Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

How dumb can you be 98% of American are not in the Militia ... 75% of those folks own Guns .. AND .. they
ARE NOT going to give them up just because some azzhole in congress don't like guns... The reason for a well
Regulated Militia was back then when you were in the Militia you took your gun Home with you every night... and you kept your gun when you got out... Some Country's still do that today... BUT not the USA.... STUPID ....

Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?

Only gun lovers believe "fire-base fallacy" is tenable.

It is not relevant because the US Code cannot override the US Constitution, which has repeatedly been ruled to preserve an individual right to keep and bear arms. It is ignorance to argue otherwise.

Where is this Individual right to be found? The People is a collective Term not an Individual Term, as is the Term Militia; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.

You also said that this grammar rule is irrelevant in the other amendments which use the phrase "the people".

But "the people" means just that, the people or the citizens. That is what the SCOTUS has ruled and what the other writings of the founding fathers show that they believed.

Yes, the People as compared and contrasted to the Persons--it makes all of the difference in the world simply because, if our Founding Fathers had meant what gun lovers claim, they would have used the term Persons if they had meant an Individual right.

The People and Militia are collective not Individual as is the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

 

[WinterBorn]

How dumb can you be 98% of American are not in the Militia ... 75% of those folks own Guns .. AND .. they
ARE NOT going to give them up just because some azzhole in congress don't like guns... The reason for a well
Regulated Militia was back then when you were in the Militia you took your gun Home with you every night... and you kept your gun when you got out... Some Country's still do that today... BUT not the USA.... STUPID ....

Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?

Only gun lovers believe "fire-base fallacy" is tenable.

It is not relevant because the US Code cannot override the US Constitution, which has repeatedly been ruled to preserve an individual right to keep and bear arms. It is ignorance to argue otherwise.

Where is this Individual right to be found? The People is a collective Term not an Individual Term, as is the Term Militia; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.

You also said that this grammar rule is irrelevant in the other amendments which use the phrase "the people".

But "the people" means just that, the people or the citizens. That is what the SCOTUS has ruled and what the other writings of the founding fathers show that they believed.

Yes, the People as compared and contrasted to the Persons--it makes all of the difference in the world simply because, if our Founding Fathers had meant what gun lovers claim, they would have used the term Persons if they had meant an Individual right.

The People and Militia are collective not Individual as is the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

"Amendment I
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."

As I said before, your claim means that only states have the right to peaceably assemble. The founding fathers used "the people" in the first amendment.


"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Are the states the only ones to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects? The founding fathers used "the people" in the 4th amendment too.

So the phrase "the people" is used in 3 of the first 4 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?

Only gun lovers believe "fire-base fallacy" is tenable.

It is not relevant because the US Code cannot override the US Constitution, which has repeatedly been ruled to preserve an individual right to keep and bear arms. It is ignorance to argue otherwise.

Where is this Individual right to be found? The People is a collective Term not an Individual Term, as is the Term Militia; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.

You also said that this grammar rule is irrelevant in the other amendments which use the phrase "the people".

But "the people" means just that, the people or the citizens. That is what the SCOTUS has ruled and what the other writings of the founding fathers show that they believed.

Yes, the People as compared and contrasted to the Persons--it makes all of the difference in the world simply because, if our Founding Fathers had meant what gun lovers claim, they would have used the term Persons if they had meant an Individual right.

The People and Militia are collective not Individual as is the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

"Amendment I
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."

As I said before, your claim means that only states have the right to peaceably assemble. The founding fathers used "the people" in the first amendment.


"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Are the states the only ones to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects? The founding fathers used "the people" in the 4th amendment too.

So the phrase "the people" is used in 3 of the first 4 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

yes, the People as the collective of the (citizenry of the) United States; and that Body politic as the Electorate in that office of public trust.

Both terms, Militia and the People are collective, not Individual; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent, Letter, Purpose, or Spirit of the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

It is not relevant because the US Code cannot override the US Constitution, which has repeatedly been ruled to preserve an individual right to keep and bear arms. It is ignorance to argue otherwise.

