The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

Says who? Show me a single constitutional requirements for the number of people it takes to form a militia.

Says the guy who resorts to the fewest fallacies and knows when right wingers have nothing but fallacy.

431.010. Organization Prohibited
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.
(b) With the consent of the governor, students in an educational institution at which military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction and soldiers honorably discharged from the service of the United States may drill and parade with firearms in public.
(c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law.

 

[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.

just answer the question

There is no such Thing as a Militia of One under our Constitutional form of Government.

Nonsense.
Almost every state constitution has the definition of its militia, as being every able bodied male.

For example, this is from the Constitution of the State of Virginia.
{...
§ 44-1. Composition of militia.
The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age. The militia shall be divided into three classes: the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; and the unorganized militia.

...}

Title 44. Military and Emergency Laws

law.lis.virginia.gov

So what.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Where are the Individuals unconnected with a requirement for militia service? You are either well regulated or unorganized. Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates well regulated militia not the unorganized militia as individuals.

 

[danielpalos]

Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.

And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment

Right, which means that the militia is necessary, which in turn means that that people have to be armed so the militia can be formed if it's needed.

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;

 

[hadit]

"People" is made up of individuals. A "Militia" may be necessary, but the people (and each person) retains the right to keep and bear arms.

You are a fool to tie it to the Militia. It was a preexisting individual right. The 2A take authority away from the Federal Government.

There are no individual terms used in our Second Amendment. And, the People are the Militia. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Texas Statute
431.010. Organization Prohibited
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.

(b) With the consent of the governor, students in an educational institution at which military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction and soldiers honorably discharged from the service of the United States may drill and parade with firearms in public.

(c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law.

There are no individual terms used in the First Amendment either, yet you claim you have an individual right to free speech. Or are you going to insist you only have free speech in the context of a licensed, regulated and government approved protest group?

 

[danielpalos]

The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?

Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State. And, you ignore this fact under the common law.

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

 

[hadit]

Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.

And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment

Right, which means that the militia is necessary, which in turn means that that people have to be armed so the militia can be formed if it's needed.

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;

Which means that the government should be providing the arms people have the right to keep.

 

[danielpalos]

Doesn't matter, the 2nd specifically provides for the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia, not the state, the PEOPLE

Yea...we're not talking about a militia made up of farm anaimals

That means that people have to be allowed to have firearms.

In order to be part of a militia...which no longer exists

Daniel, how DO you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms and the military if you have no weapons at all?

You'll note that Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 (16?) describes the USE of that militia to put DOWN the type of insurrection you claim the 2A promotes.

And in fact it was used to do just that in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion

1. Interesting. A plain reading of what you wrote reveals that you are claiming Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were attempts to remove a tyrant. Which tyrant would that have been?
2. Yes, a militia is made up of PEOPLE, and it is PEOPLE who have the right to bear arms, NOT the militia and NOT the state, but the PEOPLE.
3. The right does not expire because there are no militias around right now. In fact, the right needs to be protected so if we should ever need to call up a militia, we could. Your argument falls flat on that one.

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

 

[hadit]

The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?

Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State. And, you ignore this fact under the common law.

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

And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?

 

[hadit]

Doesn't matter, the 2nd specifically provides for the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia, not the state, the PEOPLE

Yea...we're not talking about a militia made up of farm anaimals

That means that people have to be allowed to have firearms.

In order to be part of a militia...which no longer exists

Daniel, how DO you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms and the military if you have no weapons at all?

You'll note that Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 (16?) describes the USE of that militia to put DOWN the type of insurrection you claim the 2A promotes.

And in fact it was used to do just that in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion

1. Interesting. A plain reading of what you wrote reveals that you are claiming Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were attempts to remove a tyrant. Which tyrant would that have been?
2. Yes, a militia is made up of PEOPLE, and it is PEOPLE who have the right to bear arms, NOT the militia and NOT the state, but the PEOPLE.
3. The right does not expire because there are no militias around right now. In fact, the right needs to be protected so if we should ever need to call up a militia, we could. Your argument falls flat on that one.

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

You're saying the same thing I am, which is that people have the right to bear arms. You do that when you say the militia is the people.

 

[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.

Still waiting for a collectivist to insist the right to free speech only applies if you're a member of a licensed, trained and government approved protest group. You know, to be consistent and all about who the people are.

Where does it say well regulated militia are necessary in any other amendment?

You tell me. Are the "people" in the First Amendment the same as the "people" in the Second? If they are, why do you insist it means individuals in the First and a group in the Second?

Context is everything. Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is Necessary to the security of a free State not free individuals of the People.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm afraid he'd just argue with the teacher and insist that everyone in the history of America that ever studied the Constitution is wrong, that he's right and that he wins all the arguments.

Only right wingers are always wrong but want to be taken as seriously as if they were Right instead of merely on the right wing.

And yet you dogmatically insist that you are always right and win every argument, even when the entire legal profession disagrees with you.

I resort to the fewest fallacies. And, simply Because You claim it doesn't mean it is based on fact, logic, or reason.

