2nd Amendment, Scalia and what the Founders meant: Commas, Common Sense and Justice. The question is how to interpret the comma after 'free state.'

[Rumpole]

you want it changed? GET AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IT PASSED.

Westwall's 'no' is an incompetent rebuttal.

I've already recommended a revision. That's my argument, NOT whether I can achieve such a monumental effort personally, your point of which is deflection.

 

[Rumpole]

Even if you can demonstrate the answer to that question is 'no', it does not change the fact 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,

As of Heller, that is correct. Before Heller, no.

The right of the people.
Not the right of the militia.
Not the right of the people in the militia
The right of the people.
As none of the people - that is, not a single person - has a right to any give association with the militia, the 2nd Amendment necessarily protects the exercise of a right not connected to a person's relationship to the militia.

See above.

See above.

 

[Rumpole]

Your specialty. You know, when you continue to fail on such an epic level you really should look in the mirror and reflect on what makes you such an abject failure.

But that requires a higher level of self awareness than you possess.

Your sophomoric insults aside, that is not an argument.

I'll be happy to reply to any serious argument offered.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As of Heller, that is correct.

Thus, your point, rendered moot.
2 decades ago.

 

[Seymour Flops]

As a military-aged male willing and able to defend my community, I fully meet the definition of a "militia," as envisioned by the founders.

It is up to the government to regulate me well, so long as they do not infringe on my right to keep and bear arms.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As a military-aged male willing and able to defend my community, I fully meet the definition of a "militia," as envisioned by the founders.

It is up to the government to regulate me well, so long as they do not infringe on my right to keep and bear arms.

Nope.

The definition of militia is one in which the officers are appointed by the states, as stated in Article 1 Section 8:

"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;"

That's the only militia that is mentioned in the 2A.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in that militia. The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons.

 

[westwall]

Your sophomoric insults aside, that is not an argument.

I'll be happy to reply to any serious argument offered.

Your infantile rebuttal aside, you offer nothing in the way of an argument.

 

[westwall]

Nope.

The definition of militia is one in which the officers are appointed by the states, as stated in Article 1 Section 8:

"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;"

That's the only militia that is mentioned in the 2A.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in that militia. The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons.

Nope. The letters of the various founders are very clear that the 2nd, like ALL the other Bill of Rights, save the 10th which specifically mentions States Rights, are individual Rights.

We know this because the government hasn't disarmed us yet because they would in a new york minute if they thought they could get away with it.

 

[2aguy]

As of Heller, that is correct. Before Heller, no.

See above.

It was always an individual Right and had never been challenged an anything other than as an individual Right. Then, leftists like you wanted to ban guns, and the Supreme Court had to state for moron like you that the 2nd Amendment means what it says.....it is an individual Right.

 

[Rumpole]

Thus, your point, rendered moot.
2 decades ago.

My point doesn't require Heller, that over 2 centuries is sufficient time for the point to be valid. I could have qualified the point by saying 'pre - Heller' and I would have had I known there was a nitpicking pettifogger in the audience.

 

[Rumpole]

Your infantile rebuttal aside, you offer nothing in the way of an argument.

Nice cop out. But, no matter, you wouldn't know a real argument if it bit you on your gluteus maximus.

FYI, as any moron would know, enfants don't rebut.
Sophomores do, so, learn the fine art of pugilistic repartee, you're rather dull.

But, mediocrity becomes you.

 

[westwall]

Nice cop out. But, no matter, you wouldn't know a real argument if it bit you on your gluteus maximus.

FYI, as any moron would know, enfants don't rebut.
Sophomores do, so, learn the fine art of pugilistic repartee, you're rather dull.

But, mediocrity becomes you.

Mediocrity, ah if only you could rise to such an august level...

 

[M14 Shooter]

The right to bear arms is the right to be in that militia.

You're lying.
No one has the right to have any particular association with the militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My point doesn't require Heller...

Your point, per your words:
My point is that [militia] are no longer necessary to state security in the modern world.

However true you may think that to be, it doesn't have any effect on the protections afforded to the right to keep and bear arms by the 2nd. Thus, your point, moot.

 

[Rumpole]

Your point, per your words:
My point is that [militia] are no longer necessary to state security in the modern world.

Which is true.

However true you may think that to be, it doesn't have any effect on the protections afforded to the right to keep and bear arms by the 2nd. Thus, your point, moot.

2A was militia-centric for over two centuries, you want to pettifog on 'since Heller moot'. Good for you, M14 shooter, you're an amazing internet warrior.

Give me a break.

 

[2aguy]

Which is true.

2A was militia-centric for over two centuries, you want to pettifog on 'since Heller moot'. Good for you, M14 shooter, you're an amazing internet warrior.

Give me a break.

No, it wasn't. It was always known to be an individual Right, which is why no one bothered it. Then, leftists like you need to take guns away from AMericans, and you started to lie about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. You lied so much, and you worked so hard to ban guns, the United States Supreme Court finally had to take a case and point out that you were lying.

 

[Rumpole]

Mediocrity, ah if only you could rise to such an august level...

No, mediocrity still becomes you, given that your attempt at wit didn't spark until I supplied the flint. Nice try, no Trumpy Bear.

 

[westwall]

No, mediocrity still becomes you, given that your attempt at wit didn't spark until I supplied the flint. Nice try, no Trumpy Bear.

"I know you are, but what am I"

So much for your dazzling wit, and erudite conversation.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

No, mediocrity still becomes you, given that your attempt at wit didn't spark until I supplied the flint. Nice try, no Trumpy Bear.

Westwall is a sockpuppet of a member named Meister. He gives himself thumbs up across accounts.

 

[westwall]

Westwall is a sockpuppet of a member named Meister. He gives himself thumbs up across accounts.

Poor fakey mcfakerson, spreading lies per usual.