2nd Amendment Discussion

[Porter Rockwell]

Why do you believe the government needs a second amendment right?

It is due to our federal form of Government. The several States of our Union are sovereign within their jurisdiction, with the general Government handling inter-State and inter-national stuff.

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;

The individual Right to keep and bear Arms and the militia are two separate and distinct issues.

Thank you for finally recognizing that legal fact.

There is no provision for natural rights and individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are expressly collective and plural.

The first clause must command the second clause.

Now, you're back to talking nonsense.

There are two parts to the Second Amendment, the NEED to insure the security of a free state AND an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by the government to guarantee a preexisting Right.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL.

Well. It was defined at the time. The Militia was every able bodied free man.

well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

The MILITIA was what was intended to be regulated, not the firearms... AND under your theory regulated firearms means registration, limitations, etc.

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment in Any conflict of laws.

natural and individual rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in federal venues.

Asked, answered and refuted dannyboy. You need some new material. You're going to force me to become repetitive.

Simon already told me You are wrong, even If hell freezes over.

You wish I were wrong, but for all the posting you do, you seem to come up short on the facts. You never provide any.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

There is a long line of state court authority recognizing a right to self-defense — and a right to defend property — under state constitutions. Twenty-one state constitutions expressly secure such rights, often using language such as this:

"All men … have certain unalienable Rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, [and] acquiring, possessing and protecting property."

Government only recognizes Individual rights and Individual liberty. Government in the US delegates to Counties.

Counties have power to "commandeer the People" to help ensure County security.

What has Posse Comitatus to do with an individual's Right to keep and bear Arms?

There is no such Thing as a well regulated militia of Individuals in our Republic under our federal doctrine.

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.”

Richard Henry Lee

There is your well regulated militia. What we should do is have firearm safety marksmanship classes as a prerequisite in school before a person can graduate.

that is your appeal to ignorance of federal law and statute.

I'm not appealing to your ignorance of the law and any statute. If what you're saying means that you have some insider knowledge of law, then answer my damn questions. What are your legal qualifications / education?

 

[danielpalos]

It is due to our federal form of Government. The several States of our Union are sovereign within their jurisdiction, with the general Government handling inter-State and inter-national stuff.

The individual Right to keep and bear Arms and the militia are two separate and distinct issues.

Thank you for finally recognizing that legal fact.

There is no provision for natural rights and individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are expressly collective and plural.

The first clause must command the second clause.

Now, you're back to talking nonsense.

There are two parts to the Second Amendment, the NEED to insure the security of a free state AND an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by the government to guarantee a preexisting Right.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL.

well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

The MILITIA was what was intended to be regulated, not the firearms... AND under your theory regulated firearms means registration, limitations, etc.

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment in Any conflict of laws.

natural and individual rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in federal venues.

Asked, answered and refuted dannyboy. You need some new material. You're going to force me to become repetitive.

Simon already told me You are wrong, even If hell freezes over.

You wish I were wrong, but for all the posting you do, you seem to come up short on the facts. You never provide any.

dear, i am not the who one needs new material. appeals to ignorance all you have. want to argue about it?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

Gracie, you have to understand why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution. My understanding is: that it was and is "to keep the government honest." Preventing the Liberal Democrats from confiscating weapons is the reason it was written and approved.
The 2nd Amendment is the single thing that keeps our enemies from invading the US. Just imagine if ISIS invaded after all weapons were confiscated.

But I am not saying we give up our weapons. I'm saying there is no reason for a citizen to own or be permitted to own a weapon of mass destruction...which is what machine guns are. Are we allowed to arm ourselves with nukes to keep the government honest? The government is crooked and has been for a very long time. Its now coming to light, what with the major division this presidency has caused....not by the potus, but by the ones that lost the nomination. Division. And its getting worse, which will eventually turn into another civil war with the right against the left.

I only take about a hour to make a device of MDA that would take out 10 or more people. Read about the suicide in Texas with chemicals being used. Better learn more before you post stupid BS...