Where is this Individual right to be found? The People is a collective Term not an Individual Term, as is the Term Militia; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.

You also said that this grammar rule is irrelevant in the other amendments which use the phrase "the people".

But "the people" means just that, the people or the citizens. That is what the SCOTUS has ruled and what the other writings of the founding fathers show that they believed.

Yes, the People as compared and contrasted to the Persons--it makes all of the difference in the world simply because, if our Founding Fathers had meant what gun lovers claim, they would have used the term Persons if they had meant an Individual right.

The People and Militia are collective not Individual as is the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

"Amendment I
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."

As I said before, your claim means that only states have the right to peaceably assemble. The founding fathers used "the people" in the first amendment.


"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Are the states the only ones to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects? The founding fathers used "the people" in the 4th amendment too.

So the phrase "the people" is used in 3 of the first 4 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

yes, the People as the collective of the (citizenry of the) United States; and that Body politic as the Electorate in that office of public trust.

Both terms, Militia and the People are collective, not Individual; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent, Letter, Purpose, or Spirit of the law.

So you think that only the collective, not the individual, have the right to be secure against unreasonable search & seizures and to assemble peaceably? That is nonsense.

 

[danielpalos]

Where is this Individual right to be found? The People is a collective Term not an Individual Term, as is the Term Militia; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.

You also said that this grammar rule is irrelevant in the other amendments which use the phrase "the people".

But "the people" means just that, the people or the citizens. That is what the SCOTUS has ruled and what the other writings of the founding fathers show that they believed.

Yes, the People as compared and contrasted to the Persons--it makes all of the difference in the world simply because, if our Founding Fathers had meant what gun lovers claim, they would have used the term Persons if they had meant an Individual right.

The People and Militia are collective not Individual as is the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

"Amendment I
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."

As I said before, your claim means that only states have the right to peaceably assemble. The founding fathers used "the people" in the first amendment.


"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Are the states the only ones to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects? The founding fathers used "the people" in the 4th amendment too.

So the phrase "the people" is used in 3 of the first 4 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

yes, the People as the collective of the (citizenry of the) United States; and that Body politic as the Electorate in that office of public trust.

Both terms, Militia and the People are collective, not Individual; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent, Letter, Purpose, or Spirit of the law.

So you think that only the collective, not the individual, have the right to be secure against unreasonable search & seizures and to assemble peaceably? That is nonsense.

You are resorting to a fallacy of composition; any allusion to any conspiracy or any collusion, could be just hearsay. Do those other amendments also have a first clause that comprises the Intent and Purpose, which the second clause must faithfully execute or, potentially, get shot.

 

[WinterBorn]

You also said that this grammar rule is irrelevant in the other amendments which use the phrase "the people".

But "the people" means just that, the people or the citizens. That is what the SCOTUS has ruled and what the other writings of the founding fathers show that they believed.

Yes, the People as compared and contrasted to the Persons--it makes all of the difference in the world simply because, if our Founding Fathers had meant what gun lovers claim, they would have used the term Persons if they had meant an Individual right.

The People and Militia are collective not Individual as is the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

"Amendment I
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."

As I said before, your claim means that only states have the right to peaceably assemble. The founding fathers used "the people" in the first amendment.


"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Are the states the only ones to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects? The founding fathers used "the people" in the 4th amendment too.

So the phrase "the people" is used in 3 of the first 4 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

yes, the People as the collective of the (citizenry of the) United States; and that Body politic as the Electorate in that office of public trust.

Both terms, Militia and the People are collective, not Individual; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent, Letter, Purpose, or Spirit of the law.

So you think that only the collective, not the individual, have the right to be secure against unreasonable search & seizures and to assemble peaceably? That is nonsense.

You are resorting to a fallacy of composition; any allusion to any conspiracy or any collusion, could be just hearsay. Do those other amendments also have a first clause that comprises the Intent and Purpose, which the second clause must faithfully execute or, potentially, get shot.

