Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

Yes, it must be so simply because this is a States' sovereign right, supported by our Second and Tenth Amendments:

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.

LMAO! What does paragraph (1) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia? Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.

LMAO! What does paragraph (2) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia? Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.

Paragraph (2) does not say anything about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia.

""(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."

Once again I challenge you to copy this and underline any portion that mentions the militia.

It Only does not apply to militias, well regulated, due to our Second Amendment, literally.

The fact that it does not apply to state militias does not, in any way, mean that the 2nd amendment applies only to state militias.

Paragraph (1) explicitly states that it is an individual right, not dependent on service in a militia. Paragraph (2) does nothing to contradict that.

It Only applies to well regulated militias of the United States, if we have to quibble in legal venues.

 

[WinterBorn]

LMAO! What does paragraph (1) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia? Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.

LMAO! What does paragraph (2) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia? Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.

Paragraph (2) does not say anything about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia.

""(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."

Once again I challenge you to copy this and underline any portion that mentions the militia.

It Only does not apply to militias, well regulated, due to our Second Amendment, literally.

The fact that it does not apply to state militias does not, in any way, mean that the 2nd amendment applies only to state militias.

Paragraph (1) explicitly states that it is an individual right, not dependent on service in a militia. Paragraph (2) does nothing to contradict that.

It Only applies to well regulated militias of the United States, if we have to quibble in legal venues.

LMAO! Keep clinging to that nonsense. The highest court in the land, the one tasked with interpreting the US Constitution has ruled that it is an individual right. They have never ruled that the 2nd amendment applies only to state militias.

 

[danielpalos]

LMAO! What does paragraph (2) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia? Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.

Paragraph (2) does not say anything about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia.

""(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."

Once again I challenge you to copy this and underline any portion that mentions the militia.

It Only does not apply to militias, well regulated, due to our Second Amendment, literally.

The fact that it does not apply to state militias does not, in any way, mean that the 2nd amendment applies only to state militias.

Paragraph (1) explicitly states that it is an individual right, not dependent on service in a militia. Paragraph (2) does nothing to contradict that.

It Only applies to well regulated militias of the United States, if we have to quibble in legal venues.

LMAO! Keep clinging to that nonsense. The highest court in the land, the one tasked with interpreting the US Constitution has ruled that it is an individual right. They have never ruled that the 2nd amendment applies only to state militias.

That holding was an Appeal to Ignorance of the law; we are not discussing posse comitatus when discussing militias, well regulated. Arms are declared Socialized for the Militia not Posses.

 

[WinterBorn]

Paragraph (2) does not say anything about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia.

""(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."

Once again I challenge you to copy this and underline any portion that mentions the militia.

It Only does not apply to militias, well regulated, due to our Second Amendment, literally.

The fact that it does not apply to state militias does not, in any way, mean that the 2nd amendment applies only to state militias.

Paragraph (1) explicitly states that it is an individual right, not dependent on service in a militia. Paragraph (2) does nothing to contradict that.

It Only applies to well regulated militias of the United States, if we have to quibble in legal venues.

LMAO! Keep clinging to that nonsense. The highest court in the land, the one tasked with interpreting the US Constitution has ruled that it is an individual right. They have never ruled that the 2nd amendment applies only to state militias.

That holding was an Appeal to Ignorance of the law; we are not discussing posse comitatus when discussing militias, well regulated. Arms are declared Socialized for the Militia not Posses.

No it was not. It was a well reasoned interpretation of the US Constitution. You disagree. Ok.

But at least you stopped trying to maintain that DC v. Heller supports your claims.

I believe I am done here.

 

[danielpalos]

Dudes and Esquires,

My position has always been that only well regulated militias of Individuals of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

 

[pauls]

Who is the militia?

 

[danielpalos]

Who is the militia?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law--10USC311.

 

[WinterBorn]

Who is the militia?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law--10USC311.

Which does not override the US Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Who is the militia?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law--10USC311.

Which does not override the US Constitution.

Only well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous right.

