The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

Then answer this one.

In 1903 they made the Dick Act.

Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.

They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?

Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?

The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".

So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.

Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.

damn you're one dumb MF. Why don't women have this same right? or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age

Again, your argument is an insult.

Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.

how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity

lol. it is in our Second Amendment. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills

Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.

 

[turtledude]

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?

Means nothing since our Second Amendment is not a Constitution Unto itself. But, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

there is that error in your programming again . Its called the second amendment , troll, not the second ARTICLE of Amendment. Have your programmer PM Me and I will explain it to him

 

[turtledude]

damn you're one dumb MF. Why don't women have this same right? or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age

Again, your argument is an insult.

Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.

how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity

lol. it is in our Second Amendment. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills

Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.

you have admitted, several times you don't have a law degree, and your use of English is n affected erroneous version which demonstrates your programmer is not a native speaker

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

Means nothing since our Second Amendment is not a Constitution Unto itself. But, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

there is that error in your programming again . Its called the second amendment , troll, not the second ARTICLE of Amendment. Have your programmer PM Me and I will explain it to him

You're wasting your time with DP

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Means nothing since our Second Amendment is not a Constitution Unto itself. But, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

there is that error in your programming again . Its called the second amendment , troll, not the second ARTICLE of Amendment. Have your programmer PM Me and I will explain it to him

Yes, it is the Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

Only the clueless and the Causeless, don't know that.

 

[danielpalos]

Again, your argument is an insult.

Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.

how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity

lol. it is in our Second Amendment. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills

Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.

you have admitted, several times you don't have a law degree, and your use of English is n affected erroneous version which demonstrates your programmer is not a native speaker

I also don't resort to fallacies, unlike the right wing.

 

[turtledude]

how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity

lol. it is in our Second Amendment. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills

Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.

you have admitted, several times you don't have a law degree, and your use of English is n affected erroneous version which demonstrates your programmer is not a native speaker

I also don't resort to fallacies, unlike the right wing.

I don't like resorting to artificial intelligence programs masquerading as posters.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

Wow talk about the moby dick of red herrings

lol. Not enough morals to go around in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the incorrigibles?

We would not need as much government, if the right were as moral as they claim, and insisted on Only the Cost, of Ten simple Commandments.

/----/ "...." That makes no sense even by a dim bulb like you.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. it is in our Second Amendment. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills

Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.

you have admitted, several times you don't have a law degree, and your use of English is n affected erroneous version which demonstrates your programmer is not a native speaker

I also don't resort to fallacies, unlike the right wing.

I don't like resorting to artificial intelligence programs masquerading as posters.

I have a valid argument and don't resort to fallacies; see the difference.

Thanks for ceding the point and the argument, You couldn't come up with.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Wow talk about the moby dick of red herrings

lol. Not enough morals to go around in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the incorrigibles?

We would not need as much government, if the right were as moral as they claim, and insisted on Only the Cost, of Ten simple Commandments.

/----/ "...." That makes no sense even by a dim bulb like you.

Are you on the right wing?

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

Then answer this one.

In 1903 they made the Dick Act.

Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.

They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?

Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?

The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".

So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.

Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.

damn you're one dumb MF. Why don't women have this same right? or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age

Again, your argument is an insult.

Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.

how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity

lol. it is in our Second Amendment. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

/-------/ "Only well regulated militia" Please point out the word ONLY in the 2nd Amendment and I'll turn in my gun at the next buy back program.
"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]

Then answer this one.

In 1903 they made the Dick Act.

Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.

They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?

Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?

The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".

So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.

Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.

damn you're one dumb MF. Why don't women have this same right? or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age

Again, your argument is an insult.

Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.

how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity

lol. it is in our Second Amendment. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

/-------/ "Only well regulated militia" Please point out the word ONLY in the 2nd Amendment and I'll turn in my gun at the next buy back program.
"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."

Our Constitution is one of limited and express powers.

