The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems. We should have no security problems in our free States.

Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?

****, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?

We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.

Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.

means nothing. our Constitution is express not implied.

Which also means nothing in this context. We have a standing police force in the states. They, along with privately owned firearms, provide security. Like I said, try again in a hundred years or so.

it means everything in this context; there is no such Thing as a militia of Individuals of the People in our Republic under the federal doctrine.

 

[danielpalos]

The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917. I just love these 2nd amendment people.

Look at you, willfully unaware of the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the exercise of a right not related to the militia.

No, it doesn't and cannot. Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.

You've lost this argument every single time you've made it, yet you continue making it. Why is that?

right wing bigotry? in right wing fantasy, you are Always right simply for being on the right wing.

 

[hadit]

Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?

****, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?

We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.

Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.

means nothing. our Constitution is express not implied.

Which also means nothing in this context. We have a standing police force in the states. They, along with privately owned firearms, provide security. Like I said, try again in a hundred years or so.

it means everything in this context; there is no such Thing as a militia of Individuals of the People in our Republic under the federal doctrine.

We can still own guns, even without a militia. You do realize that, right?

 

[hadit]

The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917. I just love these 2nd amendment people.

Look at you, willfully unaware of the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the exercise of a right not related to the militia.

No, it doesn't and cannot. Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.

You've lost this argument every single time you've made it, yet you continue making it. Why is that?

right wing bigotry? in right wing fantasy, you are Always right simply for being on the right wing.

Common sense. You've never been able to support your case in this regard.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.

Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.

means nothing. our Constitution is express not implied.

Which also means nothing in this context. We have a standing police force in the states. They, along with privately owned firearms, provide security. Like I said, try again in a hundred years or so.

it means everything in this context; there is no such Thing as a militia of Individuals of the People in our Republic under the federal doctrine.

We can still own guns, even without a militia. You do realize that, right?

I understand the concept of natural rights. Our Second Amendment is specifically about the security of our free States.

 

[danielpalos]

The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917. I just love these 2nd amendment people.

Look at you, willfully unaware of the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the exercise of a right not related to the militia.

No, it doesn't and cannot. Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.

You've lost this argument every single time you've made it, yet you continue making it. Why is that?

right wing bigotry? in right wing fantasy, you are Always right simply for being on the right wing.

Common sense. You've never been able to support your case in this regard.

That is what I claim about the right wing. The first clause of our Second Amendment is the express not implied, Intent and Purpose.

 

[hadit]

Look at you, willfully unaware of the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the exercise of a right not related to the militia.

No, it doesn't and cannot. Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.

You've lost this argument every single time you've made it, yet you continue making it. Why is that?

right wing bigotry? in right wing fantasy, you are Always right simply for being on the right wing.

Common sense. You've never been able to support your case in this regard.

That is what I claim about the right wing. The first clause of our Second Amendment is the express not implied, Intent and Purpose.

You're making a lot of claims, always the same ones. Those claims have been destroyed many times, yet you continue going back to the beginning and doing it all over again. The right wing is not your problem. You're problem is the legal minds on the Supreme Court, who have ruled counter to what you say is right.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.

Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.

There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Define security problem and free states.

Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems. We should have no security problems in our free States.

Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?

****, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?

We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.

Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.

The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917. I just love these 2nd amendment people.

Do you know what a militia is?

 

[Staidhup]

Do yourself a favor and recognize the intent implied by the verbiage "to form a militia", during that period if you wish, was simply the ability to defend yourself with help or on your own.

The attempt by those desiring one to forgo, rather forfeit, one's rights is a further attempt toward solidifying absolute control in the hands of the government to do as they so desire, thus further exposing the population to uncontrolled violence.

Even at the end of the civil war confederate troops were permitted to return home with their weapons, for the fundamental right insured by the Constitution and Bill of Rights provided one with the right to protect themselves, property, and home.. So what's wrong with that?

The issue we are faced today is sensationalism, political exploitation, capitalization by a few on a disaster, all resulting from population dynamics. The escalation in the population translates into the corresponding increase in the number of very unstable individuals, crime, and violence. The passage of a law will not curtail violence, just words, words, words, which is the only thing Dim's are good for.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems. We should have no security problems in our free States.

Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?

****, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?

We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.

Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.

The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917. I just love these 2nd amendment people.

Do you know what a militia is?

There are two: National Guard and the Navy Reserves.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do yourself a favor and recognize the intent implied by the verbiage "to form a militia", during that period if you wish, was simply the ability to defend yourself with help or on your own.

