A Question for Rightwingers

[bigrebnc1775]

You are an idiot and an embarrassment to the gun rights side.

How the fuck so dumb ass? Explain yourself? We've had court rulings since 1903 that said the only gun protected by the second amendment are those of military grade weapons and would only be used by the military, and they would be bought by people who were part of the militia.
And as we all know the militia is the American citizen.

And nothing changes . . . Not a syllable of anything you have written in reply to me has anything to do with what I said. You are a constitutional dyslexic, not a scholar and as a watchdog, you only bark at imagined intrusion . . . Worse than useless..

You don't need to talk about the militia act of 1903 it's moot since we have court rulings since then on the second amendment. Now if you continue with the butt hurt feeling I don't care continue on.

 

[ConservatvMedia]

I would not. Not everyone wants a gun, and I wouldn't force them to get one.

 

[Abatis]

You don't need to talk about the militia act of 1903 it's moot since we have court rulings since then on the second amendment. Now if you continue with the butt hurt feeling I don't care continue on.

Once again, my first post in this thread (that you believe is "wrong"): "without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self."

So, a government mandate for citizens to buy guns, can it be said to exist now?

If yes, please explain including how such a mandate is constitutional . . .

If no, is it, a) because there's no law in force now that establishes the structure for the organization, training and command for the militia including the provision that citizens liable for duty to provide themselves with an appropriate arm.

or b) Lewis and Miller (please explain).

or c) something that hasn't been stated yet (state it and explain it). . .

or d) URADUMBASS

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You don't need to talk about the militia act of 1903 it's moot since we have court rulings since then on the second amendment. Now if you continue with the butt hurt feeling I don't care continue on.

Once again, my first post in this thread (that you believe is "wrong"): "without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self."

So, a government mandate for citizens to buy guns, can it be said to exist now?

If yes, please explain including how such a mandate is constitutional . . .

If no, is it, a) because there's no law in force now that establishes the structure for the organization, training and command for the militia including the provision that citizens liable for duty to provide themselves with an appropriate arm.

or b) Lewis and Miller (please explain).

or c) something that hasn't been stated yet (state it and explain it). . .

or d) URADUMBASS

For crying out fucking loud.

You don't need to talk about the militia act of 1903 it's moot since we have court rulings since then on the second amendment. Now if you continue with the butt hurt feeling I don't care continue on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you see it now??

 

[Abatis]

You don't need to talk about the militia act of 1903 it's moot since we have court rulings since then on the second amendment. Now if you continue with the butt hurt feeling I don't care continue on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again, my first post in this thread (that you believe is "wrong"): "without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self."

So, a government mandate for citizens to buy guns, can it be said to exist now?

If yes, please explain including how such a mandate is constitutional . . .

If no, please explain.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You don't need to talk about the militia act of 1903 it's moot since we have court rulings since then on the second amendment. Now if you continue with the butt hurt feeling I don't care continue on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again, my first post in this thread (that you believe is "wrong"): "without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self."

So, a government mandate for citizens to buy guns, can it be said to exist now?

If yes, please explain including how such a mandate is constitutional . . .

If no, please explain.

I can do this bullshit also are you fucking stupid? I am not I repeat I am not saying theirs a mandate from the government to buy guns. but when you say go back to the militia act I say look to the 1938 and 1980 supreme court rulings the militia act is moot at this time.

 

[Abatis]

I am not I repeat I am not saying theirs a mandate from the government to buy guns.

And why isn't 'their' a mandate to buy guns and why am I "wrong"?

but when you say go back to the militia act I say look to the 1938 and 1980 supreme court rulings the militia act is moot at this time.

But those cases have no bearing on militia law. The mandate that did exist, did so with the legitimate exercise of Art I, § 8, cl 16 powers through the Militia Act of 1792. That the 1792 Act was superseded and thus extinguished by the 1903 Act (with the mandate being eliminated) has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or SCOTUS cases dealing with the 2nd Amendment or the right to arms.

