Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[WinterBorn]

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.

No, but you DID claim that no property rights can be claimed via the militia clause of the 2nd, like that means something. It does not address property rights at all.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No, but you DID claim that no property rights can be claimed via the militia clause of the 2nd, like that means something. It does not address property rights at all.

No. I did not say that simply because I distinguish between acquiring and possessing and keeping and bearing, merely to resort to the fewest fallacies in any given venue.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

No, but you DID claim that no property rights can be claimed via the militia clause of the 2nd, like that means something. It does not address property rights at all.

No. I did not say that simply because I distinguish between acquiring and possessing and keeping and bearing, merely to resort to the fewest fallacies in any given venue.

You cannot distinguish between a ruling that supports your contention and one that does not.

But, for the record, I meant to say that you "can't". But you resorting to claiming that the "militia clause" addresses anything about property rights is laughable.

 

[danielpalos]

I only distinguish because the terms keep and bear are found in our Second Amendment while acquire and possess, denoting specifically, rights in private property regardless of militia service is to be found in State Constitutions.

 

[WinterBorn]

I only distinguish because the terms keep and bear are found in our Second Amendment while acquire and possess, denoting specifically, rights in private property regardless of militia service is to be found in State Constitutions.

State constitutions are irrelevant in this discussion.

If your arguing is based on the meaning of "keep and bear", you have lost. There is no ambiguity in what that means.

 

[danielpalos]

I only distinguish because the terms keep and bear are found in our Second Amendment while acquire and possess, denoting specifically, rights in private property regardless of militia service is to be found in State Constitutions.

State constitutions are irrelevant in this discussion.

If your arguing is based on the meaning of "keep and bear", you have lost. There is no ambiguity in what that means.

How did I lose?

Keep and bear has military significance, acquire and possess does not. Thus, militia service can have bearing and Standing.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Militia clause of our Second Amendment.

 

[WinterBorn]

I only distinguish because the terms keep and bear are found in our Second Amendment while acquire and possess, denoting specifically, rights in private property regardless of militia service is to be found in State Constitutions.

State constitutions are irrelevant in this discussion.

If your arguing is based on the meaning of "keep and bear", you have lost. There is no ambiguity in what that means.

How did I lose?

Keep and bear has military significance, acquire and possess does not. Thus, militia service can have bearing and Standing.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Militia clause of our Second Amendment.

"Keep" and "bear" have significance. They are not military terms. They are simple words with basic meanings.

 

[danielpalos]

I only distinguish because the terms keep and bear are found in our Second Amendment while acquire and possess, denoting specifically, rights in private property regardless of militia service is to be found in State Constitutions.

State constitutions are irrelevant in this discussion.

If your arguing is based on the meaning of "keep and bear", you have lost. There is no ambiguity in what that means.

How did I lose?

Keep and bear has military significance, acquire and possess does not. Thus, militia service can have bearing and Standing.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Militia clause of our Second Amendment.

"Keep" and "bear" have significance. They are not military terms. They are simple words with basic meanings.

Those terms have military significance, not civilian significance.

 

[WinterBorn]

I only distinguish because the terms keep and bear are found in our Second Amendment while acquire and possess, denoting specifically, rights in private property regardless of militia service is to be found in State Constitutions.

State constitutions are irrelevant in this discussion.

If your arguing is based on the meaning of "keep and bear", you have lost. There is no ambiguity in what that means.

How did I lose?

Keep and bear has military significance, acquire and possess does not. Thus, militia service can have bearing and Standing.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Militia clause of our Second Amendment.

"Keep" and "bear" have significance. They are not military terms. They are simple words with basic meanings.

Those terms have military significance, not civilian significance.

Bullshit. Are you saying that "keep" is a military term? "Bear" is a military term? Absolute hogwash.

While "bear" may have fallen into less use over the 2+ centuries, it is certainly not a military term.

 

[danielpalos]

I only distinguish because the terms keep and bear are found in our Second Amendment while acquire and possess, denoting specifically, rights in private property regardless of militia service is to be found in State Constitutions.

State constitutions are irrelevant in this discussion.

If your arguing is based on the meaning of "keep and bear", you have lost. There is no ambiguity in what that means.

How did I lose?

Keep and bear has military significance, acquire and possess does not. Thus, militia service can have bearing and Standing.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Militia clause of our Second Amendment.

"Keep" and "bear" have significance. They are not military terms. They are simple words with basic meanings.

Those terms have military significance, not civilian significance.

Bullshit. Are you saying that "keep" is a military term? "Bear" is a military term? Absolute hogwash.

While "bear" may have fallen into less use over the 2+ centuries, it is certainly not a military term.