 

[danielpalos]

Government only recognizes Individual rights and Individual liberty. Government in the US delegates to Counties.

Counties have power to "commandeer the People" to help ensure County security.

What has Posse Comitatus to do with an individual's Right to keep and bear Arms?

There is no such Thing as a well regulated militia of Individuals in our Republic under our federal doctrine.

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.”

Richard Henry Lee

There is your well regulated militia. What we should do is have firearm safety marksmanship classes as a prerequisite in school before a person can graduate.

that is your appeal to ignorance of federal law and statute.

I'm not appealing to your ignorance of the law and any statute. If what you're saying means that you have some insider knowledge of law, then answer my damn questions. What are your legal qualifications / education?

You are wrong simply because I say so. Want to argue about it, right winger?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The individual Right to keep and bear Arms and the militia are two separate and distinct issues.

Thank you for finally recognizing that legal fact.

There is no provision for natural rights and individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are expressly collective and plural.

The first clause must command the second clause.

Now, you're back to talking nonsense.

There are two parts to the Second Amendment, the NEED to insure the security of a free state AND an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by the government to guarantee a preexisting Right.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL.

The MILITIA was what was intended to be regulated, not the firearms... AND under your theory regulated firearms means registration, limitations, etc.

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment in Any conflict of laws.

natural and individual rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in federal venues.

Asked, answered and refuted dannyboy. You need some new material. You're going to force me to become repetitive.

Simon already told me You are wrong, even If hell freezes over.

You wish I were wrong, but for all the posting you do, you seem to come up short on the facts. You never provide any.

dear, i am not the who one needs new material. appeals to ignorance all you have. want to argue about it?

I don't argue with idiots. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Dear Gracie
The 2nd Amendment is one of the Bill of Rights that also includes
* right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble
* right of people to SECURITY in their persons houses and effects
* right of people NOT to be DEPRIVED of life liberty or property without due process of laws

We need to unite in ENFORCING the whole context and not teaching
false interpretations or misrepresentations that the Constitution in any way allows
for the bearing of arms that VIOLATES other rights within the same set of Constitutional principles
that the 2nd Amendment is PART OF.

No part can be "taken out of context" to abuse to VIOLATE other rights
freedoms and protections under the same laws.

The point of the 2nd Amendment is to ENFORCE and DEFEND laws, not to violate them.

So if someone is stockpiling or threatening to abuse weapons where they
are already causing a threat, disruption, or breach to the peace, health or safety of others,
that's already violating Constitutional principles where it is creating a threat or hazard endangering others and violating their equal rights to protection, security and peace.

The benefit of teaching and enforcing these laws consistently in every district,
is the process of outreach and setting up means for making and resolving complaints
of threats, hazards or dangers ALSO serves to SCREEN OUT people with disabilities or
disorders that prevent them from complying with laws and authorities.

So we'd solve the mental health issue as well by setting up outreach programs
that would serve to screen and refer people who trigger threats and complaints
to get help in advance. This would have prevented the issues in cases like Cruz in the
Parkland shooting who would have received help in time had a local system been
in operation to address complaints when they were first reported. This can be
done through local school districts and county health programs without any
conflict or issue raised affecting gun rights and beliefs about gun regulations.

I does seem that everyone of the shooter have something wrong with their brain. Hate, or just a Wacko with a gun. The last one was mad because he lost his job. Wow what a good reason to kill people.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

What has Posse Comitatus to do with an individual's Right to keep and bear Arms?

There is no such Thing as a well regulated militia of Individuals in our Republic under our federal doctrine.

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.”

Richard Henry Lee

There is your well regulated militia. What we should do is have firearm safety marksmanship classes as a prerequisite in school before a person can graduate.

that is your appeal to ignorance of federal law and statute.

I'm not appealing to your ignorance of the law and any statute. If what you're saying means that you have some insider knowledge of law, then answer my damn questions. What are your legal qualifications / education?

You are wrong simply because I say so. Want to argue about it, right winger?