No, I am answering your claim that "the people" refers to society as a whole and not to the individual.

You made the claim. I proved it wrong.

As for the first clause in the sentence, it merely provides reasoning for the second part of the sentence. The second part of the sentence clearly is for the individual to be allowed arms. It is that simple. That is why the SCOTUS has ruled as they have over and over.

Your claim that the militia be under state control comes from your claim that "the people" means the state. Once that is shown to be wrong, the rest of your argument falls apart. If you read the writings of the men who wrote the constitution, it is obvious that they believed that the armed citizen was the best way to have a ready militia if needed. They did not want the standing army, under the control of the central gov't, to be the only armed force available. That specific issue would prevent future generations from maintaining a free people.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, the People as compared and contrasted to the Persons--it makes all of the difference in the world simply because, if our Founding Fathers had meant what gun lovers claim, they would have used the term Persons if they had meant an Individual right.

The People and Militia are collective not Individual as is the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

"Amendment I
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."

As I said before, your claim means that only states have the right to peaceably assemble. The founding fathers used "the people" in the first amendment.


"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Are the states the only ones to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects? The founding fathers used "the people" in the 4th amendment too.

So the phrase "the people" is used in 3 of the first 4 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

yes, the People as the collective of the (citizenry of the) United States; and that Body politic as the Electorate in that office of public trust.

Both terms, Militia and the People are collective, not Individual; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent, Letter, Purpose, or Spirit of the law.

So you think that only the collective, not the individual, have the right to be secure against unreasonable search & seizures and to assemble peaceably? That is nonsense.

You are resorting to a fallacy of composition; any allusion to any conspiracy or any collusion, could be just hearsay. Do those other amendments also have a first clause that comprises the Intent and Purpose, which the second clause must faithfully execute or, potentially, get shot.

No, I am answering your claim that "the people" refers to society as a whole and not to the individual.

You made the claim. I proved it wrong.

As for the first clause in the sentence, it merely provides reasoning for the second part of the sentence. The second part of the sentence clearly is for the individual to be allowed arms. It is that simple. That is why the SCOTUS has ruled as they have over and over.

Your claim that the militia be under state control comes from your claim that "the people" means the state. Once that is shown to be wrong, the rest of your argument falls apart. If you read the writings of the men who wrote the constitution, it is obvious that they believed that the armed citizen was the best way to have a ready militia if needed. They did not want the standing army, under the control of the central gov't, to be the only armed force available. That specific issue would prevent future generations from maintaining a free people.

Yes, and it is a fallacy of composition and appeal to ignorance when discussing our Second Amendment. Words have meaning.

Yes, State militias are under State control. Governors are commanders in chief of that which is necessary to the security of a free State.

10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States. There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the law.

Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.

Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

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.

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

 

[danielpalos]

Dear Persons on the right, and any gun lovers in support, I hope y'all understand and recognize that you are losing any credibility you may have in the affirmative action threads, if you continue to blindly support inferior arguments for superior or even supreme pay.

 

[WinterBorn]

Dear Persons on the right, and any gun lovers in support, I hope y'all understand and recognize that you are losing any credibility you may have in the affirmative action threads, if you continue to blindly support inferior arguments for superior or even supreme pay.

Except our credibility is not our concern. What counts is that most constitutional scholars, and more importantly the SCOTUS disagree with your silly assumptions.

As for affirmative action, I have no idea how that comes in to the discussion of 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. 10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

False, SCOTUS already ruled against you anti-liberty nuts on this.

The rights of the people referenced in the 2nd Amendment means exactly the same as the rights of the people referenced in the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th.

 

[danielpalos]

Dear Persons on the right, and any gun lovers in support, I hope y'all understand and recognize that you are losing any credibility you may have in the affirmative action threads, if you continue to blindly support inferior arguments for superior or even supreme pay.