The 1792 Militia Act or a future Act could mandate and make provisions for the citizen to acquire an arm that is not protected by the 2nd Amendment (i.e., a full auto M-16) for his militia duty . . . The right of the private citizen to keep and bear his personal arms and the powers of government to regulate the manner of arms acquisition for the organized, enrolled militia are two separate things, with no interrelationship or dependency.

For you to inject Lewis and Miller when the discussion was the the then legitimate power to compel a citizen to acquire a firearm (and the extinguishment of that mandate by later legislative act) demonstrates that you have no understanding of the concepts of powers and rights and the differences between them.

It is clear that the answer you have chosen from my previous post is, d) URADUMBASS.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am not I repeat I am not saying theirs a mandate from the government to buy guns.

And why isn't 'their' a mandate to buy guns and why am I "wrong"?

but when you say go back to the militia act I say look to the 1938 and 1980 supreme court rulings the militia act is moot at this time.

But those cases have no bearing on militia law. The mandate that did exist, did so with the legitimate exercise of Art I, § 8, cl 16 powers through the Militia Act of 1792. That the 1792 Act was superseded and thus extinguished by the 1903 Act (with the mandate being eliminated) has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or SCOTUS cases dealing with the 2nd Amendment or the right to arms.

The 1792 Militia Act or a future Act could mandate and make provisions for the citizen to acquire an arm that is not protected by the 2nd Amendment (i.e., a full auto M-16) for his militia duty . . . The right of the private citizen to keep and bear his personal arms and the powers of government to regulate the manner of arms acquisition for the organized, enrolled militia are two separate things, with no interrelationship or dependency.

For you to inject Lewis and Miller when the discussion was the the then legitimate power to compel a citizen to acquire a firearm (and the extinguishment of that mandate by later legislative act) demonstrates that you have no understanding of the concepts of powers and rights and the differences between them.

It is clear that the answer you have chosen from my previous post is, d) URADUMBASS.

But those cases have no bearing on militia law.

This is the only thing I will comment on, because the rest of your post is super stupid . Those supreme court ruling deal with the second Amendment, and what weapons were protected by the second amendment which was weapons you would find in the militia and they had to be purchased by the one who carried them. The end.

 

[Samson]

This is the only thing I will comment on, because the rest of your post is super stupid . Those supreme court ruling deal with the second Amendment, and what weapons were protected by the second amendment which was weapons you would find in the militia and they had to be purchased by the one who carried them. The end.

After 40 pages, the same could be said of the entire thread.

Somehow an argument has germinated among abortionists that the individual rights of a woman to have an abortion is comprable to the second amendment, and an individual's right to bear arms.

While the comparison is possible, it has no popular support:

Despite whatever the minority may wish there is not enough suppport among Americans to pass any amendment allowing the individual rights that abortionists claim, while there IS SUPPORT to maintain the 2nd ammendment rights, including that for individuals to bear arms.

Thus, the only way abortion remains legal is through legislative inaction (cowardice) and through liberal judicial constitutional interpretation.

Our congress is filled with the most spinless individuals we could choose to slither under the doors of those chambers: Our country deserves better. Competing amendments to the constitution should be carried, and one should pass, allowing an unabmiguous decision about the matter to stand, one way or the other.

 

[Abatis]

Those supreme court ruling deal with the second Amendment, and what weapons were protected by the second amendment

Which has nothing to do with the citizen liable to perform militia duty being compelled to provide a weapon for themselves. The mandate is what is at issue, the pivotal thing here, not the general protection of ownership (without regard to one's militia connection) once the person possesses the gun.

There is zero 2nd Amendment interest / involvement /impact in the government mandating arms ownership for enrolled militia members, thus Lewis and Miller offer nothing in this discussion. You are the one putting restrictions on the right to arms by chaining the 2nd Amendment to the powers conferred to government for controlling the militia in Art I, § 8, cl 16 and codified by the Militia Act of 1792.