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, nowhere is it claimed, the unorganized militia is as necessary.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ 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.

Wow talk about the moby dick of red herrings

lol. Not enough morals to go around in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the incorrigibles?

We would not need as much government, if the right were as moral as they claim, and insisted on Only the Cost, of Ten simple Commandments.

/----/ "...." That makes no sense even by a dim bulb like you.

Are you on the right wing?

/----/ Is English your second language? It doesn't make you a bad person if it is, just difficult to communicate with.

 

[Cellblock2429]

damn you're one dumb MF. Why don't women have this same right? or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age

Again, your argument is an insult.

Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.

how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity

lol. it is in our Second Amendment. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

/-------/ "Only well regulated militia" Please point out the word ONLY in the 2nd Amendment and I'll turn in my gun at the next buy back program.
"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."

Our Constitution is one of limited and express powers.

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, nowhere is it claimed, the unorganized militia is as necessary.

/----/ Who is calling for an unorganized militia? And I still don't see the word ONLY anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Wow talk about the moby dick of red herrings

lol. Not enough morals to go around in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the incorrigibles?

We would not need as much government, if the right were as moral as they claim, and insisted on Only the Cost, of Ten simple Commandments.

/----/ "...." That makes no sense even by a dim bulb like you.

Are you on the right wing?

/----/ Is English your second language? It doesn't make you a bad person if it is, just difficult to communicate with.

Only Original Sinners in Nexus 6, are that clueless and that Causeless.


lol. Not enough morals to go around in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the incorrigibles?

We would not need as much government, if the right were as moral as they claim, and insisted on Only the Cost, of Ten simple Commandments.

 

[danielpalos]

Again, your argument is an insult.

Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.

how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity

lol. it is in our Second Amendment. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.

/-------/ "Only well regulated militia" Please point out the word ONLY in the 2nd Amendment and I'll turn in my gun at the next buy back program.
"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."

Our Constitution is one of limited and express powers.

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, nowhere is it claimed, the unorganized militia is as necessary.

/----/ Who is calling for an unorganized militia? And I still don't see the word ONLY anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless.

I don't see any mention of the unorganized militia as being necessary to the security of a free State, only well regulated militia.

 

[ChrisL]

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

Wow talk about the moby dick of red herrings

lol. Not enough morals to go around in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the incorrigibles?

We would not need as much government, if the right were as moral as they claim, and insisted on Only the Cost, of Ten simple Commandments.

/----/ "...." That makes no sense even by a dim bulb like you.

Are you on the right wing?

/----/ Is English your second language? It doesn't make you a bad person if it is, just difficult to communicate with.

You are just wasting your time. The poster is apparently mentally challenged and will not understand so you are better off ignoring him.

 

[Redfish]

If guns were banned, only criminals and the government would have guns. Would that make you libs sleep better?

 

[ChrisL]

If guns were banned, only criminals and the government would have guns. Would that make you libs sleep better?

Probably. The liberals love their government caretakers or mommies. Really, if they need or want a baby sitter, by all means, but they shouldn't think the rest of us do. The rest of us are responsible adults who want to take care of ourselves.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The second amendment and the right to self defense are a couple of the most important FOUNDING PRINCIPLES of this country. If you don't like freedom, then there are plenty of other countries that have governments that you can gladly surrender your rights to for a false sense of "safety." If you don't like freedom, then the solution is simple. MOVE.

So, where does it mention self defense in the US Constitution?

/
/----/ How about in the first paragraph: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,>>>>>>>>> provide for the common defense,<<<<<< promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence.

And there is this: The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for people to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.[1]
If a defendant uses defensive force because of a threat of deadly or grievous harm by the other person, or a reasonable perception of such harm, the defendant is said to have a "perfect self-defense" justification.[2] If defendant uses defensive force because of such a perception, and the perception is not reasonable, the defendant may have an "imperfect self-defense" as an excuse.[2]

Any more questions?