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

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
32,923
Reaction score
3,463
Points
1,130
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
Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy. You need a valid argument for rebuttal.

The English language, grammar and punctuation is NOT a valid argument? You really did skip grammar and punctuation in school, didn't you? But now you profess to be an authority on the English language? Really?
Yes, it is when you merely claim your unsubstantiated opinion without supporting it with a valid argument.

Where does it say you can ignore the first clause due to a comma?
Who is ignoring the first clause?

You're ignoring the purpose of the first clause and giving it some meaning that it does not have. Further ignoring the second clause. Your interpretation of the entire amendment requires you to resign weird meaning to each word.

My interpretation is quite plain and requires no twisted tortured interpretation.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state.

The word "being" is a form of the verb "is." You know, am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, become, feel, seem.

A well regulated militia IS necessary for the security of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and....etc.

in other words, to keep the states free, they need to be able to organize a militia in times of emergency. Because that militia is drawn from the entire population, and because of past practices of having private citizens bring their own arms to participate in a militia, we (the federal government) will not exercise authority over any aspect of private citizens keeping their private arms so that they can bear them at a time of need.

Simple. Practicable. Applicable. Does not require a tortured interpretation.

Why do you motherfuckers have to complicate the fuck out of everything when you know history and you know good and goddamn well what the intent was?

Why don't you motherfuckers just fucking admit exactly what we have been saying? You want to deprive us of the right to keep and bear arms and you are trying to interpret the Constitution in a way so that you can.

Do you understand that anybody who does that is a traitor and an enemy of the United States and its people.?
I understand you simply know nothing about the law. You cannot ignore the first clause. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

The first clause of the 2nd Amendment gives A reason why there should be no federal firearm laws.
But in no way does that at all suggest it is the ONLY reason why there should be no federal firearm laws.
I agree that the Intent and Purpose clause cannot be ignored or separated from that which it limits.

The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
Each state has different firearm needs and concerns, so it is not a federal matter in any way.
And many federal firearm laws, like prohibiting firearm ownership to ex-felons, seems totally illegal to me.

Not true. The 2A prevents the feds from stopping individuals from having arms. It doesn't stop them limiting which arms they can have. As long as individuals can get their hands on arms are "reasonable" prices, then they can do what they like.

They can even ban people getting nukes. Shock horror.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
How did you reach that conclusion?

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
It doesn't. The police power is a State's sovereign right. It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
No, it doesn't. It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
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.

A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.

Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.

We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
Insist our legislators do their (paid) Job.

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.
Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........

That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.

To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.

And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.
The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.
Then since the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (private right), the government owes me some weapons.
It is a public right. Remember, right wingers, y'all allege no checks for Individuals from our general welfare clause.
A "public right" is no right at all. You may as well just say that there is no right.

The "people's food" only gets eaten by a select few.

The "people's house" only gets used by the rich and powerful.

Can I eat the "people's" food?

No. That food belongs to the people.

Well, I am a person. Why can't I eat it?

You are not the people.

Then, who gets to eat it?

The people. Not you.

:dunno:
Your special pleading is not better than a valid argument. States have a right to raise militias for their own security.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
Means nothing to me. Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court. Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,602
Reaction score
6,891
Points
280
Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
Means nothing to me. Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court. Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.
Except that I agree with the SC. I have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,602
Reaction score
6,891
Points
280
The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
How did you reach that conclusion?

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
It doesn't. The police power is a State's sovereign right. It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
No, it doesn't. It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
And that means the people have the right to bear arms, individually.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
Means nothing to me. Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court. Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.
Except that I agree with the SC. I have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
Everyone has the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union; none of the Governments in our Constitutional republic have the authority to deny or disparage patriots from keeping and bearing Arms and being organized into a well regulated militia.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
How did you reach that conclusion?

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
It doesn't. The police power is a State's sovereign right. It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
No, it doesn't. It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
And that means the people have the right to bear arms, individually.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,378
Reaction score
14,544
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
How did you reach that conclusion?

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
It doesn't. The police power is a State's sovereign right. It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
No, it doesn't. It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
And, the way such a militia was armed at the time of the 2A's drafting was INDIVIDUALS owning their own firearms so they could serve and answer the call.

