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
66,952
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, 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.
We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

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.
 

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.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
 

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, 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.
But until the Constitution is amended, the right to bear arms is the law of the land.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,602
Reaction score
6,891
Points
280
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?
That's not what it says, is it? Please try again. I'll even give you a hint, the answer is a lot shorter and it's in what you wrote.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,711
Reaction score
27,315
Points
2,250
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.


You should explain that to the 1.1 million Americans who use their legal guns every year to stop rape, robbery and murder....according to the Centers for Disease Control.

Then you might ask the 12 million innocent men, women and children......families who gave up their guns because the governments of Europe told them they would be safer without them.....and then they were sent to gas chambers and murdered ......12 million human beings in the span of about 7 years..........

But first they gave up their guns....based on the same arguments you make now...
 

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.
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.
We also have the 14th amendment, and quite frankly, you should appeal to authority a little more often, because your constant yammering about your legal thought processes being superior to the Justices on the SC is not convincing.
 

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.
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.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,711
Reaction score
27,315
Points
2,250
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.
We also have the 14th amendment, and quite frankly, you should appeal to authority a little more often, because your constant yammering about your legal thought processes being superior to the Justices on the SC is not convincing.


But his legal thought is about as sophisticated as the thought coming from the 4 left wingers on the court......
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
Under our federal form of Government, it is clearly a State's sovereign right.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
...
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.

What it means is that the federal government was/is totally prevented any weapons jurisdiction, but states/municipalities are not.
The point is people and states did not trust large central government.
They had just been forced to violently rebel against a large central government that had tried gun control, they were rightfully wary of that being allowed to happen again.
The people were not unhappy with state or local government, only large central government.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
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.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.

At the time, the Bill of Rights was considered only restrictions on the federal government.
I think the right to bear arms is better illustrated from the 4th and 5th amendment, as an individual right.
 

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.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.
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.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
Under our federal form of Government, it is clearly a State's sovereign right.

PLEASE, states do NOT have "rights".
States have legal authority that is obtained by individuals delegating it, from their inherent individual rights.
I know what you mean, but try to be more careful.

In a dictatorship you can have "might makes right", "the power of the sword", "Devine right", etc.
But not in a democratic republic. Then there are only inherent individual rights.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
Under our federal form of Government, it is clearly a State's sovereign right.

PLEASE, states do NOT have "rights".
States have legal authority that is obtained by individuals delegating it, from their inherent individual rights.
I know what you mean, but try to be more careful.

In a dictatorship you can have "might makes right", "the power of the sword", "Devine right", etc.
But not in a democratic republic. Then there are only inherent individual rights.
I agree to disagree. My reasoning supports my usage.

States have a legal right to organize militia of the People for the security of their free State or the Union.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
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.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.
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.

Repeating it does not help because it does imply all levels of government are equally barred from infringement.
It takes other sources to see how popular sentiments were against federal powers but not against state powers.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,602
Reaction score
6,891
Points
280
...
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.

What it means is that the federal government was/is totally prevented any weapons jurisdiction, but states/municipalities are not.
The point is people and states did not trust large central government.
They had just been forced to violently rebel against a large central government that had tried gun control, they were rightfully wary of that being allowed to happen again.
The people were not unhappy with state or local government, only large central government.
The 14th amendment prevents states from writing unconstitutional laws.
 

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.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.
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.

Repeating it does not help because it does imply all levels of government are equally barred from infringement.
It takes other sources to see how popular sentiments were against federal powers but not against state powers.
There is no appeal to ignorance of the law in legal venues.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
Under our federal form of Government, it is clearly a State's sovereign right.

PLEASE, states do NOT have "rights".
States have legal authority that is obtained by individuals delegating it, from their inherent individual rights.
I know what you mean, but try to be more careful.

In a dictatorship you can have "might makes right", "the power of the sword", "Devine right", etc.
But not in a democratic republic. Then there are only inherent individual rights.
I agree to disagree. My reasoning supports my usage.

States have a legal right to organize militia of the People for the security of their free State or the Union.

Absolutely wrong.
States do not and can not have rights.
Rights mean something inherent and indestructable..
Since states do not exist until created, and can be created or transformed at will by the people, then states can never have rights.
What states have instead is the authority they get from each individual delegating some of their inherent right authority.

So what states have that allows them to organize a militia is delegated authority, not a right.
Rights are inherent, delegated authority is a step down and indirect.

And even more important is that the legal authority of states to organize a militia, does not at all address what the relationship between states and individuals may be? If individuals do not need something and that something were of high chances to be harmful to others of the states, then restriction of that could be warranted. I just disagree that applies to firearms because I think they are needed and not really harmful at all.
 
Last edited:

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.
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.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.
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.
A reason for the right to bear arms is so a militia can be formed, the right to bear arms is protected and that stands alone.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
...
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.

What it means is that the federal government was/is totally prevented any weapons jurisdiction, but states/municipalities are not.
The point is people and states did not trust large central government.
They had just been forced to violently rebel against a large central government that had tried gun control, they were rightfully wary of that being allowed to happen again.
The people were not unhappy with state or local government, only large central government.
The 14th amendment prevents states from writing unconstitutional laws.

Since the constitution did not really intend to list individual rights, that is not exactly a correct argument.
The 14th tries to enhance protection of individual rights, and the constitution is one of the main sources the courts use, but it is a much more subtle argument than that, It is known as the Pneumbra Principle, were you look at things like the Constitution in order to try to figure out what inherent individual rights were supposed to be, bases on if the feds were to not infringe, then it must have been pretty important. Problem is, sometimes you want local infringement even if you don't want federal infringement.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top