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

[WinterBorn]

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.

they must be; the Term, People is employed, and that Term is Collective and Plural.

That simply means the right (singular) is for more than one person.

the Term, People is employed, and that Term is Collective and Plural; every time this issue comes up.

Correct. Because the right is for more than one person.

plural or collective?

The right is for the people, so plural. Just like the 1st and 4th amendments.

 

[WinterBorn]

It seems you believe you're only one here that understand the constitution, and that everyone else is wrong.

According to the Constitution itself, the SCOTUS ruling, and so many posters here, you're swimming upstream.

Now, stop watering down the thread and stay on topic. If you don't know what it means, check the dictionary.

I am the resorting to the fewest fallacies; that makes me, "the most holy and most moral" for this purpose.

That is absolute bullshit. YOu have posted several times that state constitutions can override the US Constitution, even after being shown the Supremacy Clause and being given examples of when the US Constitution overruled a state constitution.

So either you are posting fallacies or you are lying. Either way removes your "most holy and most moral" title.

You are simply clueless and Causeless, and simply appeal to ignorance; as is habit and wont, for right wingers.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; why would natural rights need to be recognized in our federal Constitution, when they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via due process?

Clueless & Causeless? That is simply nonsense.

The right for people to keep and bear arms is spelled out in the US Constitution. Whether "natural rights" are in the state constitutions or not is irrelevant to the topic. They cannot override the US Constitution. You continuing to argue this point shows you are clueless to how our system actually works.

How many people are not citizens in the several States, for common law for common defense purposes?

It doesn't matter. If the US Constitution applies to them, the 2nd amendment applies to them.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

lol. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We can always use, better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia in our free States.

I am perfectly willing to bring my guns to join a militia and be well regulated, if the need arises. That is all that is required.

muster the militia until crime goes down!

The militia, like the military, is not a police force.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

If you know anything about the militia of the early years of our country, you would know I am right. Whether you take me seriously or not doesn't matter.

 

[WinterBorn]

It seems you believe you're only one here that understand the constitution, and that everyone else is wrong.

According to the Constitution itself, the SCOTUS ruling, and so many posters here, you're swimming upstream.

Now, stop watering down the thread and stay on topic. If you don't know what it means, check the dictionary.

I am the resorting to the fewest fallacies; that makes me, "the most holy and most moral" for this purpose.

That is absolute bullshit. YOu have posted several times that state constitutions can override the US Constitution, even after being shown the Supremacy Clause and being given examples of when the US Constitution overruled a state constitution.

So either you are posting fallacies or you are lying. Either way removes your "most holy and most moral" title.

You are simply clueless and Causeless, and simply appeal to ignorance; as is habit and wont, for right wingers.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; why would natural rights need to be recognized in our federal Constitution, when they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via due process?

YOur continued attempts to bring "natural law" and state constitutions into a discussion of the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution is either an attempt at diversion or a sign of your cluelessness of how our system works. I'll let you pick which one.

you are simply ignorant of our form of federal government.

Oh? Please show any evidence that I am wrong and you are right.

If a state constitution is in conflict with the US Constitution, the state constitution is ruled unconstitutional. In other words, the state laws must conform to the US Constitution. Period. End of discussion. It was this way with Equal Rights, with Same Sex Marriage and on numerous other subjects.

 

[danielpalos]

they must be; the Term, People is employed, and that Term is Collective and Plural.

That simply means the right (singular) is for more than one person.

the Term, People is employed, and that Term is Collective and Plural; every time this issue comes up.

Correct. Because the right is for more than one person.

plural or collective?

The right is for the people, so plural. Just like the 1st and 4th amendments.

We are quibbling. Plural and collective, every time it comes up.

 

[danielpalos]

I am the resorting to the fewest fallacies; that makes me, "the most holy and most moral" for this purpose.

That is absolute bullshit. YOu have posted several times that state constitutions can override the US Constitution, even after being shown the Supremacy Clause and being given examples of when the US Constitution overruled a state constitution.

So either you are posting fallacies or you are lying. Either way removes your "most holy and most moral" title.

You are simply clueless and Causeless, and simply appeal to ignorance; as is habit and wont, for right wingers.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; why would natural rights need to be recognized in our federal Constitution, when they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via due process?

Clueless & Causeless? That is simply nonsense.

The right for people to keep and bear arms is spelled out in the US Constitution. Whether "natural rights" are in the state constitutions or not is irrelevant to the topic. They cannot override the US Constitution. You continuing to argue this point shows you are clueless to how our system actually works.

How many people are not citizens in the several States, for common law for common defense purposes?

It doesn't matter. If the US Constitution applies to them, the 2nd amendment applies to them.

No, it doesn't. It has to be a federal issue.

 

[WinterBorn]

That simply means the right (singular) is for more than one person.

the Term, People is employed, and that Term is Collective and Plural; every time this issue comes up.