Yes, they must be military terms for a Militia, but not civilians of the People who may acquire and possess private property without any militia service

 

[WinterBorn]

State constitutions are irrelevant in this discussion.

If your arguing is based on the meaning of "keep and bear", you have lost. There is no ambiguity in what that means.

How did I lose?

Keep and bear has military significance, acquire and possess does not. Thus, militia service can have bearing and Standing.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Militia clause of our Second Amendment.

"Keep" and "bear" have significance. They are not military terms. They are simple words with basic meanings.

Those terms have military significance, not civilian significance.

Bullshit. Are you saying that "keep" is a military term? "Bear" is a military term? Absolute hogwash.

While "bear" may have fallen into less use over the 2+ centuries, it is certainly not a military term.

Yes, they must be military terms for a Militia, but not civilians of the People who may acquire and possess private property without any militia service

They must be? Why must they be?

 

[danielpalos]

How did I lose?

Keep and bear has military significance, acquire and possess does not. Thus, militia service can have bearing and Standing.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Militia clause of our Second Amendment.

"Keep" and "bear" have significance. They are not military terms. They are simple words with basic meanings.

Those terms have military significance, not civilian significance.

Bullshit. Are you saying that "keep" is a military term? "Bear" is a military term? Absolute hogwash.

While "bear" may have fallen into less use over the 2+ centuries, it is certainly not a military term.

Yes, they must be military terms for a Militia, but not civilians of the People who may acquire and possess private property without any militia service

They must be? Why must they be?

Simply because, keep and bear means something specific to a militia that is not found in purely civilian affairs where a Sheriff can "commandeer" gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, under His authority.

 

[WinterBorn]

"Keep" and "bear" have significance. They are not military terms. They are simple words with basic meanings.

Those terms have military significance, not civilian significance.

Bullshit. Are you saying that "keep" is a military term? "Bear" is a military term? Absolute hogwash.

While "bear" may have fallen into less use over the 2+ centuries, it is certainly not a military term.

Yes, they must be military terms for a Militia, but not civilians of the People who may acquire and possess private property without any militia service

They must be? Why must they be?

Simply because, keep and bear means something specific to a militia that is not found in purely civilian affairs where a Sheriff can "commandeer" gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, under His authority.

No, they mean the same in both places.

 

[danielpalos]

Acquire and possess must be distinct from keep and bear since they are different processes with different goals.

Acquire and possess can be accomplished at a store for that class of private property.



Keep and bear is something well regulated militias may have to do, for the security and domestic Tranquillity of a free State.

 

[WinterBorn]

The word "keep" is a simple word. Used in all sorts of modern phrases. "Keep your hands to yourself", "Keep off the grass", and more. There is nothing militia related about it.

 

[danielpalos]

The word "keep" is a simple word. Used in all sorts of modern phrases. "Keep your hands to yourself", "Keep off the grass", and more. There is nothing militia related about it.

Keep and bear are the terms used. And, in that string of words, have a very specific meaning regarding any Militia of the People.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

 

[WinterBorn]

"Keep and bear" are simple words. Your attempt to attach military significance to them is ridiculous. Or as you might say it, "there is no appeal to ignorance of vocabulary". Unless you have a link showing this to be more than a weak attempt at continuing this nonsense, I'm done.

 

[danielpalos]

Sounds like we may need a writ of mandate to settle this issue.

There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.

The People are the Militia. Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[WinterBorn]

Sounds like we may need a writ of mandate to settle this issue.

There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.

The People are the Militia. Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.

No need for a writ of mandate. It has already been settled by the highest court in the nation, as I have stated numerous times.

And just as an FYI:

From Merriam-Webster
"keep
verb \ˈkēp\
: to continue having or holding (something) : to not return, lose, sell, give away, or throw away (something)

: to continue in a specified state, condition, or position

: to cause (someone or something) to continue in a specified state, condition, or position"

 

[danielpalos]

Sounds like we may need a writ of mandate to settle this issue.

There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.

The People are the Militia. Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.

No need for a writ of mandate. It has already been settled by the highest court in the nation, as I have stated numerous times.

And just as an FYI:

From Merriam-Webster
"keep
verb \ˈkēp\
: to continue having or holding (something) : to not return, lose, sell, give away, or throw away (something)

: to continue in a specified state, condition, or position

: to cause (someone or something) to continue in a specified state, condition, or position"

I didn't see this argument in any holding.

There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People. Both terms are plural, not Individual.

Keep is not the Only term used. Keep is presented with bear; which has specific military applications for a militia, but not Individuals merely acquiring and possessing private property in the class called Arms.

The People are the Militia. A well regulated Militia of the People is necessary to the security of a free State. Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.