We can go around and around all day, but the 2A intent was to keep the FedGov from confiscating weapons from individuals.

PERIOD!!!!

You can twist and torture meanings all day long, and it will NOT change the history and therefore, the ultimate purpose of the 2A---individuals keep their guns!!!
 

SC Patriot

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
1,559
Points
1,918
The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
How did you reach that conclusion?

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
It doesn't. The police power is a State's sovereign right. It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
No, it doesn't. It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
And, the way such a militia was armed at the time of the 2A's drafting was INDIVIDUALS owning their own firearms so they could serve and answer the call.

We can go around and around all day, but the 2A intent was to keep the FedGov from confiscating weapons from individuals.

PERIOD!!!!

You can twist and torture meanings all day long, and it will NOT change the history and therefore, the ultimate purpose of the 2A---individuals keep their guns!!!
Actually, the 2A was designed to ensure the people never have to worry about the federal government taking over the people. Afterall, we pay their salaries.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,378
Reaction score
14,544
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
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 I agree with that, but the term "police power" must be defined and narrowly tailored so as to NOT countermand the individual right to keep and bear arms.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,378
Reaction score
14,544
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
How did you reach that conclusion?

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
It doesn't. The police power is a State's sovereign right. It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
No, it doesn't. It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
And, the way such a militia was armed at the time of the 2A's drafting was INDIVIDUALS owning their own firearms so they could serve and answer the call.

We can go around and around all day, but the 2A intent was to keep the FedGov from confiscating weapons from individuals.

PERIOD!!!!

You can twist and torture meanings all day long, and it will NOT change the history and therefore, the ultimate purpose of the 2A---individuals keep their guns!!!
Actually, the 2A was designed to ensure the people never have to worry about the federal government taking over the people. Afterall, we pay their salaries.
That is the broader meaning and purpose, but the practical effect was denying the FedGov authority to take arms from individuals.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy, and I could claim simple activism on the part of that Court since they have no justification for ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the end to the means.

Our Tenth Amendment applies.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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 I agree with that, but the term "police power" must be defined and narrowly tailored so as to NOT countermand the individual right to keep and bear arms.
You need to remember your own right wing rhetoric.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,378
Reaction score
14,544
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
Whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed?
The People who are organized into well regulated militia to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union. Any questions?
Who gets to decide? What is the penalty for not organizing?

This is all bullshit.

The militia is independent of government.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,378
Reaction score
14,544
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
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 I agree with that, but the term "police power" must be defined and narrowly tailored so as to NOT countermand the individual right to keep and bear arms.
You need to remember your own right wing rhetoric.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
I don't know what that has to do with police power being a narrowly-tailored concept so as to not kill liberty.
 

Brain357

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
36,445
Reaction score
3,897
Points
1,130
The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
How did you reach that conclusion?

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
It doesn't. The police power is a State's sovereign right. It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
No, it doesn't. It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
And, the way such a militia was armed at the time of the 2A's drafting was INDIVIDUALS owning their own firearms so they could serve and answer the call.

We can go around and around all day, but the 2A intent was to keep the FedGov from confiscating weapons from individuals.

PERIOD!!!!

You can twist and torture meanings all day long, and it will NOT change the history and therefore, the ultimate purpose of the 2A---individuals keep their guns!!!
We had the 2a because at the time we had no standing arming. It served no purpose now that we have one.
 

SC Patriot

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
1,559
Points
1,918
The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
How did you reach that conclusion?

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
It doesn't. The police power is a State's sovereign right. It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
No, it doesn't. It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
And, the way such a militia was armed at the time of the 2A's drafting was INDIVIDUALS owning their own firearms so they could serve and answer the call.

We can go around and around all day, but the 2A intent was to keep the FedGov from confiscating weapons from individuals.

PERIOD!!!!

You can twist and torture meanings all day long, and it will NOT change the history and therefore, the ultimate purpose of the 2A---individuals keep their guns!!!
We had the 2a because at the time we had no standing arming. It served no purpose now that we have one.
Wrong.

It is the peoples protection from a government overstepping its boundaries.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top