So you not only are you an idiot, but you have a God complex. The right kicked me to the curb. Have you asked them to accept me because I do NOT associate with liberals. You lefties are wannabe communists.

 

[danielpalos]

Thank you for finally recognizing that legal fact.

There is no provision for natural rights and individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are expressly collective and plural.

The first clause must command the second clause.

Now, you're back to talking nonsense.

There are two parts to the Second Amendment, the NEED to insure the security of a free state AND an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by the government to guarantee a preexisting Right.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL.

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment in Any conflict of laws.

natural and individual rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in federal venues.

Asked, answered and refuted dannyboy. You need some new material. You're going to force me to become repetitive.

Simon already told me You are wrong, even If hell freezes over.

You wish I were wrong, but for all the posting you do, you seem to come up short on the facts. You never provide any.

dear, i am not the who one needs new material. appeals to ignorance all you have. want to argue about it?

I don't argue with idiots. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

dear, you only have inferior arguments. you merely seem frivolous in Any superior venue.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no such Thing as a well regulated militia of Individuals in our Republic under our federal doctrine.

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.”

Richard Henry Lee

There is your well regulated militia. What we should do is have firearm safety marksmanship classes as a prerequisite in school before a person can graduate.

that is your appeal to ignorance of federal law and statute.

I'm not appealing to your ignorance of the law and any statute. If what you're saying means that you have some insider knowledge of law, then answer my damn questions. What are your legal qualifications / education?

You are wrong simply because I say so. Want to argue about it, right winger?

So you not only are you an idiot, but you have a God complex. The right kicked me to the curb. Have you asked them to accept me because I do NOT associate with liberals. You lefties are wannabe communists.

dear, it is You, saying it. you need to win some arguments, first.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Dear Gracie
The 2nd Amendment is one of the Bill of Rights that also includes
* right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble
* right of people to SECURITY in their persons houses and effects
* right of people NOT to be DEPRIVED of life liberty or property without due process of laws

We need to unite in ENFORCING the whole context and not teaching
false interpretations or misrepresentations that the Constitution in any way allows
for the bearing of arms that VIOLATES other rights within the same set of Constitutional principles
that the 2nd Amendment is PART OF.

No part can be "taken out of context" to abuse to VIOLATE other rights
freedoms and protections under the same laws.

The point of the 2nd Amendment is to ENFORCE and DEFEND laws, not to violate them.

So if someone is stockpiling or threatening to abuse weapons where they
are already causing a threat, disruption, or breach to the peace, health or safety of others,
that's already violating Constitutional principles where it is creating a threat or hazard endangering others and violating their equal rights to protection, security and peace.

The benefit of teaching and enforcing these laws consistently in every district,
is the process of outreach and setting up means for making and resolving complaints
of threats, hazards or dangers ALSO serves to SCREEN OUT people with disabilities or
disorders that prevent them from complying with laws and authorities.

So we'd solve the mental health issue as well by setting up outreach programs
that would serve to screen and refer people who trigger threats and complaints
to get help in advance. This would have prevented the issues in cases like Cruz in the
Parkland shooting who would have received help in time had a local system been
in operation to address complaints when they were first reported. This can be
done through local school districts and county health programs without any
conflict or issue raised affecting gun rights and beliefs about gun regulations.

I does seem that everyone of the shooter have something wrong with their brain. Hate, or just a Wacko with a gun. The last one was mad because he lost his job. Wow what a good reason to kill people.

You may think that way, but a lot of people have a hard time getting a job and sometimes the job might be that good. If you want a real knee jerk reaction, why not looking into passing laws that make it harder to fire people - AND some laws that prohibit harassment and intimidation by management and supervisors. Unless you're black, gay, or fit one of the protected categories, you have to take all the harassment that the suits want to dish out.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Now, you're back to talking nonsense.

There are two parts to the Second Amendment, the NEED to insure the security of a free state AND an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by the government to guarantee a preexisting Right.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL.

Asked, answered and refuted dannyboy. You need some new material. You're going to force me to become repetitive.

Simon already told me You are wrong, even If hell freezes over.

