2nd Amendment should not be infringed upon because of Las Vegas shooter.

[Liquid Reigns]

So your theory is that the 14th Amendment nullified all of your unalienable Rights?

I take that issue on quite regularly:

The 14th Amendment Clarified, Citizenship, Constitution of the United States of America, Supreme Law

The Two United States, Two Sets of Laws, How it Applies to You, Citizen of the United States of America

Sovereign Citizen stupidity. LMFAO

 

[danielpalos]

Social justice or public justice, not private justice.

The court system IS public justice. No more phony arguments, please. Get real.

Simply using tax moneys, makes it social, not capital.

In any case, we have a Second Amendment, only the unorganized militia and gun lovers whine about not being able to keep and bear Arms in public venues, like well regulated militia.

The more you post, the more silly your posts get. A well regulated militia (the military in your interpretation - whether it is state or federal) cannot bear arms in public venues. A United States Marine, a National Guardsman and the guy from the state organized militia is prohibited, just like you from taking a militia arm into a courthouse, sporting event, the polls, etc.

There is no special privilege for them. The right is an individual Right, sir. It is not a militia Right. The Right belongs to the people, not the militia.

You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.

The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.

A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed.

I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm. The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. Regulation is not gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.

danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them. Then get back to me. Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation. Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.

Moronic posts making an idiotic and irrelevant accusation over and over are desperate attempts to hide the fact that danielpalos is clueless, causeless, uninformed, and not able to understand that he is making up shit to argue about that has nothing to do with what I said.

NOBODY is litigating natural rights except danielpalos and then, only in that expanse between his ears.

Our Second Amendment is very specific and not about natural rights, but what is necessary to the security of a free State of our Union and Republic.

 

[Humorme]

The court system IS public justice. No more phony arguments, please. Get real.

Simply using tax moneys, makes it social, not capital.

In any case, we have a Second Amendment, only the unorganized militia and gun lovers whine about not being able to keep and bear Arms in public venues, like well regulated militia.

The more you post, the more silly your posts get. A well regulated militia (the military in your interpretation - whether it is state or federal) cannot bear arms in public venues. A United States Marine, a National Guardsman and the guy from the state organized militia is prohibited, just like you from taking a militia arm into a courthouse, sporting event, the polls, etc.

There is no special privilege for them. The right is an individual Right, sir. It is not a militia Right. The Right belongs to the people, not the militia.

You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.

The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.

A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed.

I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm. The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. Regulation is not gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.

danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them. Then get back to me. Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation. Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.

Moronic posts making an idiotic and irrelevant accusation over and over are desperate attempts to hide the fact that danielpalos is clueless, causeless, uninformed, and not able to understand that he is making up shit to argue about that has nothing to do with what I said.

NOBODY is litigating natural rights except danielpalos and then, only in that expanse between his ears.

Our Second Amendment is very specific and not about natural rights, but what is necessary to the security of a free State of our Union and Republic.

And still, the Second Amendment acknowledges (not grants nor secures) the Right of the people...

 

[danielpalos]

Simply using tax moneys, makes it social, not capital.

In any case, we have a Second Amendment, only the unorganized militia and gun lovers whine about not being able to keep and bear Arms in public venues, like well regulated militia.

The more you post, the more silly your posts get. A well regulated militia (the military in your interpretation - whether it is state or federal) cannot bear arms in public venues. A United States Marine, a National Guardsman and the guy from the state organized militia is prohibited, just like you from taking a militia arm into a courthouse, sporting event, the polls, etc.

There is no special privilege for them. The right is an individual Right, sir. It is not a militia Right. The Right belongs to the people, not the militia.

You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.

The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.

A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed.

I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm. The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. Regulation is not gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.

danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them. Then get back to me. Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation. Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.

Moronic posts making an idiotic and irrelevant accusation over and over are desperate attempts to hide the fact that danielpalos is clueless, causeless, uninformed, and not able to understand that he is making up shit to argue about that has nothing to do with what I said.

NOBODY is litigating natural rights except danielpalos and then, only in that expanse between his ears.

Our Second Amendment is very specific and not about natural rights, but what is necessary to the security of a free State of our Union and Republic.

And still, the Second Amendment acknowledges (not grants nor secures) the Right of the people...

The People are the Militia, for Second Amendment purposes; you are either, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.

You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.

The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Dude," At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda. That is more than we can honestly say about you.

What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant. You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question. Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?

