Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The People are the Militia; why appeal to ignorance of that legal fact in our Republic?lol. I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.i am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance.and the troll admits he can't read.
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.
no, your appeal to ignorance is to the second part...
where it clearly states: The right of the people.
Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.like what?debunked by what? y'all have nothing but fallacy.
Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.
"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.
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?
we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.No, they are not. All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.yes, it is. all of our amendments are codified, collective rights of our Body Politic as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.No, still not a collective right. Just like the other amendments are not collective rights.
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.
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.
not merely telling stories.
The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.like what?Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.
"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.
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 are the Militia; why appeal to ignorance of that legal fact in our Republic?lol. I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.i am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance.and the troll admits he can't read.
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.
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?lol. I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.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.
no, your appeal to ignorance is to the second part...
where it clearly states: The right of the people.
Were women part of the militia?
Males under the age of 16?, over the age of 45?
NO.
the militia was only for males, between the ages of 16-45.
The people were men and women, of ALL ages.
and the reason the PEOPLE were given the right, not the militia
All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.No, they are not. All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.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.
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.
not merely telling stories.
you seem to be telling stories...
Worthy of Mother Goose
All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.No, they are not. All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.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.
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.
not merely telling stories.
you seem to be telling stories...
Worthy of Mother Goose
irrelevant, when it concerns the security of a free State.The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.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.
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 consist of far more than those eligible to join a militia
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."The People are the Militia; why appeal to ignorance of that legal fact in our Republic?lol. I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.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.
no, your appeal to ignorance is to the second part...
where it clearly states: The right of the people.
This is another of those nonsensical posts whereby there is some cryptic message that only danielpalos gets.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."The People are the Militia; why appeal to ignorance of that legal fact in our Republic?lol. I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.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.
no, your appeal to ignorance is to the second part...
where it clearly states: The right of the people.
Were women part of the militia?
Males under the age of 16?, over the age of 45?
NO.
the militia was only for males, between the ages of 16-45.
The people were men and women, of ALL ages.
and the reason the PEOPLE were given the right, not the militia
What I'm about to tell you refutes every argument that danielpalos makes. He claims you get your rights from state constitutions, etc. That is absolute B.S. and he knows it.
Most intelligent people know that the Constitution only guarantees our Rights, NOT grants them. But, let's go further. How did the FIRST STATE COURT RULING INTERPRET THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?
The case was in 1846 in Georgia. Here is what the Court had to say:
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree;
Nunn v. Georgia - Wikipedia
just this one:All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.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.
not merely telling stories.
you seem to be telling stories...
Worthy of Mother Goose
more tales
The People are the Militia; why appeal to ignorance of that legal fact in our Republic?lol. I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.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.
no, your appeal to ignorance is to the second part...
where it clearly states: The right of the people.
Were women part of the militia?
Males under the age of 16?, over the age of 45?
NO.
the militia was only for males, between the ages of 16-45.
The people were men and women, of ALL ages.
and the reason the PEOPLE were given the right, not the militia
What I'm about to tell you refutes every argument that danielpalos makes. He claims you get your rights from state constitutions, etc. That is absolute B.S. and he knows it.
Most intelligent people know that the Constitution only guarantees our Rights, NOT grants them. But, let's go further. How did the FIRST STATE COURT RULING INTERPRET THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?
The case was in 1846 in Georgia. Here is what the Court had to say:
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree;
Nunn v. Georgia - Wikipedia
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.
irrelevant, when it concerns the security of a free State.The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.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.
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 consist of far more than those eligible to join a militia
individual rights are in State Constitutions.
"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
just this one:All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.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.
not merely telling stories.
you seem to be telling stories...
Worthy of Mother Goose
more tales
"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
It is the whole people, except for a few public officials
This is where he was debating that concept, dear:irrelevant, when it concerns the security of a free State.The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.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 consist of far more than those eligible to join a militia
individual rights are in State Constitutions.
"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 fact that everyone not allowed to be in in a militia has no right to own arms, is IRRREVELANT?
You keep spewing the same crap.
Mason was one of many in the debates, why don't you quote someone else?
can't find anyone that agrees with you?
You do know even HIS quote makes you look like a fool, don't you?
"It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
the Militia was NOT the whole people.
It was only MEN, between the ages of 16-45.
anyone that would quote him is a fool.
yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.just this one:All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.
not merely telling stories.
you seem to be telling stories...
Worthy of Mother Goose
more tales
"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, 1788It is the whole people, except for a few public officials
nope
Not then, not now
This is where he was debating that concept, dear:irrelevant, when it concerns the security of a free State.The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?
Is it because they disagree with your opinion?
the People consist of far more than those eligible to join a militia
individual rights are in State Constitutions.
"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 fact that everyone not allowed to be in in a militia has no right to own arms, is IRRREVELANT?
You keep spewing the same crap.
Mason was one of many in the debates, why don't you quote someone else?
can't find anyone that agrees with you?
You do know even HIS quote makes you look like a fool, don't you?
"It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
the Militia was NOT the whole people.
It was only MEN, between the ages of 16-45.
anyone that would quote him is a fool.
George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.just this one:All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.you seem to be telling stories...
Worthy of Mother Goose
more tales
"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, 1788It is the whole people, except for a few public officials
nope
Not then, not now
