Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[turtledude]

I honestly think it is a bot. It can't comprehend a question but it picks up on certain words and spits out the same rhetorical remarks.

I suggested on one of the many other boards that DanielTrollus spams on that he is nothing more than a mediocre effort at artificial intelligence that some computer geek at Cal Tech or UC Berk, created and set lose on the internet. Its use of English is stilted and affected language is either due to a flaw in the program or the sign of mental illness. its complete idiocy and that's why I don't respond to this moron since I don't believe its an honest poster

 

[turtledude]

[

Oh go away. You're talking nonsense for kicks. I'm out. Bye.

Don't feed the bot. ignore it and it will take its idiocy to another board. this is about the fifth board I have seen this douchebag on

 

[danielpalos]

[

Oh go away. You're talking nonsense for kicks. I'm out. Bye.

Don't feed the bot. ignore it and it will take its idiocy to another board. this is about the fifth board I have seen this douchebag on

If you can't handle heat of sublime Truth (value) in the kitchen of word soup, you are welcome to leave for easier and greener and cooler pastures.

 

[WinterBorn]

Once again, no. The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.

Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?

This is in our Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

Read this.

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This is from the version of the future 2A which had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." in it. Seems individual to me.

He also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

It all points to an individual right. The right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia, or as they put it "militia duty" "render military service"

Know of any states which serve "militia duty" or "render military service"?????

But you're starting to look very much like a troll at the moment.

The Second clause of our Second Amendment cannot operate in any vacuum of special pleading due to the general operation of that law.

It doesn't need to. The fact that it is a right reserved for the people, not the states, is clear by it not being included in the sections of the US Constitution discussing militia. And the states have little control over the militia anyway.

The point is, it cannot operate in a vacuum of special pleading from the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

The supreme law of that land is the US Constitution, not the US Code. That you deem the first clause of the 2nd amendment to be the defining one is your own interpretation. The SCOTUS has interpreted it differently.

And if there is a disagreement concerning laws, our SCOTUS has the final say. It really is that simple.

There is no vacuum, no ignorance, and no use quoting the US Code. The US Supreme Court has ruled, consistently, that it is an individual right.

 

[danielpalos]

Militia is the Term used in our Second Amendment; 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States. It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous Right.

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

 

[danielpalos]

just goes to show how fewer but more well regulated users of words can easily fend off entire gangs of anarchic rebels without a Cause or a clue.

 

[danielpalos]

just imagine if the Spartans had managed to win at Thermopylae.

 

[WinterBorn]

Militia is the Term used in our Second Amendment; 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States. It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous Right.

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

Well, you keeping thinking that you're right. And I'll keep thinking that I am right. The US Supreme Court agrees with me. The highest court in the land has ruled, numerous times, that my right to own a gun is an individual right. I'll keep my guns and you keep insisting I should be in the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Militia is the Term used in our Second Amendment; 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States. It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous Right.

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

Well, you keeping thinking that you're right. And I'll keep thinking that I am right. The US Supreme Court agrees with me. The highest court in the land has ruled, numerous times, that my right to own a gun is an individual right. I'll keep my guns and you keep insisting I should be in the militia.

Dude, my version is current practice in our Republic; your version is mere legal fiction.

 

[WinterBorn]

Militia is the Term used in our Second Amendment; 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States. It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous Right.

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

Well, you keeping thinking that you're right. And I'll keep thinking that I am right. The US Supreme Court agrees with me. The highest court in the land has ruled, numerous times, that my right to own a gun is an individual right. I'll keep my guns and you keep insisting I should be in the militia.

Dude, my version is current practice in our Republic; your version is mere legal fiction.

Really? When was the last time the US Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment applied to state militias and not to individuals? I can show where they ruled it is an individual right.

 

[danielpalos]

When they gave an honest account of the limitations of paragraph (1) in DC v Heller in paragraph (2). Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[WinterBorn]

When they gave an honest account of the limitations of paragraph (1) in DC v Heller in paragraph (2). Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.

Utterly ridiculous.

In the Heller v. DC ruling the SCOTUS 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."

That goes against everything you are trying to say.

Immediately following that they ruled:

"(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."

Then the ruling stated:

"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

Which clearly states that the right to bear arms is an individual right, since the militia was under the US Congress (as I showed in the US Constitution) with the states only being able to appoint officers and being responsible for training, with the discipline described by Congress.

And if that is not enough, the ruling stated:

"(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32."

