Free AR for Everyone?

[danielpalos]

ncorrect.
The purpose, use, and definition of the well regulated militia is up to state or local constitutions or laws.

That is why I don't take right wingers seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

From 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;

 

[Natural Citizen]

There's more satisfaction in burying a hatchet in an attackers nawgin.

Ahhh woo woo woo woo woo woo woo woo...

 

[danielpalos]

Free AR weapons qualification and training with the organized militia. To the militia mobile!

I don't anyone is denying that firearms should come only with a reasonable amount of training.
They are far easier to learn how to use than something as complex as a car, but there are a few basic safety standards.

It doesn't seem like it when gun lovers just want to love their gun not be Patriotic enough to get Well Regulated.

 

[Rigby5]

ncorrect.
The purpose, use, and definition of the well regulated militia is up to state or local constitutions or laws.

That is why I don't take right wingers seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

From 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;

First of all, I am vastly more left wing than anyone one on this board or almost all boards.
Second is that what you are quoting from the constitution is how the federal government is supposed to requisition and finance the Federal Militia out of the local and state militias.
There was supposed to be no standing federal military, but only a Federal Militia called up from state and local resources, when needed.
Whether the 2nd amendment is to ensure there is a state or local militia for the federal government to call on, is not relevant because the needs of the state, municipalities, and individuals to be able to rely on arms greatly exceeds that of the rare incident when the federal government may also want to rely on these individual arms.
One reason for there to be no federal arms laws, does not imply there are not other reasons as well.
There still must be no federal arms laws either way.

Again, that has to be obvious since there were no local police of any significance until after about 1900.
Not only were almost all families armed back then, but that was the expectation.
Law enforcement was entirely by volunteer posses.
Do we have to go back and find quotes from George Washington where he was contemplating mandating firearm ownership, and considering penalties for families that failed to own arms?

 

[Rigby5]

Can your AR defend against enemy drones?

Nope, you are lost in the past

Enemy drones? So, now, D.C. is an acknowledged enemy by you people?

Only rebels without a Cause say that.

There is more than enough cause.
Almost all federal laws, from Prohibition, the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, gun control, FDA, CDC, etc., are totally and completely illegal.
Those are supposed to all be entirely up to the states.

The federal government consistently lies and murders, from "Remember the Maine", to Vietnam, Iraqi WMD, Grenada, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.

Mostly right wingers advocate for many of those policies. Besides, our First Amendment is First not Second.

Yes, so far all wars have been over right wing profits.
I agree with that.

But I do not understand your reference to the first amendment preceding the 2nd?
A theory without a means of implementation is useless.

 

[Rigby5]

Free AR weapons qualification and training with the organized militia. To the militia mobile!

I don't anyone is denying that firearms should come only with a reasonable amount of training.
They are far easier to learn how to use than something as complex as a car, but there are a few basic safety standards.

It doesn't seem like it when gun lovers just want to love their gun not be Patriotic enough to get Well Regulated.

The original meaning of "well regulated" means to keep functioning smoothly, without impediment.
For example, a "well regulated clock" or the federal laws to "regulate interstate commerce". That federal regulation of interstate commerce is to prevent states from interfering with interstate commerce, not to restrict it. The modern idea that regulation means to restrict, is totally wrong and backwards. The point of a well regulated militia is that they would be useless to call up to defend against a sneak attack unless they were already well armed and practiced. To have a Well Regulated Militia for defense, then all adult males need to have, be familiar, and be practiced in the use of arms.
Well regulated means functioning efficiently and smoothly.

I agree we should all want to be "well regulated", but the federal government is only an evil impediment when it comes to that. It does not want a well armed population, but a monopoly of arms by corrupt minority they pay and own.

 

[danielpalos]

ncorrect.
The purpose, use, and definition of the well regulated militia is up to state or local constitutions or laws.

That is why I don't take right wingers seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

From 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;

First of all, I am vastly more left wing than anyone one on this board or almost all boards.
Second is that what you are quoting from the constitution is how the federal government is supposed to requisition and finance the Federal Militia out of the local and state militias.
There was supposed to be no standing federal military, but only a Federal Militia called up from state and local resources, when needed.
Whether the 2nd amendment is to ensure there is a state or local militia for the federal government to call on, is not relevant because the needs of the state, municipalities, and individuals to be able to rely on arms greatly exceeds that of the rare incident when the federal government may also want to rely on these individual arms.
One reason for there to be no federal arms laws, does not imply there are not other reasons as well.
There still must be no federal arms laws either way.