 

[WinterBorn]

Who is the militia?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law--10USC311.

Which does not override the US Constitution.

Only well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous right.

And, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the 2nd amendment is an individual right, unconnected and not dependent on service or membership in a militia. That is why the 2nd amendment exists, instead of it being covered in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militias.

There is no appeal to ignorance concerning the intent 2nd amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Who is the militia?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law--10USC311.

Which does not override the US Constitution.

Only well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous right.

And, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the 2nd amendment is an individual right, unconnected and not dependent on service or membership in a militia. That is why the 2nd amendment exists, instead of it being covered in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militias.

There is no appeal to ignorance concerning the intent 2nd amendment.

How can it be an Individual right regarding the Militia of the United States in that office of Public Trust?

 

[WinterBorn]

Who is the militia?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law--10USC311.

Which does not override the US Constitution.

Only well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous right.

And, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the 2nd amendment is an individual right, unconnected and not dependent on service or membership in a militia. That is why the 2nd amendment exists, instead of it being covered in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militias.

There is no appeal to ignorance concerning the intent 2nd amendment.

How can it be an Individual right regarding the Militia of the United States in that office of Public Trust?

It is an individual right because the entire point is to have the availability of a citizens militia. It was never intended to be for arming a state militia. This is why it was not included in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militia.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law--10USC311.

Which does not override the US Constitution.

Only well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous right.

And, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the 2nd amendment is an individual right, unconnected and not dependent on service or membership in a militia. That is why the 2nd amendment exists, instead of it being covered in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militias.

There is no appeal to ignorance concerning the intent 2nd amendment.

How can it be an Individual right regarding the Militia of the United States in that office of Public Trust?

It is an individual right because the entire point is to have the availability of a citizens militia. It was never intended to be for arming a state militia. This is why it was not included in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militia.

No, the entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated Militia of Individuals of the People of the United States.

 

[WinterBorn]

Which does not override the US Constitution.

Only well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous right.

And, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the 2nd amendment is an individual right, unconnected and not dependent on service or membership in a militia. That is why the 2nd amendment exists, instead of it being covered in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militias.

There is no appeal to ignorance concerning the intent 2nd amendment.

How can it be an Individual right regarding the Militia of the United States in that office of Public Trust?

It is an individual right because the entire point is to have the availability of a citizens militia. It was never intended to be for arming a state militia. This is why it was not included in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militia.

No, the entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated Militia of Individuals of the People of the United States.

You are welcome to continue to repeat that. But SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, has ruled otherwise. And has done so consistently. Never have they ruled that the point of the 2nd amendment was a state militia. In fact, they have explicitly said differently.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous right.

And, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the 2nd amendment is an individual right, unconnected and not dependent on service or membership in a militia. That is why the 2nd amendment exists, instead of it being covered in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militias.

There is no appeal to ignorance concerning the intent 2nd amendment.

How can it be an Individual right regarding the Militia of the United States in that office of Public Trust?

It is an individual right because the entire point is to have the availability of a citizens militia. It was never intended to be for arming a state militia. This is why it was not included in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militia.

No, the entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated Militia of Individuals of the People of the United States.

You are welcome to continue to repeat that. But SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, has ruled otherwise. And has done so consistently. Never have they ruled that the point of the 2nd amendment was a state militia. In fact, they have explicitly said differently.

Should we ask for a mandamus in order to obtain an answer even more definitive and comprehensive, than even Madison's, Republican Doctrine?

The entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated Militia of Individuals of the People of the United States.

 

[WinterBorn]

And, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the 2nd amendment is an individual right, unconnected and not dependent on service or membership in a militia. That is why the 2nd amendment exists, instead of it being covered in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militias.

There is no appeal to ignorance concerning the intent 2nd amendment.

How can it be an Individual right regarding the Militia of the United States in that office of Public Trust?

It is an individual right because the entire point is to have the availability of a citizens militia. It was never intended to be for arming a state militia. This is why it was not included in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militia.