You wish I were wrong, but for all the posting you do, you seem to come up short on the facts. You never provide any.

dear, i am not the who one needs new material. appeals to ignorance all you have. want to argue about it?

I don't argue with idiots. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

dear, you only have inferior arguments. you merely seem frivolous in Any superior venue.

You are fucking hilarious. You have a God complex and think that "just because I said so" line gives any credibility to your dannydumbass interpretation of the Constitution makes you right, but it makes you the troll of the year... not a superior debater. You're nothing more than a legend in your own mind.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.”

Richard Henry Lee

There is your well regulated militia. What we should do is have firearm safety marksmanship classes as a prerequisite in school before a person can graduate.

that is your appeal to ignorance of federal law and statute.

I'm not appealing to your ignorance of the law and any statute. If what you're saying means that you have some insider knowledge of law, then answer my damn questions. What are your legal qualifications / education?

You are wrong simply because I say so. Want to argue about it, right winger?

So you not only are you an idiot, but you have a God complex. The right kicked me to the curb. Have you asked them to accept me because I do NOT associate with liberals. You lefties are wannabe communists.

dear, it is You, saying it. you need to win some arguments, first.

Between you and I, you've managed to lose EVERY "argument" simply because you never had one. IF you come up with a new line, let me know. PM might work better as I'm not reading any more of your bullshit today. It's all redundant.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL.

Simon already told me You are wrong, even If hell freezes over.

You wish I were wrong, but for all the posting you do, you seem to come up short on the facts. You never provide any.

dear, i am not the who one needs new material. appeals to ignorance all you have. want to argue about it?

I don't argue with idiots. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

dear, you only have inferior arguments. you merely seem frivolous in Any superior venue.

You are fucking hilarious. You have a God complex and think that "just because I said so" line gives any credibility to your dannydumbass interpretation of the Constitution makes you right, but it makes you the troll of the year... not a superior debater. You're nothing more than a legend in your own mind.

thank you for ceding the point and the argument by having nothing but fallacy, more than thrice. after that, it is just a vice.

 

[danielpalos]

that is your appeal to ignorance of federal law and statute.

I'm not appealing to your ignorance of the law and any statute. If what you're saying means that you have some insider knowledge of law, then answer my damn questions. What are your legal qualifications / education?

You are wrong simply because I say so. Want to argue about it, right winger?

So you not only are you an idiot, but you have a God complex. The right kicked me to the curb. Have you asked them to accept me because I do NOT associate with liberals. You lefties are wannabe communists.

dear, it is You, saying it. you need to win some arguments, first.

Between you and I, you've managed to lose EVERY "argument" simply because you never had one. IF you come up with a new line, let me know. PM might work better as I'm not reading any more of your bullshit today. It's all redundant.

dear, you won't get away with your non sequitorial non-responsiveness in Any serious venue. nothing but frivolity is all you have.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

The Progressive really need to get control of ALL firearms and not because of the Nut Jobs running around on the street. They fear that Normal Citizens will start to defend their "Rights" and the Progressive can not stand for that to happen. they want a unarmed Citizen who can only riot and break stuff in a Rage. Look at Hong Cong that is all they can do is throw stuff at the Police. This is what they want. When the Police and Army and Criminals are the only ones with firearms you are the victims. This is just wrong and not what the Constitution is all about. We are going to have to get the Menially ill off the streets, and the borders under control. As for me I will die, and the younger folk will have to pick up and defend this Nation it is ashamed that we have such people who want control and to bring us down to nothing but slaves, they are working at it every time a Street Nut does a killing run at the people. You want to loose your right just give up the Keys to your life. Be like China....

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Endless circular reasoning arguments yet again? Fact is states could and did regulate firearms, based on race and other reasons from the beginning, so we know 'original intent' was it was left to the states…

The question was the original intent. What the Founders intended when they wrote and adopted the 2nd Amendment. It was never intended to be left to the States. It was never intended to be left to the whim of municipalities. Just as your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments were not intended to be left to the whims of any State.

See the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.

