What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Right To Bear Arms

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,949
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
No one's ignoring it. The people need to bear arms so the militia can be formed. And, based on what you keep posting, the government is supposed to arm the people for that purpose.
There is no appeal to ignorance of express law in legal venues.

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;
You keep saying that the government owes me weapons. Why?
Learn how to read.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,949
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Your substitution is a fallacy. Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary and subject to the police power of your State.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,744
Reaction score
980
Points
893
By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
We have the right to bear arms against the militia right.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,949
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Your substitution is a fallacy. Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Read the 2nd Amendment very slowly. You clearly do not understand it despite valiant efforts by educated users here to explain it to you.

Pay attention to the phrase immediately following the first comma.

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.
If the governing body of any one of our 50 free States (or that of the entire union) goes rogue and promotes changing to a non-free State (or union of States), the people, in finding it necessary to protect the security of their free State, have cause to form a well regulated Militia of their own to oppose that of the rogue governing body. For this, weapons are required.

Additionally,

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."



(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.
A legal error. The People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the militia only with militia service well regulated.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,949
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
By the way, "well regulated" means efficient and proficient.
It does not mean "restricted".
For example, the commerce clause of the Constitution:
{... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; ...}
Does not mean to "restrict".
It means the opposite, to "facilitate" by preventing anyone from restricting it.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, right wingers. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United Staes.

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;
Even if all of that is true, it does not change the FACT the the right of the people shall not be infringed. You can NEVER get around that part, no matter how hard you try. Just give up. or amend.
You are just plain wrong, right wingers. Criminals of the People get Infringed all the time.
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
21,690
Reaction score
5,221
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Your substitution is a fallacy. Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary and subject to the police power of your State.

i-sNfWmwJ-M.gif
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,379
Reaction score
14,545
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
I disagree.
The right of self defense is vastly superior to the need for the defense of state or country.
The state or country are NOT the source of any authority and can not be the main justification for prohibiting federal gun laws.
Individual rights are supreme, and the only source of any legal authority.
The fact a state and country can aid individual rights also gives these entities some authority, but it is only secondary and borrowed from the main source of authority, which is individual rights.
You misunderstand our federal form of Government. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)
If you would just recognize the intent of 2A, everything else would make perfect sense.

No federal authority. That's it.
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
21,690
Reaction score
5,221
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation. Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance. Well, whatever floats your boat!

Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.

How is this an "ad hominem" argument?

i-VbXqvcH-L.jpg
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,744
Reaction score
980
Points
893
Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation. Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance. Well, whatever floats your boat!

Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.

As you know, I provided concrete facts. You ignore it because you have your own agenda.

I am sorry you choose to ignore English and grammar the years you were in school. You knew how to talk, so what difference did the funny marks on the page make. That's your problem, no one elses.

punctuation-M.jpg
While you attack the messenger, you have lost the message in the meantime. Well regulated does not mean what you think it means.
 

Batcat

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
717
Reaction score
811
Points
888
If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes, idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.

Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.

Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.

 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
32,926
Reaction score
3,470
Points
1,130
No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Your substitution is a fallacy. Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.
 

Deplorable Yankee

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
9,999
Reaction score
6,591
Points
1,065
Location
DIXIE
By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

dd,d,,d,d,,d,r.jpeg


uuhhhhjjjiiimmnbhjj.gif



Bfytw
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,744
Reaction score
980
Points
893
By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

View attachment 480032

View attachment 480031


Bfytw
Disagree.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,379
Reaction score
14,545
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Your substitution is a fallacy. Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.
Complete bullshit revision of history.

Minute Men had to purchase and maintain their own firearms to be ready for militia service when needed, which was their duty.

The right of people to keep those firearms was secured and guaranteed in the bill of rights and the authority withheld from the new federal government so the people would accept the new constitution.

Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,744
Reaction score
980
Points
893
No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Your substitution is a fallacy. Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.
Complete bullshit revision of history.

Minute Men had to purchase and maintain their own firearms to be ready for militia service when needed, which was their duty.

The right of people to keep those firearms was secured and guaranteed in the bill of rights and the authority withheld from the new federal government so the people would accept the new constitution.

Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
You don't get it, do you?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,949
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
I disagree.
The right of self defense is vastly superior to the need for the defense of state or country.
The state or country are NOT the source of any authority and can not be the main justification for prohibiting federal gun laws.
Individual rights are supreme, and the only source of any legal authority.
The fact a state and country can aid individual rights also gives these entities some authority, but it is only secondary and borrowed from the main source of authority, which is individual rights.
You misunderstand our federal form of Government. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)
If you would just recognize the intent of 2A, everything else would make perfect sense.

No federal authority. That's it.
Appeal to ignorance of the law is all you have.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,949
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,949
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation. Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance. Well, whatever floats your boat!

Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.

As you know, I provided concrete facts. You ignore it because you have your own agenda.

I am sorry you choose to ignore English and grammar the years you were in school. You knew how to talk, so what difference did the funny marks on the page make. That's your problem, no one elses.

punctuation-M.jpg
While you attack the messenger, you have lost the message in the meantime. Well regulated does not mean what you think it means.
If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,949
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes, idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.

Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.

Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.


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.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top