Correct. Because the right is for more than one person.

plural or collective?

The right is for the people, so plural. Just like the 1st and 4th amendments.

We are quibbling. Plural and collective, every time it comes up.

I am not quibbling, I am correcting you. Just because it is plural does not mean it is a collective right. A large group of people can have individual rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

That is absolute bullshit. YOu have posted several times that state constitutions can override the US Constitution, even after being shown the Supremacy Clause and being given examples of when the US Constitution overruled a state constitution.

So either you are posting fallacies or you are lying. Either way removes your "most holy and most moral" title.

You are simply clueless and Causeless, and simply appeal to ignorance; as is habit and wont, for right wingers.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; why would natural rights need to be recognized in our federal Constitution, when they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via due process?

Clueless & Causeless? That is simply nonsense.

The right for people to keep and bear arms is spelled out in the US Constitution. Whether "natural rights" are in the state constitutions or not is irrelevant to the topic. They cannot override the US Constitution. You continuing to argue this point shows you are clueless to how our system actually works.

How many people are not citizens in the several States, for common law for common defense purposes?

It doesn't matter. If the US Constitution applies to them, the 2nd amendment applies to them.

No, it doesn't. It has to be a federal issue.

No it does not. That is absolutely wrong.

The amendment that applies to same sex marriage is in the US Constitution. But it applies to state marriage licenses.

No state constitution can override the US Constitution. The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution cannot be overruled by a state constitution. That is simply a fact.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We can always use, better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia in our free States.

I am perfectly willing to bring my guns to join a militia and be well regulated, if the need arises. That is all that is required.

muster the militia until crime goes down!

The militia, like the military, is not a police force.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

If you know anything about the militia of the early years of our country, you would know I am right. Whether you take me seriously or not doesn't matter.

lol. You have to know something about history and Constitutional law.

this is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment.

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.

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."

 

[danielpalos]

the Term, People is employed, and that Term is Collective and Plural; every time this issue comes up.

Correct. Because the right is for more than one person.

plural or collective?

The right is for the people, so plural. Just like the 1st and 4th amendments.

We are quibbling. Plural and collective, every time it comes up.

I am not quibbling, I am correcting you. Just because it is plural does not mean it is a collective right. A large group of people can have individual rights.

words have meaning. why did our Founding Fathers gainsay the right wing, with the express terms enumerated?

 

[WinterBorn]

I am perfectly willing to bring my guns to join a militia and be well regulated, if the need arises. That is all that is required.

muster the militia until crime goes down!

The militia, like the military, is not a police force.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

If you know anything about the militia of the early years of our country, you would know I am right. Whether you take me seriously or not doesn't matter.

lol. You have to know something about history and Constitutional law.

this is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment.

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.

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."

And yet, no state can take the rights of the 2nd amendment away. Regulation is allowed, to an extent. But not removal.

 

[WinterBorn]

Correct. Because the right is for more than one person.

plural or collective?

The right is for the people, so plural. Just like the 1st and 4th amendments.

We are quibbling. Plural and collective, every time it comes up.

I am not quibbling, I am correcting you. Just because it is plural does not mean it is a collective right. A large group of people can have individual rights.

words have meaning. why did our Founding Fathers gainsay the right wing, with the express terms enumerated?

Yes, words do have meaning. The word "people" means more than one person. It does not mean a collective.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

4th amendment

all of them refer to our Body Politic, as distinct from the concept of natural rights.

It seems you believe you're only one here that understand the constitution, and that everyone else is wrong.

According to the Constitution itself, the SCOTUS ruling, and so many posters here, you're swimming upstream.

Now, stop watering down the thread and stay on topic. If you don't know what it means, check the dictionary.

I am the resorting to the fewest fallacies; that makes me, "the most holy and most moral" for this purpose.

That is absolute bullshit. YOu have posted several times that state constitutions can override the US Constitution, even after being shown the Supremacy Clause and being given examples of when the US Constitution overruled a state constitution.

So either you are posting fallacies or you are lying. Either way removes your "most holy and most moral" title.

You are simply clueless and Causeless, and simply appeal to ignorance; as is habit and wont, for right wingers.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; why would natural rights need to be recognized in our federal Constitution, when they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via due process?

Because some states refuse to acknowledge those inalienable rights.

When the states seek to disadvantage American citizens through force of law, those citizens have the right to seek relief in the Federal courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to have those measures invalidated because they are repugnant to the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is absolute bullshit. YOu have posted several times that state constitutions can override the US Constitution, even after being shown the Supremacy Clause and being given examples of when the US Constitution overruled a state constitution.

So either you are posting fallacies or you are lying. Either way removes your "most holy and most moral" title.

You are simply clueless and Causeless, and simply appeal to ignorance; as is habit and wont, for right wingers.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; why would natural rights need to be recognized in our federal Constitution, when they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via due process?

Clueless & Causeless? That is simply nonsense.