You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are. Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia. You've never even been in a militia. I wrote the handbook for our state's militia. That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.

So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey? EVERY sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths. And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.

LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells: Your Rights are NOT "secured" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies. Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:

"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."

secure

All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights, is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms. When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress) before considering any extraordinary actions.

Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)

According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.

You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.

Talk about being a poser. LMFAO

FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states

Private Militias

 

[Humorme]

"Dude," At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda. That is more than we can honestly say about you.

What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant. You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question. Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?

You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are. Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia. You've never even been in a militia. I wrote the handbook for our state's militia. That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.

So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey? EVERY sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths. And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.

LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells: Your Rights are NOT "secured" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies. Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:

"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."

secure

All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights, is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms. When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress) before considering any extraordinary actions.

Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)

According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.

You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.

Talk about being a poser. LMFAO

FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states

Private Militias

I am IN a civilian militia. They are perfectly legal and recognized by the government. They know the leadership in Georgia; they are well aware of where we meet (publicly) and, despite that, NONE of us in this organization has ever spent a night in jail or been found guilty of a crime due to anything related to the militia. Having been around since 1987, anybody that claims they are illegal or terroristic, etc. is probably 13 or terribly stupid.

Addendum: Sorry, I noticed that you were responding to a troll on my ignore list. That POS is supposed to be gone from here for publishing personal info about me, so don't take whatever he's saying seriously. Most of it will be lies, errors and crap he posts in a vain effort to discredit me when he has zero credibility himself.

 

[Humorme]

The more you post, the more silly your posts get. A well regulated militia (the military in your interpretation - whether it is state or federal) cannot bear arms in public venues. A United States Marine, a National Guardsman and the guy from the state organized militia is prohibited, just like you from taking a militia arm into a courthouse, sporting event, the polls, etc.

There is no special privilege for them. The right is an individual Right, sir. It is not a militia Right. The Right belongs to the people, not the militia.

You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.

The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.

A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed.

I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm. The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. Regulation is not gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.

danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them. Then get back to me. Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation. Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.

Moronic posts making an idiotic and irrelevant accusation over and over are desperate attempts to hide the fact that danielpalos is clueless, causeless, uninformed, and not able to understand that he is making up shit to argue about that has nothing to do with what I said.

NOBODY is litigating natural rights except danielpalos and then, only in that expanse between his ears.

Our Second Amendment is very specific and not about natural rights, but what is necessary to the security of a free State of our Union and Republic.

And still, the Second Amendment acknowledges (not grants nor secures) the Right of the people...

The People are the Militia, for Second Amendment purposes; you are either, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.

You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.

The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.

You are an absolute dumb ass. It is impossible to confuse natural rights with the Second Amendment when my position is that they are two different things. You making the same fake claim over and over won't make it come true. It only exposes how completely stupid you really are.

The concept of natural, inherent, unalienable, God given, absolute Rights are not a part of this discussion except to the extent that the Right to keep and bear Arms is an individual Right of which YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS CONFUSED.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

"Dude," At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda. That is more than we can honestly say about you.

What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant. You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question. Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?

You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are. Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia. You've never even been in a militia. I wrote the handbook for our state's militia. That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.

So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey? EVERY sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths. And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.

LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells: Your Rights are NOT "secured" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies. Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:

"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."

secure

All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights, is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms. When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress) before considering any extraordinary actions.

Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)

According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.

You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.

Talk about being a poser. LMFAO

FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states

Private Militias

I am IN a civilian militia. They are perfectly legal and recognized by the government. They know the leadership in Georgia; they are well aware of where we meet (publicly) and, despite that, NONE of us in this organization has ever spent a night in jail or been found guilty of a crime due to anything related to the militia. Having been around since 1987, anybody that claims they are illegal or terroristic, etc. is probably 13 or terribly stupid.

Addendum: Sorry, I noticed that you were responding to a troll on my ignore list. That POS is supposed to be gone from here for publishing personal info about me, so don't take whatever he's saying seriously. Most of it will be lies, errors and crap he posts in a vain effort to discredit me when he has zero credibility himself.

You are only recognized by the govt as a domestic terrorist. The state and federal govt will not call upon you in time of need, as you are not recognized. I suggest you read Skulls link.

