRUE Liberal. Or should be. But there's damn few TRUE Liberals left who HAVE that innate fear of Fed powers being abused by meglo power whores..

Let's pray that YOUR fears of the current Admin leading to tyranny and abuse don't happen either. What would YOU do --- if it did?????

I don't fear the current Admin leading to tyranny and abuse (or no more than usual). What made you think that? Are you mixing me up with someone else?

There is no way to defend against our military with our AR's!!!. Be realistic. To win a tussle with our government, we would have to ally with China or someone, like we allied with the French to win the Revolution.

Two points concerning a civil war against our military.

#1 - Estimates concerning how many members of the military would refuse to open fire on US citizens vary. But there is a very real possibility that there would be a large number who would refuse. Also, the Posse Comitatus Act forbids using the US military in police actions inside the US (the Coast Guard is not included).

#2 - The insurrection does not need to defeat the military to be successful. The amount of media attention and the inability to root out the rebels would cause too many headaches for the leaders. Putting them down harshly would require heavy control of the media, which is nearly impossible now.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Let me clarify something. If I ask you a question. And then you post an answer. Unless it is actually an answer to what I asked, it is irrelevant.

Now, as far as "natural rights", whatever that means, state constitutions do not, repeat DO NOT, overrule the US Constitution. So whether state constitutions are where you find "natural rights" or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

lol. Our federal Constitution says nothing about natural rights.

It does not matter, as far as the topic of this thread goes.

We are discussing the 2nd amendment. That is a part of the US Constitution. And state laws cannot override the US Constitution.

yes; it must matter. There is nothing to override in our federal Constitution.

In a discussion of the 2nd amendment, state constitutions do not matter. They cannot address the 2nd amendment.

But at least you, apparently, figured out that the state constitutions are secondary to the US Constitution. So at least you learned something.

lol. it doesn't matter because natural rights are in our State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Only in right wing fantasy.

No, in actual reality, like right here in this thread.

this thread is mostly right wing fantasy, not valid argumentation.

Lies don’t become truth simply because you keep saying them.

it is why, I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies; whenever this issue comes up.

You keep repeating a lie over and over and you do exactly what a liar always does, claim that you don't lie. No one here believes anything you say save for other left wing liars.

The people are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole people are declared Necessary.

 

[WinterBorn]

Let me clarify something. If I ask you a question. And then you post an answer. Unless it is actually an answer to what I asked, it is irrelevant.

Now, as far as "natural rights", whatever that means, state constitutions do not, repeat DO NOT, overrule the US Constitution. So whether state constitutions are where you find "natural rights" or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

lol. Our federal Constitution says nothing about natural rights.

It does not matter, as far as the topic of this thread goes.

We are discussing the 2nd amendment. That is a part of the US Constitution. And state laws cannot override the US Constitution.

yes; it must matter. There is nothing to override in our federal Constitution.

In a discussion of the 2nd amendment, state constitutions do not matter. They cannot address the 2nd amendment.

But at least you, apparently, figured out that the state constitutions are secondary to the US Constitution. So at least you learned something.

lol. it doesn't matter because natural rights are in our State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Of course it matters. The entire topic is the 2nd amendment. State constitutions and "natural rights" are irrelevant in this conversation.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, in actual reality, like right here in this thread.

this thread is mostly right wing fantasy, not valid argumentation.

Lies don’t become truth simply because you keep saying them.

it is why, I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies; whenever this issue comes up.

You keep repeating a lie over and over and you do exactly what a liar always does, claim that you don't lie. No one here believes anything you say save for other left wing liars.

The people are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole people are declared Necessary.

The militia is necessary. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

George Mason, of Virginia:
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia?

They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification
convention, 1788

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787





Are we all clear now on the Founder's intent now whether the 2nd Amendment was JUST about a militia or National Guard?

In fact, the 2nd Amendment was written to concisely COMBINE two concepts into one Amendment. The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms. And the right of the States to field militias.. It's that simple if you actually read their words and speeches..

They also had legal slavery then. Times change.

Slavery got fixed toute suite. This doesn't NEED to get fixed. Did you read the Jefferson quote? It translate to "if you take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens -- then only criminals will have guns"...

Did you think the NRA just made up that slogan? The entire basis of PROTECTING the Constitution in the minds of the founders was to GUARANTEE an armed citizenry.. As a deterrent to both tyranny and crime.

No one is talking about taking all your guns. What the founders did was devise a governmental system that could be changed as times changed. They had just spent seven years duking it out with the best army in the world. Of course they had fighting the government on their mind.
But as you said, slavery got fixed. So can the Second Amendment.
Running back to a time 250 years ago to defend owning AR's is pretty desperate, if you ask me.

HOPING that your govt stays accountable to the Constitution and the law is pretty desperate if you ask me. ESPECIALLY as we currently sliding down into the hole at the bottom of the Federal respect and accountability toilet right now..