Again, that has to be obvious since there were no local police of any significance until after about 1900.
Not only were almost all families armed back then, but that was the expectation.
Law enforcement was entirely by volunteer posses.
Do we have to go back and find quotes from George Washington where he was contemplating mandating firearm ownership, and considering penalties for families that failed to own arms?

I would agree with you more and we would perhaps not have as many gun related problems if our legislators did their legislative job:

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.

 

[danielpalos]

Can your AR defend against enemy drones?

Nope, you are lost in the past

Enemy drones? So, now, D.C. is an acknowledged enemy by you people?

Only rebels without a Cause say that.

There is more than enough cause.
Almost all federal laws, from Prohibition, the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, gun control, FDA, CDC, etc., are totally and completely illegal.
Those are supposed to all be entirely up to the states.

The federal government consistently lies and murders, from "Remember the Maine", to Vietnam, Iraqi WMD, Grenada, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.

Mostly right wingers advocate for many of those policies. Besides, our First Amendment is First not Second.

Yes, so far all wars have been over right wing profits.
I agree with that.

But I do not understand your reference to the first amendment preceding the 2nd?
A theory without a means of implementation is useless.

Our First Amendment is First and should be resorted to First not Second as many gun lovers would prefer.

 

[danielpalos]

The original meaning of "well regulated" means to keep functioning smoothly, without impediment.

That is right wing propaganda and rhetoric. It would mean that but for the specific enumerations in our federal Constitution that define something else. Did you miss it? Well Regulated means what our federal Congress proclaims and prescribes it to mean: and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[justinacolmena]

The original meaning of "well regulated" means to keep functioning smoothly, without impediment.

You can't just trhow a stumbling block in front of the right to bear arms and call it well-regulated.

That is right wing propaganda and rhetoric. It would mean that but for the specific enumerations in our federal Constitution that define something else. Did you miss it? Well Regulated means what our federal Congress proclaims it to mean.

Dude you're a thief in law (вор в зако́не) when you say that, and you have made it clear that you are bent on stealing our guns and our gun rights through all possible means no matter what. Your desire to take our weapons away is too strong, and you will end up losing your life over it. You Dems want whatever Congress passes to rule in a Democrat railroad court system regardless of the Constitution -- whether the statutory roadblocks you push through are in pursuance of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land or not.

 

[Rigby5]

ncorrect.
The purpose, use, and definition of the well regulated militia is up to state or local constitutions or laws.

That is why I don't take right wingers seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

From 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;

First of all, I am vastly more left wing than anyone one on this board or almost all boards.
Second is that what you are quoting from the constitution is how the federal government is supposed to requisition and finance the Federal Militia out of the local and state militias.
There was supposed to be no standing federal military, but only a Federal Militia called up from state and local resources, when needed.
Whether the 2nd amendment is to ensure there is a state or local militia for the federal government to call on, is not relevant because the needs of the state, municipalities, and individuals to be able to rely on arms greatly exceeds that of the rare incident when the federal government may also want to rely on these individual arms.
One reason for there to be no federal arms laws, does not imply there are not other reasons as well.
There still must be no federal arms laws either way.

Again, that has to be obvious since there were no local police of any significance until after about 1900.
Not only were almost all families armed back then, but that was the expectation.
Law enforcement was entirely by volunteer posses.
Do we have to go back and find quotes from George Washington where he was contemplating mandating firearm ownership, and considering penalties for families that failed to own arms?

I would agree with you more and we would perhaps not have as many gun related problems if our legislators did their legislative job:

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.

That is true the state legislatures dropped the ball when around 1900 they allowed for a more permanent federal military force and pretty much dropped the role of the states.

However, that does not change the fact the 4th amendment still requires each individual to be able to defend themselves, family, and home. And the 14th amendment codifies individual rights as having precedence over any federal or state delegated authority. So then any federal weapons law is pretty much totally illegal, and even all state and local laws have to allow for nothing that would infringe upon home defense. I think that even includes convicted felons once they have served their term. You may be able to prohibit them from carrying arms in public, but not in the home. That is so paramount that there is no legal way to infringe upon that inherent right of home defense.

 

[Rigby5]

Can your AR defend against enemy drones?

Nope, you are lost in the past

Enemy drones? So, now, D.C. is an acknowledged enemy by you people?

Only rebels without a Cause say that.

