The Right To Bear Arms

[hadit]

The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state. The people have the right. Not the militia. NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.

If you believe otherwise, cite your source.

Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.

The People are the Militia. What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?

You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?

You don't know what you are talking about. The supreme court said no such thing.

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.

Yes they did. Look it up.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state. The people have the right. Not the militia. NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.

If you believe otherwise, cite your source.

Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.

The People are the Militia. What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?

You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?

You don't know what you are talking about. The supreme court said no such thing.

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.

Yes they did. Look it up.

Nope; The Supreme Court merely fixed a Precedent for ignoring the "prefatory clause or paragraph", for the "operative clause or paragraph".

I believe they Only get away with it, Because they are (senior) Elders.

 

[turtledude]

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

you're a moron. you are too stupid to understand that a natural right that pre-exists government does not involve a "right" to serve the government

I predicted it, didn't I?

I said the insults would come.

How is it that I'm the moron?

I ask you about a historical document and you can't respond.

There's no way on this planet that you're a lawyer, no way on this planet that you go to law schools and talk about the Second Amendment.

Now go take your insults and FUCK OFF>

you're another low grade moron who wants to prove to himself he is smart so you post some irrelevant nonsense and pretend its intelligent. that document means nothing and the fact that you don't understand why, explains why you are so stupid

 

[turtledude]

The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state. The people have the right. Not the militia. NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.

If you believe otherwise, cite your source.

Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.

The People are the Militia. What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?

You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?

You don't know what you are talking about. The supreme court said no such thing.

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.

ah its DanielTrollus-the artificial intelligence program whose creator didn't quite get English down

 

[turtledude]

So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act. the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes

 

[turtledude]

And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed

You are incorrect. Again.

when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;

My right does not require state or union.

defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment

You are incorrect. Again.

Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary

The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.

Limited and express powers, dears. Only the right wing, never gets it.

you're a fraud, a troll and a liar DanielTrollus. You admitted many times on many forums you haven't any legal training. It shows. Stick to talking about soap operas, or something that you might know about

 

[turtledude]

Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.

It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.

You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He is arguing with several voices in his head.

I used to be bipolar; the right wing is so full of fallacy, I had to argue with myself. Now I have a "dual core" processor. Thanks, right wingers.

I told people you were an AI Program!!

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state. The people have the right. Not the militia. NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.

If you believe otherwise, cite your source.

Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.

The People are the Militia. What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?

You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?

You don't know what you are talking about. The supreme court said no such thing.

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.

ah its DanielTrollus-the artificial intelligence program whose creator didn't quite get English down

Nothing but continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacies from the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act. the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes

You have to be banned from the militia. It is a "natural right you are born with"; to Be, the Militia of your State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed

You are incorrect. Again.

when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;

My right does not require state or union.

defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment

You are incorrect. Again.

Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary

The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.

Limited and express powers, dears. Only the right wing, never gets it.

you're a fraud, a troll and a liar DanielTrollus. You admitted many times on many forums you haven't any legal training. It shows. Stick to talking about soap operas, or something that you might know about

too bad You are on the right wing, and this is not, one of your, twice a day moments.

Limited and express powers, dears. Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.

It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.

You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He is arguing with several voices in his head.

I used to be bipolar; the right wing is so full of fallacy, I had to argue with myself. Now I have a "dual core" processor. Thanks, right wingers.

I told people you were an AI Program!!

Yes, you have. Nothing but diversions instead of valid argument; it really is all the right wing has.

 

[hadit]

I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state. The people have the right. Not the militia. NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.

If you believe otherwise, cite your source.

Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.

The People are the Militia. What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?

You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?

You don't know what you are talking about. The supreme court said no such thing.

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.

Yes they did. Look it up.

Nope; The Supreme Court merely fixed a Precedent for ignoring the "prefatory clause or paragraph", for the "operative clause or paragraph".

I believe they Only get away with it, Because they are (senior) Elders.

So, they disagree with you and you hold your opinion to be superior to theirs.

IOW, you're wrong, you know you're wrong, but you're doubling down on being wrong.

 

[hadit]

That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.

It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.

You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He is arguing with several voices in his head.

I used to be bipolar; the right wing is so full of fallacy, I had to argue with myself. Now I have a "dual core" processor. Thanks, right wingers.

I told people you were an AI Program!!

Watch the incoherence increase to a state of virtual chaos when he paints himself into a corner. Then he stops, goes away for a few weeks, and comes back, pretending that nothing happened.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.

It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.

You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He is arguing with several voices in his head.

I used to be bipolar; the right wing is so full of fallacy, I had to argue with myself. Now I have a "dual core" processor. Thanks, right wingers.

I told people you were an AI Program!!

Watch the incoherence increase to a state of virtual chaos when he paints himself into a corner. Then he stops, goes away for a few weeks, and comes back, pretending that nothing happened.

Nope; The Supreme Court merely fixed a Precedent for ignoring the "prefatory clause or paragraph", for the "operative clause or paragraph".

Paragraph (2) Only applies to the unorganized militia when they are considered, "civilians" unconnected with militia service, well regulated.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Well regulated Militia of the People of a State or the Union, enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

 

[Cellblock2429]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.

An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.

There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).

All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?

/----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."

 

[danielpalos]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.

An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.

There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).

All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?

/----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."

then, dears, get some social morals for free and stop whining about taxes.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state. The people have the right. Not the militia. NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.

If you believe otherwise, cite your source.

Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.

The People are the Militia. What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?

You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?

You don't know what you are talking about. The supreme court said no such thing.

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.

/----/ It's settled science -- err I mean settled law:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state. The people have the right. Not the militia. NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.

If you believe otherwise, cite your source.

Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.

The People are the Militia. What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?

You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?

You don't know what you are talking about. The supreme court said no such thing.

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.

/----/ It's settled science -- err I mean settled law:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

That can Only happen in a vacuum of special pleading. Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; it is a part of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.

The subject of Arms for the Militia is enumerated, Socialized, for the Militia of the United States:

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;

Well regulated Militias of the United States get their wellness of regulation prescribed by our federal Congress.

 

[hadit]

I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state. The people have the right. Not the militia. NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.

If you believe otherwise, cite your source.

Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.

The People are the Militia. What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?

You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?

You don't know what you are talking about. The supreme court said no such thing.

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.

/----/ It's settled science -- err I mean settled law:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

That can Only happen in a vacuum of special pleading. Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; it is a part of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.

The subject of Arms for the Militia is enumerated, Socialized, for the Militia of the United States:

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;

Well regulated Militias of the United States get their wellness of regulation prescribed by our federal Congress.

And the incoherence rises, soon to be followed by diversion and a sudden departure.

 

[Papageorgio]

And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed

You are incorrect. Again.

when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;

My right does not require state or union.

defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment

You are incorrect. Again.

Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

Where in the Second Amendment does it use the word "only"?

It says, "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.

Notice the comma after the word State? It means an independent clause or statement.

The Supreme Court has on many occasions has upheld the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because that is the correct reading of the 2nd Amendment.

Express and Limited powers. Only well regulated militia of the People are Necessary, and shall not be Infringed as a result.

The comma in the statement says you are misinterpreting the Constitution, do you have anything other than your same old canned responses that have been proven through the Supreme Court as being wrong?