So your claims concerning the DC v. Keller are spurious at best, and an outright lie at worst. The ruling clearly stated that the right is an individual one, unconnected with service in a militia.



Try again. Any other ruling that might agree with your claims? There is no appeal to ignorance of the rulings.

 

[danielpalos]

When they gave an honest account of the limitations of paragraph (1) in DC v Heller in paragraph (2). Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.

Utterly ridiculous.

In the Heller v. DC ruling the SCOTUS 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."

That goes against everything you are trying to say.

Immediately following that they ruled:

"(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."

Then the ruling stated:

"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

Which clearly states that the right to bear arms is an individual right, since the militia was under the US Congress (as I showed in the US Constitution) with the states only being able to appoint officers and being responsible for training, with the discipline described by Congress.

And if that is not enough, the ruling stated:

"(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32."

So your claims concerning the DC v. Keller are spurious at best, and an outright lie at worst. The ruling clearly stated that the right is an individual one, unconnected with service in a militia.



Try again. Any other ruling that might agree with your claims? There is no appeal to ignorance of the rulings.

just a shill for your Cause?

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

[WinterBorn]

When they gave an honest account of the limitations of paragraph (1) in DC v Heller in paragraph (2). Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.

Utterly ridiculous.

In the Heller v. DC ruling the SCOTUS 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."

That goes against everything you are trying to say.

Immediately following that they ruled:

"(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."

Then the ruling stated:

"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

Which clearly states that the right to bear arms is an individual right, since the militia was under the US Congress (as I showed in the US Constitution) with the states only being able to appoint officers and being responsible for training, with the discipline described by Congress.

And if that is not enough, the ruling stated:

"(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32."

So your claims concerning the DC v. Keller are spurious at best, and an outright lie at worst. The ruling clearly stated that the right is an individual one, unconnected with service in a militia.



Try again. Any other ruling that might agree with your claims? There is no appeal to ignorance of the rulings.

just a shill for your Cause?

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Moving the goal posts?

I never claimed that the 2nd amendment right is unlimited. I never claimed there should not be regulations. I simply claimed that the right is an individual one, not one reserved for the states. You disagreed. I'm waiting for you to show me any SCOTUS ruling that backs your claims.

 

[danielpalos]

When they gave an honest account of the limitations of paragraph (1) in DC v Heller in paragraph (2). Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.

Utterly ridiculous.

In the Heller v. DC ruling the SCOTUS 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."

That goes against everything you are trying to say.

Immediately following that they ruled:

"(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."

Then the ruling stated:

"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

Which clearly states that the right to bear arms is an individual right, since the militia was under the US Congress (as I showed in the US Constitution) with the states only being able to appoint officers and being responsible for training, with the discipline described by Congress.

And if that is not enough, the ruling stated:

"(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32."

So your claims concerning the DC v. Keller are spurious at best, and an outright lie at worst. The ruling clearly stated that the right is an individual one, unconnected with service in a militia.



Try again. Any other ruling that might agree with your claims? There is no appeal to ignorance of the rulings.

just a shill for your Cause?

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Moving the goal posts?

I never claimed that the 2nd amendment right is unlimited. I never claimed there should not be regulations. I simply claimed that the right is an individual one, not one reserved for the states. You disagreed. I'm waiting for you to show me any SCOTUS ruling that backs your claims.

Which goal posts am I moving? Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding. Only shills for their Cause don't know that.

 

[WinterBorn]

When they gave an honest account of the limitations of paragraph (1) in DC v Heller in paragraph (2). Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.

Utterly ridiculous.

In the Heller v. DC ruling the SCOTUS 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."

That goes against everything you are trying to say.

Immediately following that they ruled:

"(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."

Then the ruling stated:

"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

Which clearly states that the right to bear arms is an individual right, since the militia was under the US Congress (as I showed in the US Constitution) with the states only being able to appoint officers and being responsible for training, with the discipline described by Congress.

And if that is not enough, the ruling stated:

"(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32."

So your claims concerning the DC v. Keller are spurious at best, and an outright lie at worst. The ruling clearly stated that the right is an individual one, unconnected with service in a militia.



Try again. Any other ruling that might agree with your claims? There is no appeal to ignorance of the rulings.

just a shill for your Cause?

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Moving the goal posts?

I never claimed that the 2nd amendment right is unlimited. I never claimed there should not be regulations. I simply claimed that the right is an individual one, not one reserved for the states. You disagreed. I'm waiting for you to show me any SCOTUS ruling that backs your claims.

