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

[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?

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.

If the 2nd amendment is not about natural rights, why do you continually bring up natural rights in a thread about the 2nd amendment?

 

[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.

And? You keep saying that. But it has no bearing on the topic.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

it matters since it eliminates a reason for natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Why not learn more about what we are debating?

the militia; why not look it 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?

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.

If the 2nd amendment is not about natural rights, why do you continually bring up natural rights in a thread about the 2nd amendment?

Why does the right wing spam claiming there are natural and individual rights in our federal Constitution, and especially our Second Amendment.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

it matters since it eliminates a reason for natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

The US Constitution provides a list of basic rights for all our citizens. Natural laws are not what matters. And we are not 50 individual nations with 50 individual governments.

State constitutions provide what they provide. But they do so under the US Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

And? You keep saying that. But it has no bearing on the topic.

yes, it does. natural rights are in State Constitutions not our federal Constitution, for quibbling purposes.

Y'all are simply, full of fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

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?

it matters since it eliminates a reason for natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

The US Constitution provides a list of basic rights for all our citizens. Natural laws are not what matters. And we are not 50 individual nations with 50 individual governments.

State constitutions provide what they provide. But they do so under the US Constitution.

lol. you don't know what you are talking about; like usual for the right wing. just make it up.

How did Dred Scott happen?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Why not learn more about what we are debating?

the militia; why not look it up.

I don't need to look it up. I know what is required to police our streets. Pulling armed civilians in and setting them out there to write tickets and make drug busts is not what the 2nd amendment is about.

You have bounced all over the place trying to oppose the 2nd amendment. From claiming "people" means a collective right, that the SCOTUS ruling in DC v. Heller is both judicial activism and proof of your assertions, to going on and on about natural rights and claiming that the US Constitution can be overruled by the state constitutions.

You have been wrong every step of the may.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

And? You keep saying that. But it has no bearing on the topic.

yes, it does. natural rights are in State Constitutions not our federal Constitution, for quibbling purposes.

Y'all are simply, full of fallacy.

Horseshit. Exactly what are these "natural rights" that you claim do not exist in the US Constitution, but in the state constitutions and are the supreme law? Tell us, exactly. No more vague nonsense.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

it matters since it eliminates a reason for natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

The US Constitution provides a list of basic rights for all our citizens. Natural laws are not what matters. And we are not 50 individual nations with 50 individual governments.

State constitutions provide what they provide. But they do so under the US Constitution.

lol. you don't know what you are talking about; like usual for the right wing. just make it up.

How did Dred Scott happen?

How did Dred Scott happen? The SCOTUS made a ruling. That was opposed and through steps outlines in the US Constitution, it was overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.

What role did any state constitution or "natural rights" in those constitutions play in Dred Scott being removed?

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

it matters since it eliminates a reason for natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

So you are contending that the existence of natural and individual rights in the 50 different constitutions of the 50 states eliminates the reason for natural and individual rights in the US Constitutions? WTF?? So, under your ideal, if the people of Texas voted to reinstate slavery, the 14th amendment of the US Constitution would not overrule that?

Dude, you need help with your history and reading comprehension.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Why not learn more about what we are debating?

the militia; why not look it up.

I don't need to look it up. I know what is required to police our streets. Pulling armed civilians in and setting them out there to write tickets and make drug busts is not what the 2nd amendment is about.

You have bounced all over the place trying to oppose the 2nd amendment. From claiming "people" means a collective right, that the SCOTUS ruling in DC v. Heller is both judicial activism and proof of your assertions, to going on and on about natural rights and claiming that the US Constitution can be overruled by the state constitutions.

You have been wrong every step of the may.

no, you don't. you only know how to tell, tall stories.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

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.

And? You keep saying that. But it has no bearing on the topic.

yes, it does. natural rights are in State Constitutions not our federal Constitution, for quibbling purposes.

Y'all are simply, full of fallacy.