The right for people to keep and bear arms is spelled out in the US Constitution. Whether "natural rights" are in the state constitutions or not is irrelevant to the topic. They cannot override the US Constitution. You continuing to argue this point shows you are clueless to how our system actually works.

How many people are not citizens in the several States, for common law for common defense purposes?

It doesn't matter. If the US Constitution applies to them, the 2nd amendment applies to them.

No, it doesn't. It has to be a federal issue.

Incorrect.

The Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.

State laws that regulate and place restrictions on firearms are subject to court challenges.

For example, the Florida law raising the minimum age to buy a gun is currently subject to a lawsuit.

 

[danielpalos]

muster the militia until crime goes down!

The militia, like the military, is not a police force.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

If you know anything about the militia of the early years of our country, you would know I am right. Whether you take me seriously or not doesn't matter.

lol. You have to know something about history and Constitutional law.

this is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment.

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.

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."

And yet, no state can take the rights of the 2nd amendment away. Regulation is allowed, to an extent. But not removal.

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

 

[danielpalos]

plural or collective?

The right is for the people, so plural. Just like the 1st and 4th amendments.

We are quibbling. Plural and collective, every time it comes up.

I am not quibbling, I am correcting you. Just because it is plural does not mean it is a collective right. A large group of people can have individual rights.

words have meaning. why did our Founding Fathers gainsay the right wing, with the express terms enumerated?

Yes, words do have meaning. The word "people" means more than one person. It does not mean a collective.

It means, plural and collective, every time the right wing brings up the concept of Individual and natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

all of them refer to our Body Politic, as distinct from the concept of natural rights.

It seems you believe you're only one here that understand the constitution, and that everyone else is wrong.

According to the Constitution itself, the SCOTUS ruling, and so many posters here, you're swimming upstream.

Now, stop watering down the thread and stay on topic. If you don't know what it means, check the dictionary.

I am the resorting to the fewest fallacies; that makes me, "the most holy and most moral" for this purpose.

That is absolute bullshit. YOu have posted several times that state constitutions can override the US Constitution, even after being shown the Supremacy Clause and being given examples of when the US Constitution overruled a state constitution.

So either you are posting fallacies or you are lying. Either way removes your "most holy and most moral" title.

You are simply clueless and Causeless, and simply appeal to ignorance; as is habit and wont, for right wingers.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; why would natural rights need to be recognized in our federal Constitution, when they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via due process?

Because some states refuse to acknowledge those inalienable rights.

When the states seek to disadvantage American citizens through force of law, those citizens have the right to seek relief in the Federal courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to have those measures invalidated because they are repugnant to the Constitution.

The point is, well regulated militia is declared Necessary to the security of a free State. That is what our Second Amendment is about, not natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

You are simply clueless and Causeless, and simply appeal to ignorance; as is habit and wont, for right wingers.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; why would natural rights need to be recognized in our federal Constitution, when they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via due process?

Clueless & Causeless? That is simply nonsense.

The right for people to keep and bear arms is spelled out in the US Constitution. Whether "natural rights" are in the state constitutions or not is irrelevant to the topic. They cannot override the US Constitution. You continuing to argue this point shows you are clueless to how our system actually works.

How many people are not citizens in the several States, for common law for common defense purposes?

It doesn't matter. If the US Constitution applies to them, the 2nd amendment applies to them.

No, it doesn't. It has to be a federal issue.

Incorrect.

The Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.

State laws that regulate and place restrictions on firearms are subject to court challenges.

For example, the Florida law raising the minimum age to buy a gun is currently subject to a lawsuit.

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State. We merely need, more well regulated militia to ensure crime drops.

 

[WinterBorn]

The militia, like the military, is not a police force.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

If you know anything about the militia of the early years of our country, you would know I am right. Whether you take me seriously or not doesn't matter.

lol. You have to know something about history and Constitutional law.

this is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment.

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.

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."

And yet, no state can take the rights of the 2nd amendment away. Regulation is allowed, to an extent. But not removal.

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

You keep saying that. Why do you think that matters?

 

[WinterBorn]

Clueless & Causeless? That is simply nonsense.

The right for people to keep and bear arms is spelled out in the US Constitution. Whether "natural rights" are in the state constitutions or not is irrelevant to the topic. They cannot override the US Constitution. You continuing to argue this point shows you are clueless to how our system actually works.

How many people are not citizens in the several States, for common law for common defense purposes?

It doesn't matter. If the US Constitution applies to them, the 2nd amendment applies to them.

No, it doesn't. It has to be a federal issue.

Incorrect.

The Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.

State laws that regulate and place restrictions on firearms are subject to court challenges.

For example, the Florida law raising the minimum age to buy a gun is currently subject to a lawsuit.

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State. We merely need, more well regulated militia to ensure crime drops.

So a military answer to crime? For how long? Until there is no crime?

The militia delineated in the US Constitution is about protecting and defending the nation. Not about police work.