The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

Thus you are only allowed free speech if you're part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest group. Which group are you part of?

Begging the question is usually considered a fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

No one's ignoring it. The people need to bear arms so the militia can be formed. And, based on what you keep posting, the government is supposed to arm the people for that purpose.

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law in legal venues.

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;

 

[danielpalos]

No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

Your substitution is a fallacy. Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

What is necessary is for individuals to bear arms.

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;

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.

There you are, the government owes me some weapons. Note that word you underlined.

Harass your State legislators to do the Job they get paid to do.

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.

To the Militia Mobile!

 

[danielpalos]

I'm having a hard time deciding who is the biggest Troll, danielpalos or Lesh. I think they're in a contest with each other to the bottom of the pond.

Right wing cultists are worse but get a freer pass.

 

[danielpalos]

The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?

Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State. And, you ignore this fact under the common law.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?

The People are the Militia. Only right wingers, never get it.

So, the people have the right, not the militia?

Or does the militia have the right, and not the prople?

But, wait.....the people are the militia!!! But the people are not individuals, so individuals don't get the right....just the people...

I am so confused!!!



Dan, your "logic" blows donkey ass. To interpret things your way tortures the words and meanings.

The plain language is clear.

It's even more clear given the context and circumstances at the time it was ratified.

A militia is necessary, so the right of individuals (people) to obtain their own military arms, and keep those arms, and be ready to answer the call to arms, JUST LIKE THE MINUTE MEN AT THE TIME THE 2A WAS DRAFTED, shall not be infringed.

It is the only interpretation that makes sense.

The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State or unorganized and subject to the traditional police power of your State.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[danielpalos]

Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation. Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance. Well, whatever floats your boat!

Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

What is necessary is for individuals to bear arms.

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;

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.

Incorrect.
A use of the militia for the defense of country or state does not at all imply that is the only use/need for militia.
Militia is also where villages get their posses from as well as individuals in defense from home invasion.

Your problem is the classic, if A then B logic, which you are trying to subvert by saying if not A, then not B, and that is an error.
The need for a federal or state militia is not the ONLY reasons why there was to be no federal infringement on weapons.
Besides A, there is C, D, E, etc.
A well armed and trained population is also necessary for defense of city, village, suburb, home, and each and every individual.

Your opinion is duly noted. However, there is no appeal to ignorance of express law.

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]

The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?

Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State. And, you ignore this fact under the common law.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?

The People are the Militia. Only right wingers, never get it.

Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

That makes so sense whatsoever. The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Wrong.
The only source of any legal authority comes from individual rights and the individual right of defense trumps any state or federal need for defense.

Of course criminals to have the right of defense so do have the right to bear arms.
The only reason we can disarm criminals is not because they do not have rights, but that the rights of others who may be threatened by criminals could be given higher priority.

But that is not the case in society.
Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
That is not legally possible.

Non-sequiturs are usually considered fallacies.

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 479370

How are terrorist militias considered "well regulated"? Who "regulates" them? How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"? We know who regulates the military and National Guard.

American militia movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You really are desperate, aren't you? Terrorist militias? Are you serious?

Obviously, like your good friend or sock Lesh, you believed that English grammar in school was a waste of good time. Allow me to help you both. Isn't it great that our Founding Fathers were NOT ignorant about punctuation?

Show us where is says you can use a comma to ignore any clause.

Again, if A then B does not imply if not A, then not B.
That is because although the need for the federal government to be able to call up an armed militia is ONE reason why there can be no federal weapons laws, there may be an infinite number of other reasons why an armed militia is necessary and there then should be no federal weapons laws.

The 2nd amendment did not say all the reasons why there is to be a ban on all federal weapons laws.
And it does not matter how many reasons there are.
The fact is it says there can be no federal weapons laws at all, period.

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.

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]

I disagree.
The right of self defense is vastly superior to the need for the defense of state or country.
The state or country are NOT the source of any authority and can not be the main justification for prohibiting federal gun laws.
Individual rights are supreme, and the only source of any legal authority.
The fact a state and country can aid individual rights also gives these entities some authority, but it is only secondary and borrowed from the main source of authority, which is individual rights.

You misunderstand our federal form of Government. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.

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. (California State Constitution)

 

[danielpalos]

By the way, "well regulated" means efficient and proficient.
It does not mean "restricted".
For example, the commerce clause of the Constitution:
{... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; ...}
Does not mean to "restrict".
It means the opposite, to "facilitate" by preventing anyone from restricting it.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, right wingers. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United Staes.

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;

 

[Markle]

Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation. Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance. Well, whatever floats your boat!

Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.

As you know, I provided concrete facts. You ignore it because you have your own agenda.

I am sorry you choose to ignore English and grammar the years you were in school. You knew how to talk, so what difference did the funny marks on the page make. That's your problem, no one elses.

 

[hadit]

Thus you are only allowed free speech if you're part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest group. Which group are you part of?

Begging the question is usually considered a fallacy.

Ducking, dodging, and refusing to answer a simple question is also considered a fallacy.

 

[hadit]

No one's ignoring it. The people need to bear arms so the militia can be formed. And, based on what you keep posting, the government is supposed to arm the people for that purpose.

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law in legal venues.

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;

You keep saying that the government owes me weapons. Why?

 

[hadit]

No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

Your substitution is a fallacy. Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

semiautomatics are not assault weapons

EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.

So, all you faggots have to do is call something an assault weapon and you get to ban it?

FUCK YOU!!!

Look, dipshit. Let me educate you.

The term "assault rifle" comes from the Nazi German battle rifle call the Sturmgewehr 44 (literally translates "storm rifle" but means "assault rifle").

What made this rifle unique is that it combined the characteristics of a battle rifle with that of a submachine gun. It could shoot semi-auto and full-auto (select fire).

That has become the literal definition of an "assault rifle." It must shoot both semi-auto and full-auto to be "assault." Get it, you uninformed cock smoke?

 

[asaratis]

No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

Your substitution is a fallacy. Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Read the 2nd Amendment very slowly. You clearly do not understand it despite valiant efforts by educated users here to explain it to you.

Pay attention to the phrase immediately following the first comma.

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.

If the governing body of any one of our 50 free States (or that of the entire union) goes rogue and promotes changing to a non-free State (or union of States), the people, in finding it necessary to protect the security of their free State, have cause to form a well regulated Militia of their own to oppose that of the rogue governing body. For this, weapons are required.

Additionally,

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But that is not the case in society.
Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
That is not legally possible.

They (criminals) have the right to apply to have their rights returned. Due process.

They do. It's called the parole board.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

By the way, "well regulated" means efficient and proficient.
It does not mean "restricted".
For example, the commerce clause of the Constitution:
{... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; ...}
Does not mean to "restrict".
It means the opposite, to "facilitate" by preventing anyone from restricting it.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, right wingers. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United Staes.

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;

Even if all of that is true, it does not change the FACT the the right of the people shall not be infringed. You can NEVER get around that part, no matter how hard you try. Just give up. or amend.