No, the entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated Militia of Individuals of the People of the United States.

You are welcome to continue to repeat that. But SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, has ruled otherwise. And has done so consistently. Never have they ruled that the point of the 2nd amendment was a state militia. In fact, they have explicitly said differently.

Should we ask for a mandamus in order to obtain an answer even more definitive and and comprehensive, than even Madison's, Republican Doctrine?

The entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated Militia of Individuals of the People of the United States.

You continue to neglect to include the rest of the amendment.

"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." Now if this were strictly addressing the militia, it would have been included in the section of the constitution concerning militia. It was not.

And there is no need for a mandamus when the ruling in DC v. Heller is quite clear.

"(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."

 

[danielpalos]

How can it be an Individual right regarding the Militia of the United States in that office of Public Trust?

It is an individual right because the entire point is to have the availability of a citizens militia. It was never intended to be for arming a state militia. This is why it was not included in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militia.

No, the entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated Militia of Individuals of the People of the United States.

You are welcome to continue to repeat that. But SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, has ruled otherwise. And has done so consistently. Never have they ruled that the point of the 2nd amendment was a state militia. In fact, they have explicitly said differently.

Should we ask for a mandamus in order to obtain an answer even more definitive and and comprehensive, than even Madison's, Republican Doctrine?

The entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated Militia of Individuals of the People of the United States.

You continue to neglect to include the rest of the amendment.

"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." Now if this were strictly addressing the militia, it would have been included in the section of the constitution concerning militia. It was not.

And there is no need for a mandamus when the ruling in DC v. Heller is quite clear.

"(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."

There is no vacuum of special pleading since it is an appeal to ignorance of the standard operation of the law; thus, the second clause cannot be "read" on its own since it would not be included without the first clause; because, rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.

 

[danielpalos]

"(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."

Can you cite where in our Second Amendment that right is to be found. Keep and bear is not the same as acquire and possess, if we should have to quibble in legal venues.

 

[WinterBorn]

It is an individual right because the entire point is to have the availability of a citizens militia. It was never intended to be for arming a state militia. This is why it was not included in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militia.

No, the entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated Militia of Individuals of the People of the United States.

You are welcome to continue to repeat that. But SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, has ruled otherwise. And has done so consistently. Never have they ruled that the point of the 2nd amendment was a state militia. In fact, they have explicitly said differently.

Should we ask for a mandamus in order to obtain an answer even more definitive and and comprehensive, than even Madison's, Republican Doctrine?

The entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated Militia of Individuals of the People of the United States.

You continue to neglect to include the rest of the amendment.

"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." Now if this were strictly addressing the militia, it would have been included in the section of the constitution concerning militia. It was not.

And there is no need for a mandamus when the ruling in DC v. Heller is quite clear.

"(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."

There is no vacuum of special pleading since it is an appeal to ignorance of the standard operation of the law; thus, the second clause cannot be "read" on its own since it would not be included without the first clause; because, rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.

This is not about property rights, per se.

And the SCOTUS is quite clear about what the 2nd amendment means. You may disagree, but that changes nothing. Your attempts to obscure your point in flowery language also changes nothing. There is no appeal to ignorance by the SCOTUS in their ruling on DC v. Heller. Perhaps if you did not know Madison's intent, I could say that you are ignorant about the history and reasoning behind the 2nd amendment. But since I have shown you, I can only call it willful stupidity or a refusal to admit you are wrong.

I have no issue with your intelligence (much). But to claim that you are better suited to interpret the US Constitution than the majority of justices on the US Supreme Court is a bit much.

I have shown you Madison's intent. I have shown you that the US Supreme Court has ruled against your claims.

I think I have done enough. Now you are trolling.

 

[WinterBorn]

"(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."

Can you cite where in our Second Amendment that right is to be found. Keep and bear is not the same as acquire and possess, if we should have to quibble in legal venues.

Keep and bear are the same as possess. If we are allowed to keep something, it is allowed in our possession. If we are allowed to bear arms, we are allowed to possess arms.