Private Militias
Private militias are armed military groups that are composed of private citizens and not recognized by federal or state governments.

and

Approximately half the states maintain laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation of private militias. In Wyoming, however, state law forbids the very formation of private militias. Under section 19-1-106 of the Wyoming Statutes, "No body of men other than the regularly organized national guard or the troops of the United States shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with arms without license of the governor." The Wyoming law also prohibits the public funding of private militias. Anyone convicted of violating the provisions of the law is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000, imprisonment of six months, or both, for each offense.

In states that do not outlaw them, private militias are limited only by the criminal laws applicable to all of society. Thus, if an armed private militia seeks to parade and exercise in a public area, its members will be subject to arrest on a variety of laws, including disturbing-the-peace, firearms, or even riot statutes.

Many states have laws that if more then 2 or 3 people are involved in military type training exorcises then they need to have certified instructors and have paid for the instructor on site.

Just because you have a "club" you call a militia, doesn't make a you an actual militia or legal in any sense of the word.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

"Dude," At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda. That is more than we can honestly say about you.

What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant. You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question. Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?

You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are. Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia. You've never even been in a militia. I wrote the handbook for our state's militia. That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.

So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey? EVERY sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths. And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.

LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells: Your Rights are NOT "secured" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies. Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:

"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."

secure

All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights, is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms. When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress) before considering any extraordinary actions.

Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)

According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.

You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.

Talk about being a poser. LMFAO

FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states

Private Militias

Anybody can form a club/group and call it a militia, it doesn't make it an actual militia.

 

[danielpalos]

You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.

The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.

A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed.

I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm. The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. Regulation is not gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.

danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them. Then get back to me. Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation. Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.

Moronic posts making an idiotic and irrelevant accusation over and over are desperate attempts to hide the fact that danielpalos is clueless, causeless, uninformed, and not able to understand that he is making up shit to argue about that has nothing to do with what I said.

NOBODY is litigating natural rights except danielpalos and then, only in that expanse between his ears.

Our Second Amendment is very specific and not about natural rights, but what is necessary to the security of a free State of our Union and Republic.

And still, the Second Amendment acknowledges (not grants nor secures) the Right of the people...

The People are the Militia, for Second Amendment purposes; you are either, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.

You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.

The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.

You are an absolute dumb ass. It is impossible to confuse natural rights with the Second Amendment when my position is that they are two different things. You making the same fake claim over and over won't make it come true. It only exposes how completely stupid you really are.

The concept of natural, inherent, unalienable, God given, absolute Rights are not a part of this discussion except to the extent that the Right to keep and bear Arms is an individual Right of which YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS CONFUSED.

If no natural rights are involved in our Second Amendment, then why claim the unorganized militia may not be Infringed, when required by well regulated militia, for the security of a free State?

 

[there4eyeM]

Assault style firearms obviously appeal to the onerous, darker side of those who adhere to the second amendment so ferociously. They are certainly not necessary, while being outstanding as the 'weapon of choice' by domestic sickos. Many models of semi-automatic rifles in .556 caliber exist on the market, but if they have a wooden stock, they just don't look mean enough to satisfy the 'Rambo' in the "gut-gun kult".
The 'right' to possess and, in certain situations, carry firearms may be protected by the Constitution, but that by no means makes all and every aspect of firearms, ammunition, sales and taxation sacrosanct.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Dude," At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda. That is more than we can honestly say about you.

What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant. You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question. Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?

You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are. Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia. You've never even been in a militia. I wrote the handbook for our state's militia. That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.

So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey? EVERY sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths. And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.

LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells: Your Rights are NOT "secured" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies. Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:

"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."

secure

All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights, is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms. When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress) before considering any extraordinary actions.

Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)

According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.

You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.

Talk about being a poser. LMFAO

FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states

Private Militias

Anybody can form a club/group and call it a militia, it doesn't make it an actual militia.

The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public. It says nothing of training on private lands.

And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law

 

[Skull Pilot]

Assault style firearms obviously appeal to the onerous, darker side of those who adhere to the second amendment so ferociously. They are certainly not necessary, while being outstanding as the 'weapon of choice' by domestic sickos. Many models of semi-automatic rifles in .556 caliber exist on the market, but if they have a wooden stock, they just don't look mean enough to satisfy the 'Rambo' in the "gut-gun kult".
The 'right' to possess and, in certain situations, carry firearms may be protected by the Constitution, but that by no means makes all and every aspect of firearms, ammunition, sales and taxation sacrosanct.

So tell me the reasoning behind banning an AR 15 and not a Ruger Mini 14.