Horseshit. Exactly what are these "natural rights" that you claim do not exist in the US Constitution, but in the state constitutions and are the supreme law? Tell us, exactly. No more vague nonsense.

They are in State Constitutions.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

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

it matters since it eliminates a reason for natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

The US Constitution provides a list of basic rights for all our citizens. Natural laws are not what matters. And we are not 50 individual nations with 50 individual governments.

State constitutions provide what they provide. But they do so under the US Constitution.

lol. you don't know what you are talking about; like usual for the right wing. just make it up.

How did Dred Scott happen?

How did Dred Scott happen? The SCOTUS made a ruling. That was opposed and through steps outlines in the US Constitution, it was overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.

What role did any state constitution or "natural rights" in those constitutions play in Dred Scott being removed?

yet, the right wing claims there are Individual and natural rights in our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

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?

it matters since it eliminates a reason for natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

So you are contending that the existence of natural and individual rights in the 50 different constitutions of the 50 states eliminates the reason for natural and individual rights in the US Constitutions? WTF?? So, under your ideal, if the people of Texas voted to reinstate slavery, the 14th amendment of the US Constitution would not overrule that?

Dude, you need help with your history and reading comprehension.

Our Second Amendment is clear about what is necessary to the security of a free State. It is not about the whole and entire concept of Individual and natural rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Why not learn more about what we are debating?

the militia; why not look it up.

I don't need to look it up. I know what is required to police our streets. Pulling armed civilians in and setting them out there to write tickets and make drug busts is not what the 2nd amendment is about.

You have bounced all over the place trying to oppose the 2nd amendment. From claiming "people" means a collective right, that the SCOTUS ruling in DC v. Heller is both judicial activism and proof of your assertions, to going on and on about natural rights and claiming that the US Constitution can be overruled by the state constitutions.

You have been wrong every step of the may.

no, you don't. you only know how to tell, tall stories.

Yeah? What tall stories have I told? Come on, answer this question straight.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

And? You keep saying that. But it has no bearing on the topic.

yes, it does. natural rights are in State Constitutions not our federal Constitution, for quibbling purposes.

Y'all are simply, full of fallacy.

Horseshit. Exactly what are these "natural rights" that you claim do not exist in the US Constitution, but in the state constitutions and are the supreme law? Tell us, exactly. No more vague nonsense.

They are in State Constitutions.

Lots of things are in state constitutions, including the details on how to elect officials, who outranks who, ect.

Tell us what these natural rights are that are in state constitutions but not the US Constitution.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

it matters since it eliminates a reason for natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

The US Constitution provides a list of basic rights for all our citizens. Natural laws are not what matters. And we are not 50 individual nations with 50 individual governments.

State constitutions provide what they provide. But they do so under the US Constitution.

lol. you don't know what you are talking about; like usual for the right wing. just make it up.

How did Dred Scott happen?

How did Dred Scott happen? The SCOTUS made a ruling. That was opposed and through steps outlines in the US Constitution, it was overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.

What role did any state constitution or "natural rights" in those constitutions play in Dred Scott being removed?

yet, the right wing claims there are Individual and natural rights in our federal Constitution.

I see you refuse to answer the question, yet again.

I said the US Constitution is over the state constitutions. Your reply was to ask how Dred Scott happened.

I answered and asked what role the state constitution and "natural rights" played in overturning Dred Scott. Can you answer that question or not?

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

it matters since it eliminates a reason for natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

So you are contending that the existence of natural and individual rights in the 50 different constitutions of the 50 states eliminates the reason for natural and individual rights in the US Constitutions? WTF?? So, under your ideal, if the people of Texas voted to reinstate slavery, the 14th amendment of the US Constitution would not overrule that?

Dude, you need help with your history and reading comprehension.

Our Second Amendment is clear about what is necessary to the security of a free State. It is not about the whole and entire concept of Individual and natural rights.

No one ever said it was about the whole and entire concept of individual and natural rights. No one.

But it IS about the right to keep and bear arms. And it is about that right being for the people, meaning all the citizens.