CLEARLY the Founders were savvy enough to understand what causes a government to have RESPECT for the citizens they are elected to represent. I don't think that MOST of our elected politicians currently serving that want to ATTACK the 2nd Amendment have that kind of respect for the citizenry..

For PROOF of that -- refer to the failed Dem candidate who just this week is STILL blaming her lukewarm campaign losses on the "backward, deplorable, and evil" parts of the country that didn't vote for her. SHE is a prime example of not respecting the WHOLE of the citizenry... And one who sees (as you do) the Constitution as a "living document" subject to change. That's a danger to ANY TRUE Liberal. Or should be. But there's damn few TRUE Liberals left who HAVE that innate fear of Fed powers being abused by meglo power whores..

Let's pray that YOUR fears of the current Admin leading to tyranny and abuse don't happen either. What would YOU do --- if it did?????

I don't fear the current Admin leading to tyranny and abuse (or no more than usual). What made you think that? Are you mixing me up with someone else?

There is no way to defend against our military with our AR's!!!. Be realistic. To win a tussle with our government, we would have to ally with China or someone, like we allied with the French to win the Revolution.

Unless you find tyrants that wants to turn Topeka into Raqqua Syria, there's a different definition of "winning" here. It's much more of perception thing. Something to keep sociopaths like Ms Clinton from acting out her fantasies of purging the deplorable, backwards, idiotic, retarded citizenry.. And make those polarized zealots think twice about about a face down with 40 million armed citizens..

It's about respect. And making sure we have Leaders with some HUMILITY about serving in office and WIELDING that massive power that you don't think can be defeated..

 

[danielpalos]

lol. Our federal Constitution says nothing about natural rights.

It does not matter, as far as the topic of this thread goes.

We are discussing the 2nd amendment. That is a part of the US Constitution. And state laws cannot override the US Constitution.

yes; it must matter. There is nothing to override in our federal Constitution.

In a discussion of the 2nd amendment, state constitutions do not matter. They cannot address the 2nd amendment.

But at least you, apparently, figured out that the state constitutions are secondary to the US Constitution. So at least you learned something.

lol. it doesn't matter because natural rights are in our State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Of course it matters. The entire topic is the 2nd amendment. State constitutions and "natural rights" are irrelevant in this conversation.

the People is plural and collective. There are no Individual terms in our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

this thread is mostly right wing fantasy, not valid argumentation.

Lies don’t become truth simply because you keep saying them.

it is why, I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies; whenever this issue comes up.

You keep repeating a lie over and over and you do exactly what a liar always does, claim that you don't lie. No one here believes anything you say save for other left wing liars.

The people are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole people are declared Necessary.

The militia is necessary. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

well regulated militia is necessary. not all of the people are well regulated.

 

[WinterBorn]

It does not matter, as far as the topic of this thread goes.

We are discussing the 2nd amendment. That is a part of the US Constitution. And state laws cannot override the US Constitution.

yes; it must matter. There is nothing to override in our federal Constitution.

In a discussion of the 2nd amendment, state constitutions do not matter. They cannot address the 2nd amendment.

But at least you, apparently, figured out that the state constitutions are secondary to the US Constitution. So at least you learned something.

lol. it doesn't matter because natural rights are in our State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Of course it matters. The entire topic is the 2nd amendment. State constitutions and "natural rights" are irrelevant in this conversation.

the People is plural and collective. There are no Individual terms in our federal Constitution.

The phrase "the right" is singular, and the constitution preserves it for all people. I have never seen any rational constitutional scholar claim the 2nd amendment (or the 1st and 4th amendments were collective rights). The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to guarantee the rights of the citizens are preserved.

 

[WinterBorn]

Lies don’t become truth simply because you keep saying them.

it is why, I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies; whenever this issue comes up.

You keep repeating a lie over and over and you do exactly what a liar always does, claim that you don't lie. No one here believes anything you say save for other left wing liars.

The people are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole people are declared Necessary.

The militia is necessary. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

well regulated militia is necessary. not all of the people are well regulated.

What sort of regulations do you suggest? Disarming the population?

 

[Ame®icano]

Not the point. YOu have claimed that state laws and constitutions override the US Constitution. And that is blatantly false. Where the two conflict, the US Constitution wins.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

When there is a conflict between state constitutions and the US Constitutions, the US Constitution is the law of the land and wins. I have shown you the Supremacy Clause which states that outright. I have given you examples of it. And all youhave done is insist that state constitutions are the law of the land. No proof, no evidence and no examples. You just keep saying it.

show me where natural rights are declared secured in our federal Constitution.

Why do they have to be secured by the US Constitution?

US Constitution protects individual rights and limits federal government powers against those individual rights, i.e. rights of the people.

so you agree that Roe v Wade and Brown v Bd of Ed are correct then?

I don't see how that is related to the OP, that you didn't even care to reply to.

I agree that they were both unconstitutional.