The Right To Bear Arms

[Auld Phart]

It supports ALL of the states right.

ad hominems are usually considered fallacies not valid arguments.

how special, is that.

ad hom?

You implied the Second Amendment supports THIS states right.

I stated they all do


Which State does NOT support the Second?

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.

But municipalities and individuals also rely on the militia.
The fact municipalities usually call them posses and no term is used when individuals defend themselves, does not alter the fact they are still aspects of a militia.
Remember there were zero police back then.
Who do you think did keep the peace then?

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

no

they have the right to keep and bear arms PERIOD.

They don't need to do It for their State or the Union.

 

[Lesh]

it has Everything to do with Implication.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Stop derailing the thread

They have everything to do with our Second Amendment. There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
It does not matter why.
No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.

lol. it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.

Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia

 

[danielpalos]

That's not to say that the 2A in any bans anything. It simply doesn't apply outside the need for a weapon in a militia.

This is another of your lies.

Our supreme law of the land covers any conflict of laws. Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Auld Phart]

State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Stop derailing the thread

They have everything to do with our Second Amendment. There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
It does not matter why.
No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.

lol. it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.

Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia

Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia

uh...no.

if it did, women could not own firearms.

males under 16, or over the age of 45 could not own firearms, (57 in some states).

 

[danielpalos]

WHat I favor the banning of future sales of assault weapons and universal background checks

For no rational reason whatsoever.

I favor grabbing gun lovers not guns, and regulating them well. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[danielpalos]

no, it isn't. there is no implication for immigration. Our Constitution is express. Naturalization is not immigration.

There is no implication because naturalization is explicitly immigration. Naturalization is the only way a person can be a real immigrant. Otherwise they are just visiting, and can't vote, etc.

Naturalization is the Only express clause.

Well regulated militia and the security of a free State are express not implied.

Naturalization is the legal process by which one immigrates.
So they refer explicitly to the same thing, and are only different synonyms.

But well regulated militia and security of a free State are not implied or express.
They are a rational.
A consideration.
A concern or thought.
They do not change the actual amendment itself, which is a strict bar on all federal weapons jurisdiction.

Naturalization is not immigration. Or, they would have use that express world. Immigration is an Implied power not an Express power.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms, period.

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[danielpalos]

ad hominems are usually considered fallacies not valid arguments.

how special, is that.

ad hom?

You implied the Second Amendment supports THIS states right.

I stated they all do


Which State does NOT support the Second?

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.

But municipalities and individuals also rely on the militia.
The fact municipalities usually call them posses and no term is used when individuals defend themselves, does not alter the fact they are still aspects of a militia.
Remember there were zero police back then.
Who do you think did keep the peace then?

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

no

they have the right to keep and bear arms PERIOD.

They don't need to do It for their State or the Union.

they may not be Infringed by the federal Government.

 

[danielpalos]

State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Stop derailing the thread

They have everything to do with our Second Amendment. There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
It does not matter why.
No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.

lol. it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.

Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia

The Union had to win simply Because, only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Rustic]

Fuck yourself asshole.

Mass shootings are a way of life in this country. And will be until we deal with the damn guns

Hell we just had one in that Synagogue. Probably 10 smaller ones since then

You're at least 3x more likely to die being struck by lightening than dying in a mass shooting. If that's too risky for you, GET THE FUCK OUT!!!

Yea...well we can't do a lot about getting hit by lightning. We CAN address the gun violence

Lol
More frivolous gun laws will not save a single soul...

 

[Cellblock2429]

Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...

... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...

... and the threat of overkill firepower...

... for the average citizen.

/——-/ They we’re developing automatic weapons in Colonial Times. The founding fathers knew about them. The 2nd Amendment : Is It for Muskets Only?!

 

[Auld Phart]

They have everything to do with our Second Amendment. There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
It does not matter why.
No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.

lol. it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.

Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia

The Union had to win simply Because, only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

again...

State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.


is English your second language?

most of what you post makes no sense.

 

[Cellblock2429]

A well armed popalance is respected by government
A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government

Oh please. What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law... Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!" Give me a frickin' break. Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever. See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.

It's populace btw, not populance.

/——/ The militia is the National Guard and separate from the right of people to bear arms.

 

[hadit]

State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Stop derailing the thread

They have everything to do with our Second Amendment. There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
It does not matter why.
No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.

lol. it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.

Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia

That's not what the SC has ruled, and that applies.

 

[Cellblock2429]

State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Stop derailing the thread

They have everything to do with our Second Amendment. There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
It does not matter why.
No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.

lol. it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.

Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia

/——/ The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals for self defense, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.Wikipedia

 

[danielpalos]

Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...

... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...

... and the threat of overkill firepower...

... for the average citizen.

/——-/ They we’re developing automatic weapons in Colonial Times. The founding fathers knew about them. The 2nd Amendment : Is It for Muskets Only?!

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
It does not matter why.
No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.

lol. it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.

Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia

The Union had to win simply Because, only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

again...

State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.


is English your second language?

most of what you post makes no sense.

You are simply clueless and Causeless.

 

[danielpalos]

A well armed popalance is respected by government
A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government

Oh please. What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law... Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!" Give me a frickin' break. Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever. See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.

It's populace btw, not populance.

/——/ The militia is the National Guard and separate from the right of people to bear arms.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

They have everything to do with our Second Amendment. There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
It does not matter why.
No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.

lol. it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.

Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia

That's not what the SC has ruled, and that applies.

judicial activism that has no basis in the common law.

The People are the Militia.

 

[Auld Phart]

The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
It does not matter why.
No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.

lol. it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.

Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia

That's not what the SC has ruled, and that applies.

judicial activism that has no basis in the common law.

The People are the Militia.

The People are the Militia.

Not when the Second was written and passed.

 

[danielpalos]

They have everything to do with our Second Amendment. There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
It does not matter why.
No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.

lol. it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.

Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia

/——/ The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals for self defense, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.Wikipedia

Judicial activism. There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment. All terms are plural and collective.