Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia.

Our Second Amendment is not ambiguous at all.

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.

Thus, Only well regulated Militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

A citizens militia is formed as needed. An armed people makes that possible. The 2nd amendment is not solely for state militias. The SCOTUS has ruled on that consistently as well.

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

 

[danielpalos]

Dear gun lovers,

Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.

Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--Source: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[WinterBorn]

The People are the Militia.

Our Second Amendment is not ambiguous at all.

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.

Thus, Only well regulated Militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

A citizens militia is formed as needed. An armed people makes that possible. The 2nd amendment is not solely for state militias. The SCOTUS has ruled on that consistently as well.

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

It defines the militia run by the gov't. The US Code does not override the 2nd amendment, which is an individual right. This has been settled by the highest court in the land.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia.

Our Second Amendment is not ambiguous at all.

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.

Thus, Only well regulated Militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

A citizens militia is formed as needed. An armed people makes that possible. The 2nd amendment is not solely for state militias. The SCOTUS has ruled on that consistently as well.

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

It defines the militia run by the gov't. The US Code does not override the 2nd amendment, which is an individual right. This has been settled by the highest court in the land.

This is what our Second Amendment means: Only well regulated Militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

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.

A Posse is not a Militia.

 

[WinterBorn]

Dear gun lovers,

Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.

Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--Source: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dear Pretend Legal scholars

Please do not subscribe to the idea that the US Supreme Court rulings have ever stated that the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Should we ask for a (writ of) mandate to quibble a few points of contention.

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.

Arms for the People of the Militia but not the People of the Posse are declared Socialized, should we need to quibble in legal venues.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

By simply being wise enough to socialize Arms for the Militia of the United States our Founding Fathers were most unambiguous in our Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land.

 

[WinterBorn]

Should we ask for a (writ of) mandate to quibble a few points of contention.

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.

Arms for the People of the Militia but not the People of the Posse are declared Socialized, should we need to quibble in legal venues.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

By simply being wise enough to socialize Arms for the Militia of the United States our Founding Fathers were most unambiguous in our Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land.

It has already been quibbled over. It went all the way to the US Supreme Court in DC v. Heller. They ruled that it is an individual right.

" 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]

Should we ask for a (writ of) mandate to quibble a few points of contention.

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.

Arms for the People of the Militia but not the People of the Posse are declared Socialized, should we need to quibble in legal venues.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

By simply being wise enough to socialize Arms for the Militia of the United States our Founding Fathers were most unambiguous in our Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land.

It has already been quibbled over. It went all the way to the US Supreme Court in DC v. Heller. They ruled that it is an individual right.

" 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."

The People are the Militia and the militia is defined in 10USC311; the Judicature does not get to define what the militia is or is not regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[WinterBorn]

Should we ask for a (writ of) mandate to quibble a few points of contention.

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.

Arms for the People of the Militia but not the People of the Posse are declared Socialized, should we need to quibble in legal venues.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

By simply being wise enough to socialize Arms for the Militia of the United States our Founding Fathers were most unambiguous in our Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land.

It has already been quibbled over. It went all the way to the US Supreme Court in DC v. Heller. They ruled that it is an individual right.

" 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."

The People are the Militia and the militia is defined in 10USC311; the Judicature does not get to define what the militia is or is not regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.

They didn't. They ruled that the 2nd amendment was an individual right, as they should have. The writings of Madison and the fact that the right is detailed in an amendment and not in the section concerning militia shows this.

The SCOTUS did not define the militia at all. They simply, and correctly, ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.

 

[turtledude]

Dear gun lovers,

Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.

Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--Source: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dear Pretend Legal scholars

Please do not subscribe to the idea that the US Supreme Court rulings have ever stated that the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.

Danbot has admitted on other forums he has no legal training. I, having lectured at several accredited law schools and having a law degree, knew that the minute I read his aborted English psychobabble

IGNORE THE BOT

 

[danielpalos]

Should we ask for a (writ of) mandate to quibble a few points of contention.

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.

