The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

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?

as a separate and equal branch of Government, it is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for any party.

 

[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.

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

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.

Congress is responsible for arming the militia.

 

[hadit]

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?

as a separate and equal branch of Government, it is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for any party.

Is it an authority on the Constitution or not?

 

[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.

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.

Congress is responsible for arming the militia.

The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.

Congress is responsible for arming the militia.

The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.

it goes further than that,,,it means nobody can do anything the infringes on owning or having an arms,,and thats more than just guns,,,

 

[SandSquid]

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.

Actually, the Constitution says when there is a disagreement on an interpretation of it, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to both fact and law in this case. In this situation the SC determined 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. It was NOT an organized group, just "the whole people" as the founders of the Bill of Rights said. The people 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.

Also that the Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. And that interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

So short of wanting to burn the parts of the Constitution you don't like, the Supreme Court in powers given by the Constitution has the jurisdiction to both law and fact in the matter that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

Like the Father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason said "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."

 

[SandSquid]

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.

Yes, and it is express when it says that the Supreme Court's power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, and have jurisdiction to both law and fact.

You can't say some parts of the Constitution are express, but others are not since you believe they are "right wing bigotry". You can't decide to white out this section of the Constitution, and maybe burn this article, but then take this one without the rest.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Actually, the Constitution says when there is a disagreement on an interpretation of it, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to both fact and law in this case. In this situation the SC determined 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. It was NOT an organized group, just "the whole people" as the founders of the Bill of Rights said. The people 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.

Also that the Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. And that interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

So short of wanting to burn the parts of the Constitution you don't like, the Supreme Court in powers given by the Constitution has the jurisdiction to both law and fact in the matter that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

Like the Father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason said "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."

Which in the case of any given emergency for whatever reason, the States can draw upon. They can also arm them with Guns and even shovels if need be or any manner of tools to ensure the safety or well being of the State.

 

[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.

Actually, the Constitution says when there is a disagreement on an interpretation of it, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to both fact and law in this case. In this situation the SC determined 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. It was NOT an organized group, just "the whole people" as the founders of the Bill of Rights said. The people 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.

Also that the Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. And that interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

So short of wanting to burn the parts of the Constitution you don't like, the Supreme Court in powers given by the Constitution has the jurisdiction to both law and fact in the matter that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

Like the Father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason said "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."

It seems you've never read the Constitution, and maybe have never taken or passed a high school course in civics.

Read carefully Art I and Art III and you will find nothing which you claim exists in COTUS.

 

[hadit]

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.

Yes, and it is express when it says that the Supreme Court's power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, and have jurisdiction to both law and fact.

You can't say some parts of the Constitution are express, but others are not since you believe they are "right wing bigotry". You can't decide to white out this section of the Constitution, and maybe burn this article, but then take this one without the rest.

Actually, that's exactly what he does to support his twisted version of reality.

 

[SandSquid]

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.

Actually, the Constitution says when there is a disagreement on an interpretation of it, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to both fact and law in this case. In this situation the SC determined 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. It was NOT an organized group, just "the whole people" as the founders of the Bill of Rights said. The people 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.

Also that the Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. And that interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

So short of wanting to burn the parts of the Constitution you don't like, the Supreme Court in powers given by the Constitution has the jurisdiction to both law and fact in the matter that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

Like the Father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason said "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."

It seems you've never read the Constitution, and maybe have never taken or passed a high school course in civics.

Read carefully Art I and Art III and you will find nothing which you claim exists in COTUS.

Yep the judicial power is vested in one supreme Court and extends to all cases arising under the Constitution..

Maybe they teach civics differently outside the US. Maybe your teachers let you down.

Maybe you just want to try and rewrite and twist history when the Father of the Bill of Rights said the militia was the whole people"?

Or maybe just the Constitution isn't for you, and you'd prefer to be under some other country's laws instead.

But for Americans, like it or not the power to determine if something is protected and legal or not by the Constitution is expressly designated to the Judicial powers of the government vested in one Supreme Court.

 

[WillPower]

The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.

 

[SandSquid]

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.

Actually, the Constitution says when there is a disagreement on an interpretation of it, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to both fact and law in this case. In this situation the SC determined 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. It was NOT an organized group, just "the whole people" as the founders of the Bill of Rights said. The people 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.

Also that the Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. And that interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

So short of wanting to burn the parts of the Constitution you don't like, the Supreme Court in powers given by the Constitution has the jurisdiction to both law and fact in the matter that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

Like the Father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason said "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."

It seems you've never read the Constitution, and maybe have never taken or passed a high school course in civics.

Read carefully Art I and Art III and you will find nothing which you claim exists in COTUS.

Yep the judicial power is vested in one supreme Court and extends to all cases arising under the Constitution..

Maybe they teach civics differently outside the US. Maybe your teachers let you down.

Maybe you just want to try and rewrite and twist history when the Father of the Bill of Rights said the militia was the whole people"?

Or maybe just the Constitution isn't for you, and you'd prefer to be under some other country's laws instead.

But for Americans, like it or not the power to determine if something is protected and legal or not by the Constitution is expressly designated to the Judicial powers of the government vested in one Supreme Court.

And yes. When the Supreme Court heard the court of appeals for the DC circuit, the Constitution which said "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact" mattered.

You may not like that, but your opinion does not have jurisdiction to law and fact in that case. The Supreme Courts does.

And Law and Fact is that 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 in the USA.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

as a separate and equal branch of Government, it is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for any party.

Is it an authority on the Constitution or not?

we have our Ninth Amendment; it is express or it isn't.

 

[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.

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

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.

Congress is responsible for arming the militia.

The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.

it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, and it is express when it says that the Supreme Court's power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, and have jurisdiction to both law and fact.

You can't say some parts of the Constitution are express, but others are not since you believe they are "right wing bigotry". You can't decide to white out this section of the Constitution, and maybe burn this article, but then take this one without the rest.

where am I doing that?

Our Second Amendment is express, not implied by right wing fantasy.

 

[sealybobo]

So, back on topic:

NOBODY wanted to touch the 2A as it relates to the 14th. It would have opened the door for lots of chaos and a bunch of emergency action. They all preferred to let sleeping dogs lie.

Enter, the Heller decision.

Without the clumsy 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment is strictly a limit on federal power. Nothing more. But, when States are required to give state citizens due process and the privileges and immunities of U.S. Citizens, the 2nd Amendment becomes a bar on State power too.

Now, nobody can regulate arms. Then, we have a huge constitutional show down on the 14th Amendment, which upsets 100+ years of jurisprudence and the whole ******* Union is hanging in the balance.

They should have let it happen and it would have made the Union stronger. But, people are chicken shit.

.

Why can’t I buy a gun and carry it around with me? How come republicans don’t agree that’s unconstitutional? They actually tried to pass it in Michigan and republicans couldn’t get it done even though they controlled all branch’s of government.

 

[Lakhota]

The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.

Funny. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time. It currently stands as a fossil.

 

[Lakhota]

NRA Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status Over Shady Business Practices, Report Says

Why does the NRA have tax-exempt status in the first place? They're just a bunch of gun-running thugs.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.

Funny. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time. It currently stands as a fossil.

Your opinion means nothing.