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.

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.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

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

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.

You are very confused.

Who has a right to assemble? Is that a right held individually or by a group?

You don't know the answer.

There is if you understand the context. Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.

How can one person peaceably assemble? Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?

It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.

I am not sure what you mean.

Here is the express law:

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.

There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.

how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?

In Daniel's world you don't.

Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

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

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.

You are very confused.

Who has a right to assemble? Is that a right held individually or by a group?

You don't know the answer.

There is if you understand the context. Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.

How can one person peaceably assemble? Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?

It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.

I am not sure what you mean.

Here is the express law:

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.

There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.

how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?

In Daniel's world you don't.

Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.

just answer the question

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

"The People" refers to individual rights.

Not in our Second Amendment; there are no singular or Individual terms in our Second Amendment only collective and plural terms. Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.

Every right identified in the Bill of Rights uses plurals.

"People" are made up of individuals.

You would be arguing that individuals have no rights. That is SHIT!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

According to Collectivists, there should not be an individual 4th Amendment right.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

No person has an individual right to be secure in his/her person/papers, etc. It's only the the right of the people. Therefore, Government can search and seize without Warrant any individual, but not a collective group of people.

Right?

(yes. your argument is that stupid)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

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

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:

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.

And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State. It really is that simple.

And, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is declared protected and shall not be infringed.

It's even more simple.

 

[hadit]

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.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

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

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:

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.

And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State. It really is that simple.

Of course it is. It also doesn't eliminate the protection of the individual's right to bear arms. That also is simple. Individuals need to have arms so we can call up a militia if necessary, and the operative part of that is Individuals need to have arms.

You guys are pissing up a wet rope with this one. He is an idiotic troll who is playing you. He will run you around with circular arguments until you are blue in the face.

Oh, we're quite familiar with him and enjoy watching his dance. It's quite entertaining.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

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

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:

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.

And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State. It really is that simple.

Of course it is. It also doesn't eliminate the protection of the individual's right to bear arms. That also is simple. Individuals need to have arms so we can call up a militia if necessary, and the operative part of that is Individuals need to have arms.

You guys are pissing up a wet rope with this one. He is an idiotic troll who is playing you. He will run you around with circular arguments until you are blue in the face.

Oh, we're quite familiar with him and enjoy watching his dance. It's quite entertaining.

I have him on ignore, but I choose to school him periodically, until he becomes tired and boring again with his lame, repeated, unintelligent "arguments" he is unable to defend.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

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.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

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

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:

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.

States don't have rights; they have constitutionally granted authority. "Free state" as used could either mean condition, State or federal governments . In any case it is a militia that is necessary (not government troops) for it to be considered free. There is not set a number of people required for a militia only that they be non-government volunteer civilians although the unit may retain the militia name after becoming regular government troops.

 

[hadit]

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.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

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

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:

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.

And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State. It really is that simple.

Of course it is. It also doesn't eliminate the protection of the individual's right to bear arms. That also is simple. Individuals need to have arms so we can call up a militia if necessary, and the operative part of that is Individuals need to have arms.

There is no implication regarding private Arms when general issue Arms will do.

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;

Doesn't matter, the 2nd specifically provides for the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia, not the state, the PEOPLE. That means that people have to be allowed to have firearms. Not firearms they don't own that are stashed in an armory under government control, THEIR arms. There's no way around it.

 

[hadit]

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.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

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

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:

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.

And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State. It really is that simple.

Of course it is. It also doesn't eliminate the protection of the individual's right to bear arms. That also is simple. Individuals need to have arms so we can call up a militia if necessary, and the operative part of that is Individuals need to have arms.

You guys are pissing up a wet rope with this one. He is an idiotic troll who is playing you. He will run you around with circular arguments until you are blue in the face.

Oh, we're quite familiar with him and enjoy watching his dance. It's quite entertaining.

I have him on ignore, but I choose to school him periodically, until he becomes tired and boring again with his lame, repeated, unintelligent "arguments" he is unable to defend.

Yeah, he has a cycle. He comes out with the usual list of arguments, somebody squashes him, he goes away for a bit, then right back to it. Funny thing is, he thinks he wins the arguments.