The point was to clarify that the federal government only had those powers that the Constitution specifically delegated to it, all other powers belonging to the states or to the people; and to prohibit the federal government from claiming or exercising powers that did not belong to it.

The Tenth Amendment mentions, but really doesn't otherwise address the distinction between powers belonging to the states and powers belonging to the people. But the distinction is there.

Now, according to the Second Amendment, to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does it belong to the states? No, it certainly does not. It belongs to the people. Therefore, neither the states nor the federal government have any legitimate authority to violate it.

My point is that despite all the sophistry and wringing of blood from gnats, in real life firearms have always been regulated in one form or another in this country; whether one is happy or not about it isn't a Constitutional issue; the Federal and state Courts rule whatever suits them personally as a majority, and they don''t care about precedent; they can make that up as they go along, and that's what they did. It hasn't been a Constitutional problem since 1792, just a matter of whims every time the SC or a lower Court changes its makeup of ideologies. Precedent was either abandoned or invented from the beginning.

All of this has been refuted with actual court rulings.

You do know that courts are just a bunch of White boys giving their opinion.

 

[danielpalos]

The Progressive really need to get control of ALL firearms and not because of the Nut Jobs running around on the street. They fear that Normal Citizens will start to defend their "Rights" and the Progressive can not stand for that to happen. they want a unarmed Citizen who can only riot and break stuff in a Rage. Look at Hong Cong that is all they can do is throw stuff at the Police. This is what they want. When the Police and Army and Criminals are the only ones with firearms you are the victims. This is just wrong and not what the Constitution is all about. We are going to have to get the Menially ill off the streets, and the borders under control. As for me I will die, and the younger folk will have to pick up and defend this Nation it is ashamed that we have such people who want control and to bring us down to nothing but slaves, they are working at it every time a Street Nut does a killing run at the people. You want to loose your right just give up the Keys to your life. Be like China....

Here is the legal concept under discussion:

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

This is the common law for the common defense:

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.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Why do you believe the government needs a second amendment right?

It is due to our federal form of Government. The several States of our Union are sovereign within their jurisdiction, with the general Government handling inter-State and inter-national stuff.

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;

The individual Right to keep and bear Arms and the militia are two separate and distinct issues.

Thank you for finally recognizing that legal fact.

There is no provision for natural rights and individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are expressly collective and plural.

The first clause must command the second clause.

Now, you're back to talking nonsense.

There are two parts to the Second Amendment, the NEED to insure the security of a free state AND an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by the government to guarantee a preexisting Right.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.

YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Endless circular reasoning arguments yet again? Fact is states could and did regulate firearms, based on race and other reasons from the beginning, so we know 'original intent' was it was left to the states…

The question was the original intent. What the Founders intended when they wrote and adopted the 2nd Amendment. It was never intended to be left to the States. It was never intended to be left to the whim of municipalities. Just as your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments were not intended to be left to the whims of any State.

See the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.

The point was to clarify that the federal government only had those powers that the Constitution specifically delegated to it, all other powers belonging to the states or to the people; and to prohibit the federal government from claiming or exercising powers that did not belong to it.

The Tenth Amendment mentions, but really doesn't otherwise address the distinction between powers belonging to the states and powers belonging to the people. But the distinction is there.

Now, according to the Second Amendment, to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does it belong to the states? No, it certainly does not. It belongs to the people. Therefore, neither the states nor the federal government have any legitimate authority to violate it.

My point is that despite all the sophistry and wringing of blood from gnats, in real life firearms have always been regulated in one form or another in this country; whether one is happy or not about it isn't a Constitutional issue; the Federal and state Courts rule whatever suits them personally as a majority, and they don''t care about precedent; they can make that up as they go along, and that's what they did. It hasn't been a Constitutional problem since 1792, just a matter of whims every time the SC or a lower Court changes its makeup of ideologies. Precedent was either abandoned or invented from the beginning.

All of this has been refuted with actual court rulings.

You do know that courts are just a bunch of White boys giving their opinion.

Yeah, but they hold the power