Powers are powers and rights are rights and the two do not mingle.

which was weapons you would find in the militia and they had to be purchased by the one who carried them. The end.

But the 2nd Amendment protects the personal arms owned by private citizen without any regard as to the citizen's militia status. Yes, the type of arm protected by the Amendment is the type that would be useful if the citizen were called, but the protection doesn't depend on the person being called.

Again. the compelled acquisition of the weapon by enrolled militia members to perform their militia service is not an issue for the 2nd Amendment . . . the Amendment could be claimed to protect the ownership of the weapon later but that protection exists regardless of why the gun was acquired (defense, sport, hunting, collecting or to fulfill one's militia obligation).

The end.

Christ on a Pink Pony, we can hope that someday you will understand.

 

[daws101]

So do you belong to the 80 percent of Dem Underground who lives with mental illness on a daily basis?

dem underground?
you tell me as your are the reigning Queen of mental illness.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Those supreme court ruling deal with the second Amendment, and what weapons were protected by the second amendment

Which has nothing to do with the citizen liable to perform militia duty being compelled to provide a weapon for themselves. The mandate is what is at issue, the pivotal thing here, not the general protection of ownership (without regard to one's militia connection) once the person possesses the gun.

There is zero 2nd Amendment interest / involvement /impact in the government mandating arms ownership for enrolled militia members, thus Lewis and Miller offer nothing in this discussion. You are the one putting restrictions on the right to arms by chaining the 2nd Amendment to the powers conferred to government for controlling the militia in Art I, § 8, cl 16 and codified by the Militia Act of 1792.

Powers are powers and rights are rights and the two do not mingle.

which was weapons you would find in the militia and they had to be purchased by the one who carried them. The end.

But the 2nd Amendment protects the personal arms owned by private citizen without any regard as to the citizen's militia status. Yes, the type of arm protected by the Amendment is the type that would be useful if the citizen were called, but the protection doesn't depend on the person being called.

Again. the compelled acquisition of the weapon by enrolled militia members to perform their militia service is not an issue for the 2nd Amendment . . . the Amendment could be claimed to protect the ownership of the weapon later but that protection exists regardless of why the gun was acquired (defense, sport, hunting, collecting or to fulfill one's militia obligation).

The end.

Christ on a Pink Pony, we can hope that someday you will understand.

I can't help stupid, ignorant yes but stupid no.
You've tried every way to invalidate the supreme court rulings of of 1938 and 1980.
1. They ruled that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of use for military standards. They also ruled to be part of the militia you had to have weapons of the day and owned by the one who would be carrying them.

 

[daws101]

Those supreme court ruling deal with the second Amendment, and what weapons were protected by the second amendment

Which has nothing to do with the citizen liable to perform militia duty being compelled to provide a weapon for themselves. The mandate is what is at issue, the pivotal thing here, not the general protection of ownership (without regard to one's militia connection) once the person possesses the gun.

There is zero 2nd Amendment interest / involvement /impact in the government mandating arms ownership for enrolled militia members, thus Lewis and Miller offer nothing in this discussion. You are the one putting restrictions on the right to arms by chaining the 2nd Amendment to the powers conferred to government for controlling the militia in Art I, § 8, cl 16 and codified by the Militia Act of 1792.

Powers are powers and rights are rights and the two do not mingle.



But the 2nd Amendment protects the personal arms owned by private citizen without any regard as to the citizen's militia status. Yes, the type of arm protected by the Amendment is the type that would be useful if the citizen were called, but the protection doesn't depend on the person being called.

Again. the compelled acquisition of the weapon by enrolled militia members to perform their militia service is not an issue for the 2nd Amendment . . . the Amendment could be claimed to protect the ownership of the weapon later but that protection exists regardless of why the gun was acquired (defense, sport, hunting, collecting or to fulfill one's militia obligation).