 

[hadit]

According to Collectivists, there should not be an individual 4th Amendment right.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

No person has an individual right to be secure in his/her person/papers, etc. It's only the the right of the people. Therefore, Government can search and seize without Warrant any individual, but not a collective group of people.

Right?

(yes. your argument is that stupid)

The same for the 1st Amendment. To be consistent, they should be insisting you only have the right to free speech if you are a member of a government approved, trained and licensed protest group. You don't have the right to simply speak your mind by yourself.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

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

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:

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.

And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.

The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated and have literal recourse to our Second Amendment or subject to the traditional police power of the State as unorganized militia and Individual civil Persons under the common law.

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

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

That's right, all the people are free to bear arms, the 2nd Amendment spells that out. Not the state, not the militia, all the people. Glad you noticed it.

The whole People are the militia. Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. Only right wingers ignore history to repeat historical mistakes and proclaim they are not really like that but are for the "gospel Truth".

Your knowledge of history well and truly sucks or you would realize how idiotic your well refuted statements are.

 

[Markle]

‘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

Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?

Please explain. How is supporting the Second Amendment defending President Trump and what difference does that make?

 

[hadit]

‘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

Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?

Please explain. How is supporting the Second Amendment defending President Trump and what difference does that make?

"But, but, but, TRUMP!" is going to be the go-to diversion until the next Republican president is sworn in, then it will be her problem.

 

[hadit]

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.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

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

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.

You are very confused.

Who has a right to assemble? Is that a right held individually or by a group?

You don't know the answer.

There is if you understand the context. Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.

How can one person peaceably assemble? Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?

It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.

I am not sure what you mean.

Here is the express law:

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.

There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.

how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?

In Daniel's world you don't.

Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.

And there it is, the classic Daniel Dodge. Tell us, Daniel, how DO you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms and the military if you have no weapons at all? How do you make it difficult enough that he eventually gives up because he faces armed opposition at every turn?

 

[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.

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.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

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

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.

You are very confused.

Who has a right to assemble? Is that a right held individually or by a group?

You don't know the answer.

There is if you understand the context. Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.

How can one person peaceably assemble? Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?

It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.

I am not sure what you mean.

Here is the express law:

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.

There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.

how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?

In Daniel's world you don't.

Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.

And there it is, the classic Daniel Dodge. Tell us, Daniel, how DO you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms and the military if you have no weapons at all? How do you make it difficult enough that he eventually gives up because he faces armed opposition at every turn?

Follow-up question, if you would be so kind as to pass it along to Daniel.

Can you name us any country where oppressive tyranny ever developed in which the citizenry was armed?

 

[Markle]

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.

Have you ever been in such a high stress situation?...I haven't and am not in any position to make such a pronouncement.

I have been in high stress situations. And there was no threat to the officer, hence her using her Taser.

The perp jumped into the driver seat and was preparing to pull away....If you don't think that's a life threatening situation, maybe we should check in with that poor Paki dude who got carjacked a couple weeks ago.

There was also a loaded gun on the seat next to him. She panicked. It is simple as that, a horribly tragic ending. All he had to do was, follow the legal instructions from the officer.

 

[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.

Have you ever been in such a high stress situation?...I haven't and am not in any position to make such a pronouncement.

I have been in high stress situations. And there was no threat to the officer, hence her using her Taser.

The perp jumped into the driver seat and was preparing to pull away....If you don't think that's a life threatening situation, maybe we should check in with that poor Paki dude who got carjacked a couple weeks ago.

There was also a loaded gun on the seat next to him. She panicked. It is simple as that, a horribly tragic ending. All he had to do was, follow the legal instructions from the officer.

Although irrelevant, who told you "there was also a loaded gun on the seat next to him"? I haven't heard that from any reliable source.

 

[Markle]

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.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

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

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.

You are very confused.

Who has a right to assemble? Is that a right held individually or by a group?

You don't know the answer.

There is if you understand the context. Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.

You simply demand to remain ignorant, don't you? Why?

 

[Markle]

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.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

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

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:

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.

And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State. It really is that simple.