Arms for the People of the Militia but not the People of the Posse are declared Socialized, should we need to quibble in legal venues.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

By simply being wise enough to socialize Arms for the Militia of the United States our Founding Fathers were most unambiguous in our Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land.

It has already been quibbled over. It went all the way to the US Supreme Court in DC v. Heller. They ruled that it is an individual right.

" 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."

The People are the Militia and the militia is defined in 10USC311; the Judicature does not get to define what the militia is or is not regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.

They didn't. They ruled that the 2nd amendment was an individual right, as they should have. The writings of Madison and the fact that the right is detailed i an amendment and not in the section concerning militia shows this.

The SCOTUS did not define the militia at all. They simply, and correctly, ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.

The People are the Militia; Arms are declared Socialized for the Militia in Article 1, Section 8; thus, no rights in private property can be established via the Militia clause of our Second Amendment..

 

[danielpalos]

Dear gun lovers,

Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.

Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--Source: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dear Pretend Legal scholars

Please do not subscribe to the idea that the US Supreme Court rulings have ever stated that the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.

Danbot has admitted on other forums he has no legal training. I, having lectured at several accredited law schools and having a law degree, knew that the minute I read his aborted English psychobabble

IGNORE THE BOT

turtledude has claimed to be every Thing under the sun. Ignore the ones who are the most full of fallacy.

 

[WinterBorn]

Should we ask for a (writ of) mandate to quibble a few points of contention.

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.

Arms for the People of the Militia but not the People of the Posse are declared Socialized, should we need to quibble in legal venues.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

By simply being wise enough to socialize Arms for the Militia of the United States our Founding Fathers were most unambiguous in our Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land.

It has already been quibbled over. It went all the way to the US Supreme Court in DC v. Heller. They ruled that it is an individual right.

" 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."

The People are the Militia and the militia is defined in 10USC311; the Judicature does not get to define what the militia is or is not regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.

They didn't. They ruled that the 2nd amendment was an individual right, as they should have. The writings of Madison and the fact that the right is detailed i an amendment and not in the section concerning militia shows this.

The SCOTUS did not define the militia at all. They simply, and correctly, ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.

The People are the Militia; Arms are declared Socialized for the Militia in Article 1, Section 8; thus, no rights in private property can be established via the Militia clause of our Second Amendment..

Not all the people are the militia. And the militia clause does not need to establish property rights. The second clause establishes that quite nicely.

 

[WinterBorn]

Dear gun lovers,

Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.

Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--Source: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dear Pretend Legal scholars

Please do not subscribe to the idea that the US Supreme Court rulings have ever stated that the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.

Danbot has admitted on other forums he has no legal training. I, having lectured at several accredited law schools and having a law degree, knew that the minute I read his aborted English psychobabble

IGNORE THE BOT

turtledude has claimed to be every Thing under the sun. Ignore the ones who are the most full of fallacy.

But you have no real legal training, do you? You have a fondness for vocabulary and think that makes a difference. It doesn't. You have been shown to be wrong on several different fronts. But you refuse to admit it.

 

[turtledude]

Dear gun lovers,

Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.

Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--Source: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dear Pretend Legal scholars

Please do not subscribe to the idea that the US Supreme Court rulings have ever stated that the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.

Danbot has admitted on other forums he has no legal training. I, having lectured at several accredited law schools and having a law degree, knew that the minute I read his aborted English psychobabble

IGNORE THE BOT

turtledude has claimed to be every Thing under the sun. Ignore the ones who are the most full of fallacy.

But you have no real legal training, do you? You have a fondness for vocabulary and think that makes a difference. It doesn't. You have been shown to be wrong on several different fronts. But you refuse to admit it.

of course he doesn't have any legal training. and his use of English appears to be either an affectation caused by a mental illness or due to his programmer not being especially skilled.

 

[danielpalos]

Should we ask for a (writ of) mandate to quibble a few points of contention.

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.

Arms for the People of the Militia but not the People of the Posse are declared Socialized, should we need to quibble in legal venues.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

By simply being wise enough to socialize Arms for the Militia of the United States our Founding Fathers were most unambiguous in our Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land.