The end.

Christ on a Pink Pony, we can hope that someday you will understand.

I can't help stupid, ignorant yes but stupid no.
You've tried every way to invalidate the supreme court rulings of of 1938 and 1980.
1. They ruled that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of use for military standards. They also ruled to be part of the militia you had to have weapons of the day and owned by the one who would be carrying them.

an intelligent person would conceded the argument....reply in 5....4....3....2...1

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which has nothing to do with the citizen liable to perform militia duty being compelled to provide a weapon for themselves. The mandate is what is at issue, the pivotal thing here, not the general protection of ownership (without regard to one's militia connection) once the person possesses the gun.

There is zero 2nd Amendment interest / involvement /impact in the government mandating arms ownership for enrolled militia members, thus Lewis and Miller offer nothing in this discussion. You are the one putting restrictions on the right to arms by chaining the 2nd Amendment to the powers conferred to government for controlling the militia in Art I, § 8, cl 16 and codified by the Militia Act of 1792.

Powers are powers and rights are rights and the two do not mingle.



But the 2nd Amendment protects the personal arms owned by private citizen without any regard as to the citizen's militia status. Yes, the type of arm protected by the Amendment is the type that would be useful if the citizen were called, but the protection doesn't depend on the person being called.

Again. the compelled acquisition of the weapon by enrolled militia members to perform their militia service is not an issue for the 2nd Amendment . . . the Amendment could be claimed to protect the ownership of the weapon later but that protection exists regardless of why the gun was acquired (defense, sport, hunting, collecting or to fulfill one's militia obligation).



Christ on a Pink Pony, we can hope that someday you will understand.

I can't help stupid, ignorant yes but stupid no.
You've tried every way to invalidate the supreme court rulings of of 1938 and 1980.
1. They ruled that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of use for military standards. They also ruled to be part of the militia you had to have weapons of the day and owned by the one who would be carrying them.

an intelligent person would conceded the argument....reply in 5....4....3....2...1

Maybe he should concede

 

[daws101]

I can't help stupid, ignorant yes but stupid no.
You've tried every way to invalidate the supreme court rulings of of 1938 and 1980.
1. They ruled that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of use for military standards. They also ruled to be part of the militia you had to have weapons of the day and owned by the one who would be carrying them.

an intelligent person would conceded the argument....reply in 5....4....3....2...1

Maybe he should concede

you've just proved my point!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

an intelligent person would conceded the argument....reply in 5....4....3....2...1

Maybe he should concede

you've just proved my point!

He hasn't made his point that is relevant. But your support of irrelevant statements is not shocking. You're stupid that way.

 

[daws101]

Maybe he should concede

you've just proved my point!

He hasn't made his point that is relevant. But your support of irrelevant statements is not shocking. You're stupid that way.

right ! your ass should be sore as much as it has been kicked .

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you've just proved my point!

He hasn't made his point that is relevant. But your support of irrelevant statements is not shocking. You're stupid that way.

right ! your ass should be sore as much as it has been kicked .

Not surprised you saying stupid shit but don't let me stop you. Do you even know what has been discussed?

 

[Mr.Nick]

The Second Amendment is pretty clear given the intent of the other 9 Amendments of the Bill of Rights - not to mention the history of the United States and what we allegedly (presently) stand for and fought against - or opposed.

The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms to coup the government if it gets too tyrannical. Because after all this is a nation built by the people for the people and made up by the people.

The Bill of Rights or more specifically the Second Amendment authorizes coups...

 

[daws101]

He hasn't made his point that is relevant. But your support of irrelevant statements is not shocking. You're stupid that way.

right ! your ass should be sore as much as it has been kicked .

Not surprised you saying stupid shit but don't let me stop you. Do you even know what has been discussed?

do you? it started out as a comparison then turned in to my gun is bigger then your gun nra fest.
then you got your ass handed to you ....is that about right?