You just said there is no difference between the two other than cosmetic

Than banning of an AR 15 and not any other semiautomatic rifle of the same caliber is like banning black corvettes but not any other color

 

[danielpalos]

"Dude," At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda. That is more than we can honestly say about you.

What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant. You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question. Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?

You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are. Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia. You've never even been in a militia. I wrote the handbook for our state's militia. That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.

So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey? EVERY sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths. And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.

LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells: Your Rights are NOT "secured" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies. Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:

"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."

secure

All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights, is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms. When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress) before considering any extraordinary actions.

Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)

According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.

You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.

Talk about being a poser. LMFAO

FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states

Private Militias

Anybody can form a club/group and call it a militia, it doesn't make it an actual militia.

The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public. It says nothing of training on private lands.

And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law

Well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners and guidons, by our Government.

 

[danielpalos]

Assault style firearms obviously appeal to the onerous, darker side of those who adhere to the second amendment so ferociously. They are certainly not necessary, while being outstanding as the 'weapon of choice' by domestic sickos. Many models of semi-automatic rifles in .556 caliber exist on the market, but if they have a wooden stock, they just don't look mean enough to satisfy the 'Rambo' in the "gut-gun kult".
The 'right' to possess and, in certain situations, carry firearms may be protected by the Constitution, but that by no means makes all and every aspect of firearms, ammunition, sales and taxation sacrosanct.

So tell me the reasoning behind banning an AR 15 and not a Ruger Mini 14.

You just said there is no difference between the two other than cosmetic

Than banning of an AR 15 and not any other semiautomatic rifle of the same caliber is like banning black corvettes but not any other color

What is more necessary for the common defense?

 

[danielpalos]

Should everyone be entitled to a musket with a bayonet, and instructed to take care of their weapon?

 

[Humorme]

"Dude," At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda. That is more than we can honestly say about you.

What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant. You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question. Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?

You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are. Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia. You've never even been in a militia. I wrote the handbook for our state's militia. That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.

So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey? EVERY sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths. And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.

LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells: Your Rights are NOT "secured" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies. Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:

"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."

secure

All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights, is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms. When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress) before considering any extraordinary actions.

Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)

According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.

You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.

Talk about being a poser. LMFAO

FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states

Private Militias

Anybody can form a club/group and call it a militia, it doesn't make it an actual militia.

The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public. It says nothing of training on private lands.

And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law

Well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners and guidons, by our Government.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an individual Right and one need not be in the militia in order to have a firearm.

According to the United States Supreme Court:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,"

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

That is the HOLDING of the Court... the bottom line from the final arbiters of what the law means. So, you can believe danielpalos or the United States Supreme Court.

 

[Humorme]

Should everyone be entitled to a musket with a bayonet, and instructed to take care of their weapon?

The modern equivalent would be an AR type of rifle, and it would be a great idea if everybody owned one and the public schools taught marksmanship and safety.

 

[danielpalos]

Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)

According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.

You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.

Talk about being a poser. LMFAO

FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states

Private Militias

Anybody can form a club/group and call it a militia, it doesn't make it an actual militia.

The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public. It says nothing of training on private lands.

And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law

Well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners and guidons, by our Government.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an individual Right and one need not be in the militia in order to have a firearm.

According to the United States Supreme Court:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,"

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

That is the HOLDING of the Court... the bottom line from the final arbiters of what the law means. So, you can believe danielpalos or the United States Supreme Court.

It is a simple appeal to ignorance of the law. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are unorganized (by our Republican form of Government).

 

[Humorme]

"Dude," At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda. That is more than we can honestly say about you.

What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant. You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question. Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?

You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are. Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia. You've never even been in a militia. I wrote the handbook for our state's militia. That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.

So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey? EVERY sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths. And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.

LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells: Your Rights are NOT "secured" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies. Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:

"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."

secure

All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights, is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms. When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress) before considering any extraordinary actions.

Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)

According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.

You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.

Talk about being a poser. LMFAO

FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states

Private Militias

Anybody can form a club/group and call it a militia, it doesn't make it an actual militia.

The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public. It says nothing of training on private lands.

And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law

Actually most anti-militia statutes are aimed at "paramilitary activity." The existence of the civilian militia poses no problem for the law enforcement community. Wear your camo, parade in public, etc., without carrying a firearm, you're good to go.

When you train with firearms, do so as a civilian in events like Appleseed Shoots and everybody is happy.