It has already been quibbled over. It went all the way to the US Supreme Court in DC v. Heller. They ruled that it is an individual right.

" 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."

The People are the Militia and the militia is defined in 10USC311; the Judicature does not get to define what the militia is or is not regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.

They didn't. They ruled that the 2nd amendment was an individual right, as they should have. The writings of Madison and the fact that the right is detailed i an amendment and not in the section concerning militia shows this.

The SCOTUS did not define the militia at all. They simply, and correctly, ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.

The People are the Militia; Arms are declared Socialized for the Militia in Article 1, Section 8; thus, no rights in private property can be established via the Militia clause of our Second Amendment..

Not all the people are the militia. And the militia clause does not need to establish property rights. The second clause establishes that quite nicely.

No one is claiming our Second Amendment establishes any rights in private property. Mere possession is Only nine-tenths of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

Dear gun lovers,

Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.

Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--Source: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dear Pretend Legal scholars

Please do not subscribe to the idea that the US Supreme Court rulings have ever stated that the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.

Danbot has admitted on other forums he has no legal training. I, having lectured at several accredited law schools and having a law degree, knew that the minute I read his aborted English psychobabble

IGNORE THE BOT

turtledude has claimed to be every Thing under the sun. Ignore the ones who are the most full of fallacy.

But you have no real legal training, do you? You have a fondness for vocabulary and think that makes a difference. It doesn't. You have been shown to be wrong on several different fronts. But you refuse to admit it.

dude; I know how to read and resort to the fewest fallacies.

 

[danielpalos]

Dear gun lovers,

Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.

Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--Source: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dear Pretend Legal scholars

Please do not subscribe to the idea that the US Supreme Court rulings have ever stated that the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.

Danbot has admitted on other forums he has no legal training. I, having lectured at several accredited law schools and having a law degree, knew that the minute I read his aborted English psychobabble

IGNORE THE BOT

turtledude has claimed to be every Thing under the sun. Ignore the ones who are the most full of fallacy.

But you have no real legal training, do you? You have a fondness for vocabulary and think that makes a difference. It doesn't. You have been shown to be wrong on several different fronts. But you refuse to admit it.

of course he doesn't have any legal training. and his use of English appears to be either an affectation caused by a mental illness or due to his programmer not being especially skilled.

says the guy who claims to have all of the training in the world.

 

[WinterBorn]

Dear gun lovers,

Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.

Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--Source: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dear Pretend Legal scholars

Please do not subscribe to the idea that the US Supreme Court rulings have ever stated that the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.

Danbot has admitted on other forums he has no legal training. I, having lectured at several accredited law schools and having a law degree, knew that the minute I read his aborted English psychobabble

IGNORE THE BOT

turtledude has claimed to be every Thing under the sun. Ignore the ones who are the most full of fallacy.

But you have no real legal training, do you? You have a fondness for vocabulary and think that makes a difference. It doesn't. You have been shown to be wrong on several different fronts. But you refuse to admit it.

dude; I know how to read and resort to the fewest fallacies.

Fewest fallacies?

1) You claimed the DC v. Heller supported your position (that the 2nd is for militia only).
2) You claim that the statistics show guns are a threat to our nation.
3) You claim guns are inherently dangerous without outside forces.
4) You claim the Federalist papers support your position (that the 2nd is for militia only).
5) You claim that the 2nd was intended to provide weapons for state militias.


That is 5 that I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[turtledude]

Fewest fallacies?

1) You claimed the DC v. Heller supported your position (that the 2nd is for militia only).
2) You claim that the statistics show guns are a threat to our nation.
3) You claim guns are inherently dangerous without outside forces.
4) You claim the Federalist papers support your position (that the 2nd is for militia only).
5) You claim that the 2nd was intended to provide weapons for state militias.


That is 5 that I can think of off the top of my head.

He's a ******* bot. he spews idiocy in an effort to troll people. he does this on numerous boards-several of which he has been banned on.