The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

 

[danielpalos]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Daniel clearly understands the law and the Constitution far better than do the Justices on the Supreme Court. They have, what, a few centuries of study and adjudications between them compared to his towering intellect that discovers whatever he wants to invent in the plain text of laws that say the exact opposite. He's quite the legal scholar, you know.

Right wingers simply don't care about the law and prefer to be hypocrites about being legal to the law in immigration threads.

 

[danielpalos]

‘How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’

They’re not.

In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’

The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.

That ruling was in legal error. There are no individuals unconnected with the militia only militia service well regulated.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Yet another Daniel legal discovery. The legal profession is wrong, the keyboard jockey insists.

We have a Tenth Amendment. Legislation from the Bench is something right wingers allege to be against.

They didn't rewrite the law, did they?

They merely ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means.

All they can do is strike down a law or allow it to stand. They cannot rewrite it. And again, why aren't you on the Supreme Court, since you know better than all of them put together?

Why did they ignore the rules of construction or sacrifice the end to the means?

 

[WinterBorn]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

It has not. Cite the cases

District of Columbia v. Heller
from: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
"Held:
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.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

 

[danielpalos]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

It has not. Cite the cases

District of Columbia v. Heller
from: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
"Held:
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.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

Paragraph 1 is disingenuous, ignores the rules of construction, and sacrifices the end to the means.

The People are the Militia; you are either organized and well regulated or unorganized and subject to the traditional police power of a State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[WinterBorn]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

 

[AZrailwhale]

How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?

View attachment 479345

Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?

The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.

www.foxnews.com

How could an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?

She made a mistake. Mistakes happen. Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake. The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.

I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.

The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser. So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.

 

[Oddball]

How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?

View attachment 479345

Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?

The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.

www.foxnews.com

How could an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?

She made a mistake. Mistakes happen. Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake. The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.

I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.

The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser. So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.

Taser can kill....Just far less likely to than a bullet.

 

[danielpalos]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

 

[asaratis]

One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!

Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.

Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags. You're argument is a typical libtard argument, stupid and wrong.

As was reported today on TV - their DMV is running way behind because of COVID-19 in issuing new stickers for license plates. They said many people are driving with expired stickers.

How is an officer to determine whether the owner of the car had attempted to apply for a renewal sticker? Since many people do not mail their applications for tag renewal, a check with the DMV computer files may result in a waste of time.

The logical way to determine this is to stop the car and ask the driver.

 

[WinterBorn]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

 

[danielpalos]

One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!

Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.

Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags. You're argument is a typical libtard argument, stupid and wrong.

As was reported today on TV - their DMV is running way behind because of COVID-19 in issuing new stickers for license plates. They said many people are driving with expired stickers.

How is an officer to determine whether the owner of the car had attempted to apply for a renewal sticker? Since many people do not mail their applications for tag renewal, a check with the DMV computer files may result in a waste of time.

The logical way to determine this is to stop the car and ask the driver.

They could have asked for his driver's license after he stopped in a well lit area; they should view it from their own safety perspective as well.

 

[WinterBorn]

How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?

View attachment 479345

Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?

The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.

www.foxnews.com

How could an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?

She made a mistake. Mistakes happen. Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake. The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.

I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.

The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser. So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.

Even in a high stress situation, if you can't tell the difference between a Taser and a firearm, you probably shouldn't be issued either.

 

[danielpalos]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

That is just right wingers appealing to ignorance, like usual. Context means everything and is why you cannot ignore or appeal to ignorance of the first clause wiithout resorting to a fallacy of composition. I resort to the fewest fallacies. Any questions?

 

[WinterBorn]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

 

[Lakhota]

How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?

View attachment 479345

Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?

The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.

www.foxnews.com

How could an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?

She made a mistake. Mistakes happen. Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake. The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.

I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.

The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser. So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.

Even in a high stress situation, if you can't tell the difference between a Taser and a firearm, you probably shouldn't be issued either.

Amen! Especially for someone 48 years old who has been a cop for 26 years.

 

[Cecilie1200]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

I'm trying to think of ANY "collective right" enshrined in the Constitution, and I'm drawing a blank. Even the right to assemble is an INDIVIDUAL right, the right of individuals to meet with other individuals.

 

[WinterBorn]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

That is just right wingers appealing to ignorance, like usual. Context means everything and is why you cannot ignore or appeal to ignorance of the first clause wiithout resorting to a fallacy of composition. I resort to the fewest fallacies. Any questions?

Not rightwingers. Constitutional scholars, including members of the US Supreme Court.

In fact, the SCOTUS addressed that in their ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller.

"Held:

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.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) 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. The Antifederalists 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. Pp. 22–28."

 

[Lakhota]

One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!

Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.

Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags. You're argument is a typical libtard argument, stupid and wrong.

As was reported today on TV - their DMV is running way behind because of COVID-19 in issuing new stickers for license plates. They said many people are driving with expired stickers.

How is an officer to determine whether the owner of the car had attempted to apply for a renewal sticker? Since many people do not mail their applications for tag renewal, a check with the DMV computer files may result in a waste of time.

The logical way to determine this is to stop the car and ask the driver.

The cops should have been aware of the DMV slowdown and the sticker delays because of COVID-19.

 

[danielpalos]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.