Except our credibility is not our concern. What counts is that most constitutional scholars, and more importantly the SCOTUS disagree with your silly assumptions.

As for affirmative action, I have no idea how that comes in to the discussion of 2nd amendment rights.

What counts most, is Any lack of Appeal to Ignorance of the law as that form of fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. 10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

False, SCOTUS already ruled against you anti-liberty nuts on this.

The rights of the people referenced in the 2nd Amendment means exactly the same as the rights of the people referenced in the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not?

 

[WinterBorn]

Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. 10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

False, SCOTUS already ruled against you anti-liberty nuts on this.

The rights of the people referenced in the 2nd Amendment means exactly the same as the rights of the people referenced in the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not?

For the same reason any law written in an attempt to override the US Constitution would be ignored or overruled.

 

[WinterBorn]

Dear Persons on the right, and any gun lovers in support, I hope y'all understand and recognize that you are losing any credibility you may have in the affirmative action threads, if you continue to blindly support inferior arguments for superior or even supreme pay.

Except our credibility is not our concern. What counts is that most constitutional scholars, and more importantly the SCOTUS disagree with your silly assumptions.

As for affirmative action, I have no idea how that comes in to the discussion of 2nd amendment rights.

What counts most, is Any lack of Appeal to Ignorance of the law as that form of fallacy.

I am certainly not appealing to ignorance. I am applying the same standards to "the people" in the entire Bill of Rights.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not?

I'm not sure that you are at all aware of what you are attempting to say.

The issue is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I understand that an armed populace is difficult to rule, but you lost.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not?

I'm not sure that you are at all aware of what you are attempting to say.

The issue is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I understand that an armed populace is difficult to rule, but you lost.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not?

I'm not sure that you are at all aware of what you are attempting to say.

The issue is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I understand that an armed populace is difficult to rule, but you lost.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

I already have. But you chose to ignore it in favor of that silly "'The People' is plural, therefore no individual right is protected" nonsense.

In Heller v. District of Columbia the SCOTUS held:

"Held:

1. 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, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

So the highest court in the land has ruled "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not?

I'm not sure that you are at all aware of what you are attempting to say.

The issue is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I understand that an armed populace is difficult to rule, but you lost.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

I already have. But you chose to ignore it in favor of that silly "'The People' is plural, therefore no individual right is protected" nonsense.

In Heller v. District of Columbia the SCOTUS held:

"Held:

1. 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, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

So the highest court in the land has ruled "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

In other words, you cannot cite where this concept was covered. I got it.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not?

I'm not sure that you are at all aware of what you are attempting to say.

The issue is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I understand that an armed populace is difficult to rule, but you lost.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

I already have. But you chose to ignore it in favor of that silly "'The People' is plural, therefore no individual right is protected" nonsense.

In Heller v. District of Columbia the SCOTUS held:

"Held:

1. 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, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

So the highest court in the land has ruled "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

In other words, you cannot cite where this concept was covered. I got it.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

I quoted where the SCOTUS ruled on this. There is no higher authority. That they have ruled that it is, in fact, and individual right, that it is not connected to service in a state militia, and that the first clause does not limit the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. This makes the US Code a moot point, since it cannot override the US Constitution and the SCOTUS has ruled contrary to that code.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not?

I'm not sure that you are at all aware of what you are attempting to say.

The issue is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I understand that an armed populace is difficult to rule, but you lost.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

I already have. But you chose to ignore it in favor of that silly "'The People' is plural, therefore no individual right is protected" nonsense.

In Heller v. District of Columbia the SCOTUS held:

"Held:

1. 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, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

So the highest court in the land has ruled "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

In other words, you cannot cite where this concept was covered. I got it.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

I quoted where the SCOTUS ruled on this. There is no higher authority. That they have ruled that it is, in fact, and individual right, that it is not connected to service in a state militia, and that the first clause does not limit the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. This makes the US Code a moot point, since it cannot override the US Constitution and the SCOTUS has ruled contrary to that code.

They appealed to ignorance of 10USC311.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?