True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.

" the second clause."

Is where you show YOUR ignorance

the People is plural and collective, every time this issue comes up.

No, still not a collective right. Just like the other amendments are not collective rights.

yes, it is. all of our amendments are codified, collective rights of our Body Politic as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.

All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights. That is why they were written.

James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.

No, they are not. All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

 

[Auld Phart]

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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

The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Still posting that lame talking point?


Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia

• "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 he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.

debunked by what? y'all have nothing but fallacy.

by the speeches of many others at that time stating the opposite of what your pet, unknown, speechmaker stated.

Here they are again:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

Zachariah Johnson.

Samuel Adams

George Washington

Thomas Paine


People that are still remembered, unlike your spokesman, in this day and age.

 

[Humorme]

Plural? Yes. Not collective. There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.

convicts are People, too?

Yes, they are. It's a separate discussion, but one I'd love to debate with you.

Under the Militia Act of 1792 Convicts are NOT Free Men therefore cannot be Citizens and cannot own, purchase nor possess firearms of any kind. And neither can anyone that isn't White, Male, Land Owners, or does not swear allegiance to the current Government of the Day. In otherwords, only about 8% of the population at any given time would be able to purchase, possess or own firearms of any kind if we used the same laws that our found fathers used.

Just a bit of information. The United States impounded weapons of the people that refused to swear allegiance to the newly formed United States even if they didn't fight or openly support the British during the conflict. And there were more people in the colonies that supported the British than the Revolutionaries. The French stated that there really wasn't that much of a difference between the Americans than the British only that the Americans were easier to get along with.

A few episodes of watching Death Valley Days (episodes of how the west was won - actual historical accounts) will clear this up for you. A guy would serve his time and a year later become sheriff. Convicts are people that are IN prison.

During the Colonial times, things were different. The definition of what was a Citizen was different than 100 years later. And it's was different 100 years later today. State laws do change.

According to Webster's 1828 Dictionary (the first dictionary ever published in the United States) defines immigration as:

IMMIGRA'TION, noun The passing or removing into a country for the purpose of permanent residence.

My current issue of Black's Law Dictionary defines immigration as:

The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence.

Nobody can show you a federal statute NOR an Amendment that prohibited states from hosting non-citizens in their state... not even since the ratification of the Constitution.

Non-citizens are not a part of the immigration scheme that leads to permanent citizenship. The federal government is not under any obligation to make anyone a United States citizen just because a state lets them in as guest. Neither can the feds tell a state who they may and may not do business with.

This subject cannot be that complicated to understand.

 

[danielpalos]

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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

The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Still posting that lame talking point?


Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia

• "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 he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.

debunked by what? y'all have nothing but fallacy.

by the speeches of many others at that time stating the opposite of what your pet, unknown, speechmaker stated.

Here they are again:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

Zachariah Johnson.

Samuel Adams

George Washington

Thomas Paine


People that are still remembered, unlike your spokesman, in this day and age.

all of them support my contention and not yours.

 

[Auld Phart]

Still posting that lame talking point?


Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia

• "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 he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.

debunked by what? y'all have nothing but fallacy.

by the speeches of many others at that time stating the opposite of what your pet, unknown, speechmaker stated.

Here they are again:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

Zachariah Johnson.

Samuel Adams

George Washington

Thomas Paine


People that are still remembered, unlike your spokesman, in this day and age.

all of them support my contention and not yours.

and the troll admits he can't read.

 

[danielpalos]

• "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 he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.

debunked by what? y'all have nothing but fallacy.

by the speeches of many others at that time stating the opposite of what your pet, unknown, speechmaker stated.

Here they are again:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

Zachariah Johnson.

Samuel Adams

George Washington

Thomas Paine


People that are still remembered, unlike your spokesman, in this day and age.

all of them support my contention and not yours.

and the troll admits he can't read.

i am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance.

 

[Humorme]

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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

The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Still posting that lame talking point?


Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia

• "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 he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.

debunked by what? y'all have nothing but fallacy.

Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.

 

[danielpalos]

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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

The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Still posting that lame talking point?


Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia

• "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 he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.

debunked by what? y'all have nothing but fallacy.

Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.

like what?

"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

The whole people are plural, not singular.

 

[Auld Phart]

and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.

debunked by what? y'all have nothing but fallacy.

by the speeches of many others at that time stating the opposite of what your pet, unknown, speechmaker stated.

Here they are again:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

Zachariah Johnson.

Samuel Adams

George Washington

Thomas Paine


People that are still remembered, unlike your spokesman, in this day and age.

all of them support my contention and not yours.

and the troll admits he can't read.

i am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance.

I have to agree...

your ignorance isn't very appealing.

You, for some silly reason, believe the Second doesn't give the right to keep and bear arms to the People.

I even posted a link to a professor of law expounding on that, from UCLA no less.

(Bet you didn't even watch it)

I've posted a link to other dignitaries of the time, dignitaries far better known than the one you keep posting.

Did you even read them?

You couldn't have.

you just stated they agree with YOUR views.

(they don't)

you're a one trick pony, trying to be a rodeo.

every time you post the same old debunked taking points, you dig yourself a little deeper.

Give it up.

 

[Humorme]

Still posting that lame talking point?


Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia

• "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 he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.

debunked by what? y'all have nothing but fallacy.

Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.

like what?

"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

The whole people are plural, not singular.

Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again. You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.

IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.

 

[WinterBorn]

" the second clause."

Is where you show YOUR ignorance

the People is plural and collective, every time this issue comes up.

No, still not a collective right. Just like the other amendments are not collective rights.

yes, it is. all of our amendments are codified, collective rights of our Body Politic as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.

All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights. That is why they were written.

James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.

No, they are not. All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

Once again, of course all of them are plural. There were 2.5 million people in the country then. Not all fell under these rights at the time. But it was certainly not a situation for a singular word.

 

[danielpalos]

debunked by what? y'all have nothing but fallacy.

by the speeches of many others at that time stating the opposite of what your pet, unknown, speechmaker stated.

Here they are again:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

Zachariah Johnson.

Samuel Adams

George Washington

Thomas Paine


People that are still remembered, unlike your spokesman, in this day and age.

all of them support my contention and not yours.

and the troll admits he can't read.

i am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance.

I have to agree...

your ignorance isn't very appealing.

You, for some silly reason, believe the Second doesn't give the right to keep and bear arms to the People.

I even posted a link to a professor of law expounding on that, from UCLA no less.

(Bet you didn't even watch it)

I've posted a link to other dignitaries of the time, dignitaries far better known than the one you keep posting.

Did you even read them?

You couldn't have.

you just stated they agree with YOUR views.

(they don't)

you're a one trick pony, trying to be a rodeo.

every time you post the same old debunked taking points, you dig yourself a little deeper.

Give it up.

lol. I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

• "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 he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.

debunked by what? y'all have nothing but fallacy.

Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.

like what?

"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

The whole people are plural, not singular.

Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again. You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.

IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.

Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.

Let's keep it simpler.

George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

 

[danielpalos]

the People is plural and collective, every time this issue comes up.

No, still not a collective right. Just like the other amendments are not collective rights.

yes, it is. all of our amendments are codified, collective rights of our Body Politic as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.

All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights. That is why they were written.

James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.

No, they are not. All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

Once again, of course all of them are plural. There were 2.5 million people in the country then. Not all fell under these rights at the time. But it was certainly not a situation for a singular word.

we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.

 

[Auld Phart]

by the speeches of many others at that time stating the opposite of what your pet, unknown, speechmaker stated.

Here they are again:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

Zachariah Johnson.

Samuel Adams

George Washington

Thomas Paine


People that are still remembered, unlike your spokesman, in this day and age.

all of them support my contention and not yours.

and the troll admits he can't read.

i am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance.

I have to agree...

your ignorance isn't very appealing.

You, for some silly reason, believe the Second doesn't give the right to keep and bear arms to the People.

I even posted a link to a professor of law expounding on that, from UCLA no less.

(Bet you didn't even watch it)

I've posted a link to other dignitaries of the time, dignitaries far better known than the one you keep posting.

Did you even read them?

You couldn't have.

you just stated they agree with YOUR views.

(they don't)

you're a one trick pony, trying to be a rodeo.

every time you post the same old debunked taking points, you dig yourself a little deeper.

Give it up.

lol. I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.

no, your appeal to ignorance is to the second part...

where it clearly states: The right of the people.

 

[Auld Phart]

and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.

debunked by what? y'all have nothing but fallacy.

Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.

like what?

"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

The whole people are plural, not singular.

Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again. You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.

IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.

Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.

Let's keep it simpler.

George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?

Is it because they disagree with your opinion?

 

[danielpalos]

all of them support my contention and not yours.

and the troll admits he can't read.

i am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance.

I have to agree...

your ignorance isn't very appealing.

You, for some silly reason, believe the Second doesn't give the right to keep and bear arms to the People.

I even posted a link to a professor of law expounding on that, from UCLA no less.

(Bet you didn't even watch it)

I've posted a link to other dignitaries of the time, dignitaries far better known than the one you keep posting.

Did you even read them?

You couldn't have.

you just stated they agree with YOUR views.

(they don't)

you're a one trick pony, trying to be a rodeo.

every time you post the same old debunked taking points, you dig yourself a little deeper.

Give it up.

lol. I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.

no, your appeal to ignorance is to the second part...

where it clearly states: The right of the people.

The People are the Militia; why appeal to ignorance of that legal fact in our Republic?

 

[danielpalos]

debunked by what? y'all have nothing but fallacy.

Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.

like what?

"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

The whole people are plural, not singular.

Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again. You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.

IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.

Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.

Let's keep it simpler.

George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?

Is it because they disagree with your opinion?

The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.

 

[Humorme]

and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.

debunked by what? y'all have nothing but fallacy.

Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.

like what?

"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

The whole people are plural, not singular.

Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again. You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.

IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.

Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.

Let's keep it simpler.

George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

You certainly have cornered the market on diversion.

When I wrote the Militia of Georgia Handbook in 1998, I quoted very thing in the manual along with the context, etc.

BTW, have you ever belonged to a civilian militia, danielpalos?

 

[Humorme]

Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.

like what?

"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

The whole people are plural, not singular.

Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again. You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.

IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.

Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.

Let's keep it simpler.

George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?

Is it because they disagree with your opinion?

The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.

And I repeat, have you ever been IN a civilian militia?

Do you know what the ultimate purpose of the unorganized militia (in federal law) is for?