There is more than enough cause.
Almost all federal laws, from Prohibition, the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, gun control, FDA, CDC, etc., are totally and completely illegal.
Those are supposed to all be entirely up to the states.

The federal government consistently lies and murders, from "Remember the Maine", to Vietnam, Iraqi WMD, Grenada, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.

Mostly right wingers advocate for many of those policies. Besides, our First Amendment is First not Second.

Yes, so far all wars have been over right wing profits.
I agree with that.

But I do not understand your reference to the first amendment preceding the 2nd?
A theory without a means of implementation is useless.

Our First Amendment is First and should be resorted to First not Second as many gun lovers would prefer.

I do not understand what you mean?

Here is the first:
{... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ....}
While it lists rights, it provides nothing to protect them.
Without some means of protection of rights, they are useless.
But I prefer the 4th amendment and 14th amendments as a protection of individual gun rights.

 

[justinacolmena]

I think that even includes convicted felons once they have served their term. You may be able to prohibit them from carrying arms in public, but not in the home. That is so paramount that there is no legal way to infringe upon that inherent right of home defense.

You need to be able to carry the arms to and from places of commerce and buy and sell them privately, too, without having the cops bust you in your home with a previous record.

 

[Rigby5]

The original meaning of "well regulated" means to keep functioning smoothly, without impediment.

That is right wing propaganda and rhetoric. It would mean that but for the specific enumerations in our federal Constitution that define something else. Did you miss it? Well Regulated means what our federal Congress proclaims and prescribes it to mean: and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Wrong.
The ability for the federal government to be able to borrow the state militia when necessary, does not at all dictate what the state militia should be like in any way.
All it does is provide for being able to call them up and temporarily create a Federal Militia out of the many state militias.
Nor does that in any way over ride or prevent there from being state, local, or personal needs or uses of the non-federal Militia.

Again, the Bill of Rights in no way tries to dictate what state or local authorities may be, but merely restricts federal authority.
The 2nd amendment is only and exactly a prohibition on any and all federal weapons jurisdiction.

 

[justinacolmena]

The 2nd amendment is only and exactly a prohibition on any and all federal weapons jurisdiction.

No.

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

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.

constitutioncenter.org

It is a right of the people that shall not be infringed by federal, state, or local government, or in any other way or by any other means. Don't be so niggardly in your interpretation and narrow stingy construction of our rights.

 

[Orangecat]

1. Unlike "health care" or "education" the constitution states that right to arms should be guaranteed to all. What better way to guarantee that than have a free AR for everyone?

I believe the Constitution recognizes a right to bear them, not have them provided free of charge. Just like promoting the general welfare does not mean providing healthcare free of charge.

 

[Rigby5]

The 2nd amendment is only and exactly a prohibition on any and all federal weapons jurisdiction.

No.

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

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.

constitutioncenter.org

It is a right of the people that shall not be infringed by federal, state, or local government, or in any other way or by any other means. Don't be so niggardly in your interpretation and narrow stingy construction of our rights.

Well you have a point in that there are other individual rights in the Bill of Rights as well, such as speedy trial, etc.
But until the 14th amendment, it is less clear how they intended the Bill of Rights to protect individual rights?

 

[justinacolmena]

I believe the Constitution recognizes a right to bear them, not have them provided free of charge. Just like promoting the general welfare does not mean providing healthcare free of charge.

If you want them free of charge, you should be free to join the organized national guard or armed forces reserves, and keep the issued guns even in your home, secured and ready to use at the call to arms.

The Constitution does “provide for the common defense,” after all.

 

[Rigby5]

1. Unlike "health care" or "education" the constitution states that right to arms should be guaranteed to all. What better way to guarantee that than have a free AR for everyone?

I believe the Constitution recognizes a right to bear them, not have them provided free of charge. Just like promoting the general welfare does not mean providing healthcare free of charge.

As heath care becomes a more expensive monopoly, likely it will require providing healthcare free of charge eventually.

 

[Rigby5]

I believe the Constitution recognizes a right to bear them, not have them provided free of charge. Just like promoting the general welfare does not mean providing healthcare free of charge.

If you want them free of charge, you should be free to join the organized national guard or armed forces reserves, and keep the issued guns even in your home, secured and ready to use them at the call to arms.

The Constitution does “provide for the common defense,” after all.

Sounds good to me.
But any force that sends troops to place like Iraq based on deliberate WMD lies, would not want me to be armed.