Which goal posts am I moving? Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding. Only shills for their Cause don't know that.

I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.

But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias. You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.

What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.

 

[danielpalos]

When they gave an honest account of the limitations of paragraph (1) in DC v Heller in paragraph (2). Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.

Utterly ridiculous.

In the Heller v. DC ruling the SCOTUS 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."

That goes against everything you are trying to say.

Immediately following that they ruled:

"(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."

Then the ruling stated:

"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

Which clearly states that the right to bear arms is an individual right, since the militia was under the US Congress (as I showed in the US Constitution) with the states only being able to appoint officers and being responsible for training, with the discipline described by Congress.

And if that is not enough, the ruling stated:

"(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32."

So your claims concerning the DC v. Keller are spurious at best, and an outright lie at worst. The ruling clearly stated that the right is an individual one, unconnected with service in a militia.



Try again. Any other ruling that might agree with your claims? There is no appeal to ignorance of the rulings.

just a shill for your Cause?

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Moving the goal posts?

I never claimed that the 2nd amendment right is unlimited. I never claimed there should not be regulations. I simply claimed that the right is an individual one, not one reserved for the states. You disagreed. I'm waiting for you to show me any SCOTUS ruling that backs your claims.

Which goal posts am I moving? Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding. Only shills for their Cause don't know that.

I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.

But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias. You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.

What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.

Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).

 

[WinterBorn]

Utterly ridiculous.

In the Heller v. DC ruling the SCOTUS 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."

That goes against everything you are trying to say.

Immediately following that they ruled:

"(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."

Then the ruling stated:

"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

Which clearly states that the right to bear arms is an individual right, since the militia was under the US Congress (as I showed in the US Constitution) with the states only being able to appoint officers and being responsible for training, with the discipline described by Congress.

And if that is not enough, the ruling stated:

"(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32."

So your claims concerning the DC v. Keller are spurious at best, and an outright lie at worst. The ruling clearly stated that the right is an individual one, unconnected with service in a militia.



Try again. Any other ruling that might agree with your claims? There is no appeal to ignorance of the rulings.

just a shill for your Cause?

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Moving the goal posts?

I never claimed that the 2nd amendment right is unlimited. I never claimed there should not be regulations. I simply claimed that the right is an individual one, not one reserved for the states. You disagreed. I'm waiting for you to show me any SCOTUS ruling that backs your claims.

Which goal posts am I moving? Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding. Only shills for their Cause don't know that.

I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.

But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias. You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.

What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.

Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).

It absolutely does not. It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited. It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.

You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia. Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.

 

[WinterBorn]

Utterly ridiculous.

In the Heller v. DC ruling the SCOTUS 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."

That goes against everything you are trying to say.

Immediately following that they ruled:

"(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."

Then the ruling stated:

"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

Which clearly states that the right to bear arms is an individual right, since the militia was under the US Congress (as I showed in the US Constitution) with the states only being able to appoint officers and being responsible for training, with the discipline described by Congress.

And if that is not enough, the ruling stated:

"(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32."

So your claims concerning the DC v. Keller are spurious at best, and an outright lie at worst. The ruling clearly stated that the right is an individual one, unconnected with service in a militia.



Try again. Any other ruling that might agree with your claims? There is no appeal to ignorance of the rulings.

just a shill for your Cause?

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Moving the goal posts?

I never claimed that the 2nd amendment right is unlimited. I never claimed there should not be regulations. I simply claimed that the right is an individual one, not one reserved for the states. You disagreed. I'm waiting for you to show me any SCOTUS ruling that backs your claims.

Which goal posts am I moving? Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding. Only shills for their Cause don't know that.

I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.

But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias. You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.

What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.

Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).

1) You have repeatedly said:
"Militia is the Term used in our Second Amendment; 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States. It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous Right.
Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State"

2) When I said the law of the land and SCOTUS backed my side and not yours you said: "Dude, my version is current practice in our Republic; your version is mere legal fiction."

3) When you claimed that DC v. Heller backed your claims, I challenged that. You said:
"When they gave an honest account of the limitations of paragraph (1) in DC v Heller in paragraph (2). Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State."




Now no where in DC v. Heller does the SCOTUS rule anything resembling #1.

The law of the land is what I have claimed, and certainly not what you have claimed.

And as for #3, in DC v. Heller there is nothing even close to resembling your claim "Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State".

 

[turtledude]

IGNORE THE BOT, and like a swarm of hungry locusts on a barren field, it will leave and visit its idiotic pestilence on another board