The attempt by those desiring one to forgo, rather forfeit, one's rights is a further attempt toward solidifying absolute control in the hands of the government to do as they so desire, thus further exposing the population to uncontrolled violence.

Even at the end of the civil war confederate troops were permitted to return home with their weapons, for the fundamental right insured by the Constitution and Bill of Rights provided one with the right to protect themselves, property, and home.. So what's wrong with that?

The issue we are faced today is sensationalism, political exploitation, capitalization by a few on a disaster, all resulting from population dynamics. The escalation in the population translates into the corresponding increase in the number of very unstable individuals, crime, and violence. The passage of a law will not curtail violence, just words, words, words, which is the only thing Dim's are good for.

Art I, Sec. 8, clause 15 & 16 defines the militia - middle-aged over weight red state men dressed in camouflage do not meet the standard set in COTUS.

The unregulated militia is a myth and a meme; no different than a crip or blood carrying a gun in red or blue.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems. We should have no security problems in our free States.

Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?

****, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?

We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.

Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.

The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917. I just love these 2nd amendment people.

Do you know what a militia is?

I know exactly what it used to be. Do you know what a State Defense Force is?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do yourself a favor and recognize the intent implied by the verbiage "to form a militia", during that period if you wish, was simply the ability to defend yourself with help or on your own.

The attempt by those desiring one to forgo, rather forfeit, one's rights is a further attempt toward solidifying absolute control in the hands of the government to do as they so desire, thus further exposing the population to uncontrolled violence.

Even at the end of the civil war confederate troops were permitted to return home with their weapons, for the fundamental right insured by the Constitution and Bill of Rights provided one with the right to protect themselves, property, and home.. So what's wrong with that?

The issue we are faced today is sensationalism, political exploitation, capitalization by a few on a disaster, all resulting from population dynamics. The escalation in the population translates into the corresponding increase in the number of very unstable individuals, crime, and violence. The passage of a law will not curtail violence, just words, words, words, which is the only thing Dim's are good for.

Art I, Sec. 8, clause 15 & 16 defines the militia - middle-aged over weight red state men dressed in camouflage do not meet the standard set in COTUS.
The unregulated militia is a myth and a meme; no different than a crip or blood carrying a gun in red or blue.

All of which is irrelevant in a discussion of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?

****, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?

We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.

Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.

The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917. I just love these 2nd amendment people.

Do you know what a militia is?

There are two: National Guard and the Navy Reserves.

The Navy Reserve has nothing to do with the State. It's strictly Federal. Much like there is also an Army Reserve which has nothing to do with the Army National Guard.

 

[Staidhup]

Agree and disagree, this country won its independence by the blood and sacrifice of those very same middle-aged overweight men. To split hairs over the intent of the word militia as an excuse to restrict or limit one's right to own firearms is absurd.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't and cannot. Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.

You've lost this argument every single time you've made it, yet you continue making it. Why is that?

right wing bigotry? in right wing fantasy, you are Always right simply for being on the right wing.

Common sense. You've never been able to support your case in this regard.

That is what I claim about the right wing. The first clause of our Second Amendment is the express not implied, Intent and Purpose.

You're making a lot of claims, always the same ones. Those claims have been destroyed many times, yet you continue going back to the beginning and doing it all over again. The right wing is not your problem. You're problem is the legal minds on the Supreme Court, who have ruled counter to what you say is right.

appealing to authority? we have a Ninth Amendment; our Constitution is Express, not Implied by any fantastical, right wing bigotry.

 

[danielpalos]

Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.

Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.

There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our federal Republic.

 

[hadit]

You've lost this argument every single time you've made it, yet you continue making it. Why is that?

right wing bigotry? in right wing fantasy, you are Always right simply for being on the right wing.

Common sense. You've never been able to support your case in this regard.

That is what I claim about the right wing. The first clause of our Second Amendment is the express not implied, Intent and Purpose.

You're making a lot of claims, always the same ones. Those claims have been destroyed many times, yet you continue going back to the beginning and doing it all over again. The right wing is not your problem. You're problem is the legal minds on the Supreme Court, who have ruled counter to what you say is right.

appealing to authority? we have a Ninth Amendment; our Constitution is Express, not Implied by any fantastical, right wing bigotry.

Do you not consider the SC an authority on the Constitution?

 

[hadit]

Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.

Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.

There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our federal Republic.

People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.