Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

danielpalos,
A few years ago the US supreme court conceded that the right to keep and bear arms was related to individuals - just like all the other enumerated rights in the bill of rights.

The right to keep and bear arms is for every individual and not dependent on service within a militia.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; we have a Ninth and Tenth Amendment.
Simply appealing to authority instead of reason is still a fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

did y'all run out of attention when reading my wall of text for that Purpose?

Simply because Only well regulated militias under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

It really is that simple, except to the Right.

 

[pauls]

did y'all run out of attention when reading my wall of text for that Purpose?

Simply because Only well regulated militias under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

It really is that simple, except to the Right.

Who defends against a tyrannical state?
Who defends against criminals?
Man has at least the same right to defend himself as animals.
Militias are composed of the People in whole.
Militias have no rights, as a collective they have only duty and honor.
Every right enumerated in the bill of rights is an individual right of the people.
What part of "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

 

[danielpalos]

did y'all run out of attention when reading my wall of text for that Purpose?

Simply because Only well regulated militias under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

It really is that simple, except to the Right.

Who defends against a tyrannical state?
Who defends against criminals?
Man has at least the same right to defend himself as animals.
Militias are composed of the People in whole.
Militias have no rights, as a collective they have only duty and honor.
Every right enumerated in the bill of rights is an individual right of the people.
What part of "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

I understand it, i merely don't appeal to ignorance of the first clause: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State
How do you explain the Intent and Purpose of that law?

 

[pauls]

I just did! Because a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, (and the militia is composed of the people) the right of the people to keep and bear arms (not the militia but the people) shall not be infringed.
You see, when the people are called to serve as the militia they are supposed to bring their own arms and ammunition that are equal to what is in common use by the military at the time. Without the individual right to keep and bear arms they cannot perform as a militia.

Now a question for you; How are you supposed to defend yourself, your family and your possessions from crime?

 

[danielpalos]

I just did! Because a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, (and the militia is composed of the people) the right of the people to keep and bear arms (not the militia but the people) shall not be infringed.
You see, when the people are called to serve as the militia they are supposed to bring their own arms and ammunition that are equal to what is in common use by the military at the time. Without the individual right to keep and bear arms they cannot perform as a militia.

Now a question for you; How are you supposed to defend yourself, your family and your possessions from crime?

all you did was appeal to ignorance of the first clause of that law.

I merely don't appeal to ignorance of the first clause: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State
How do you explain the Intent and Purpose of that law?

did y'all run out of attention when reading my wall of text for that Purpose?

Simply because Only well regulated militias under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It really is that simple, except to the Right.

 

[pauls]

You can't even address one simple question.
Who defends the individual?

 

[danielpalos]

You can't even address one simple question.
Who defends the individual?

You have nothing but fallacy for your Cause.

Those rights are secured in State Constitutions:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

[pauls]

Rights are only secured by individuals. Government aspire to control people only by defending their rights are they in possession of them.

 

[2aguy]

did y'all run out of attention when reading my wall of text for that Purpose?

Simply because Only well regulated militias under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

It really is that simple, except to the Right.

Who defends against a tyrannical state?
Who defends against criminals?
Man has at least the same right to defend himself as animals.
Militias are composed of the People in whole.
Militias have no rights, as a collective they have only duty and honor.
Every right enumerated in the bill of rights is an individual right of the people.
What part of "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

I understand it, i merely don't appeal to ignorance of the first clause: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State
How do you explain the Intent and Purpose of that law?

Because you have to read the rest......."The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[danielpalos]

did y'all run out of attention when reading my wall of text for that Purpose?

Simply because Only well regulated militias under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

It really is that simple, except to the Right.

Who defends against a tyrannical state?
Who defends against criminals?
Man has at least the same right to defend himself as animals.
Militias are composed of the People in whole.
Militias have no rights, as a collective they have only duty and honor.
Every right enumerated in the bill of rights is an individual right of the people.
What part of "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

I understand it, i merely don't appeal to ignorance of the first clause: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State
How do you explain the Intent and Purpose of that law?

Because you have to read the rest......."The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I always read all of the law in question. I do not appeal to ignorance of any of it, such as the first clause-unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

 

[danielpalos]

Rights are only secured by individuals. Government aspire to control people only by defending their rights are they in possession of them.

simply appealing to ignorance of the law?

States have rights secured by our Tenth Amendment.

 

[pauls]

I believe that danielpalos is a bot.
It can't understand a question so it spouts the same programmed lines.
It picks words in a message that dictate responses.
Let's see what it does with this...

2nd amendment

 

[danielpalos]

i believe those of the opposing view don't have a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

 

[pauls]

What is a constitutional clue?

 

[danielpalos]

What is a constitutional clue?

Resorting to Constitutional terms when stringing your random words together to attempt to advance your arguments.

 

[pauls]

You used the term, please explain it.

 

[danielpalos]

dude, i don't have to make stuff up with unsound lines of reasoning because I use language found in our Constitution, not hearsay and soothsay, like most of those of your point of view.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"There is no appeal to ignorance of the law..."

Which is what you do when you malign the 2nd amendment with your bullshit. The right to keep and bear arms IS the law. Get over it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Rights are only secured by individuals. Government aspire to control people only by defending their rights are they in possession of them.

simply appealing to ignorance of the law?

States have rights secured by our Tenth Amendment.

Where does it say in the Tenth Amendment the word "rights"? It doesn't. It says powers. There's not such thing as states's rights.