 

[danielpalos]

Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.

And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment

Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the terms employed in our Second Amendment. A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right and authority to draft their own militia from the body of the People.

The bottom line remains, then, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.

That means lgbtq individuals of the people may not be denied and disparaged when the security of our free States or the Union requires it.

 

[danielpalos]

"People" is made up of individuals. A "Militia" may be necessary, but the people (and each person) retains the right to keep and bear arms.

You are a fool to tie it to the Militia. It was a preexisting individual right. The 2A take authority away from the Federal Government.

There are no individual terms used in our Second Amendment. And, the People are the Militia. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Texas Statute
431.010. Organization Prohibited
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.

(b) With the consent of the governor, students in an educational institution at which military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction and soldiers honorably discharged from the service of the United States may drill and parade with firearms in public.

(c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law.

There are no individual terms used in the First Amendment either, yet you claim you have an individual right to free speech. Or are you going to insist you only have free speech in the context of a licensed, regulated and government approved protest group?

Context means everything; along with an already established understanding of the law.

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

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

And why would the militia exclude "public officials" aka GOVERNMENT?

 

[danielpalos]

Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.

And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment

Right, which means that the militia is necessary, which in turn means that that people have to be armed so the militia can be formed if it's needed.

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;

Which means that the government should be providing the arms people have the right to keep.

They do have a right to keep and bear Arms when necessary for the security of our free States or the Union. Otherwise, the Traditional police power of a State applies.

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

 

[danielpalos]

The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?

Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State. And, you ignore this fact under the common law.

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

And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?

The People are the Militia. Only right wingers, never get it.

 

[danielpalos]

Doesn't matter, the 2nd specifically provides for the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia, not the state, the PEOPLE

Yea...we're not talking about a militia made up of farm anaimals

That means that people have to be allowed to have firearms.

In order to be part of a militia...which no longer exists

Daniel, how DO you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms and the military if you have no weapons at all?

You'll note that Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 (16?) describes the USE of that militia to put DOWN the type of insurrection you claim the 2A promotes.

And in fact it was used to do just that in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion

1. Interesting. A plain reading of what you wrote reveals that you are claiming Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were attempts to remove a tyrant. Which tyrant would that have been?
2. Yes, a militia is made up of PEOPLE, and it is PEOPLE who have the right to bear arms, NOT the militia and NOT the state, but the PEOPLE.
3. The right does not expire because there are no militias around right now. In fact, the right needs to be protected so if we should ever need to call up a militia, we could. Your argument falls flat on that one.

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

You're saying the same thing I am, which is that people have the right to bear arms. You do that when you say the militia is the people.

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union. Otherwise, you are 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)

 

[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.

Still waiting for a collectivist to insist the right to free speech only applies if you're a member of a licensed, trained and government approved protest group. You know, to be consistent and all about who the people are.

Where does it say well regulated militia are necessary in any other amendment?

You tell me. Are the "people" in the First Amendment the same as the "people" in the Second? If they are, why do you insist it means individuals in the First and a group in the Second?

Context is everything. Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is Necessary to the security of a free State not free individuals of the People.

What is necessary is for individuals to bear arms.

 

[hadit]

I'm afraid he'd just argue with the teacher and insist that everyone in the history of America that ever studied the Constitution is wrong, that he's right and that he wins all the arguments.

Only right wingers are always wrong but want to be taken as seriously as if they were Right instead of merely on the right wing.

And yet you dogmatically insist that you are always right and win every argument, even when the entire legal profession disagrees with you.

I resort to the fewest fallacies. And, simply Because You claim it doesn't mean it is based on fact, logic, or reason.

Except we show through fact, logic AND reason where you are wrong and you dogmatically continue to insist you're right, even though no legal scholar agrees with your interpretations. In short, you do NOT "resort to the fewest fallacies".

 

[hadit]

Doesn't matter, the 2nd specifically provides for the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia, not the state, the PEOPLE

Yea...we're not talking about a militia made up of farm anaimals

That means that people have to be allowed to have firearms.

In order to be part of a militia...which no longer exists

Daniel, how DO you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms and the military if you have no weapons at all?

You'll note that Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 (16?) describes the USE of that militia to put DOWN the type of insurrection you claim the 2A promotes.

And in fact it was used to do just that in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion

1. Interesting. A plain reading of what you wrote reveals that you are claiming Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were attempts to remove a tyrant. Which tyrant would that have been?
2. Yes, a militia is made up of PEOPLE, and it is PEOPLE who have the right to bear arms, NOT the militia and NOT the state, but the PEOPLE.
3. The right does not expire because there are no militias around right now. In fact, the right needs to be protected so if we should ever need to call up a militia, we could. Your argument falls flat on that one.

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

You're saying the same thing I am, which is that people have the right to bear arms. You do that when you say the militia is the people.

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union. Otherwise, you are 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)

Your first statement is your unsubstantiated opinion. Your second one applies only to Illinois, so why do you keep quoting it as if it applies to the US Constitution? Ultimately, people have to be able to bear arms, not militias and not the state, the people.