The Right To Bear Arms

[hadit]

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.

Daniel has about 5 things that he repeats endlessly, thinking they are profound.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Sure there is. All you have to do is show an example where local restriction are accepted while federal would not, like speed limits or parking restrictions.

 

[hadit]

...
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.

It definitely does inhibit states from doing things like forming a state church, such as some of the colonies had when they became a part of the Republic.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

States' rights are sovereign within their jurisdiction; in relation to the powers expressly enumerated to the general government.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

That is simply right-wing propaganda and rhetoric. Organized militia muster at an armory should it be required.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

To the militia mobile!

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Not good enough.
For if bearing arms allows you to form a militia, it then also implies that bearing arms can allow criminal gangs to form.
That implies both good and bad, so then does not imply automatically that there should be no local restrictions.
I only tend to be against most local restrictions because criminals are not deterred by them anyway, since they intend to violate much more serious laws.
But surely you can not seriously be trying to say there can't be any gun laws?
How about a regulation of no arms to prison visitors?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Sure there is. All you have to do is show an example where local restriction are accepted while federal would not, like speed limits or parking restrictions.

Well Regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

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

 

[Rigby5]

...
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.

It definitely does inhibit states from doing things like forming a state church, such as some of the colonies had when they became a part of the Republic.

Interesting point.
But if I imagine back to Wm. Penn wanting to start Pennsylvania, it does not seem so awful to have a state tied to a particular religion. That is exactly what Israel is doing. But perhaps you are right and there should be no state religion because there will always some in that state, of other religions, and if someone decides to change religions, does that mean they would have to move?

 

[Rigby5]

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.

States' rights are sovereign within their jurisdiction; in relation to the powers expressly enumerated to the general government.

Wrong.
In a democratic republic, only individuals have rights, and sovereign states only have delegated authority.
You said it yourself, that state powers come from what the people enumerate when they create that entity and delegate to it.
A created entity can never have rights, as rights are supposed to be inherent and immutable.
Even prisoners are supposed to still have rights, just subordinated to the rights of others they threaten.

 

[hadit]

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.

That is simply right-wing propaganda and rhetoric. Organized militia muster at an armory should it be required.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

To the militia mobile!

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no mention of an armory in the amendment. And why do you keep saying the government owes me weapons?

 

[danielpalos]

Wrong.
In a democratic republic, only individuals have rights, and sovereign states only have delegated authority.
You said it yourself, that state powers come from what the people enumerate when they create that entity and delegate to it.
A created entity can never have rights, as rights are supposed to be inherent and immutable.
Even prisoners are supposed to still have rights, just subordinated to the rights of others they threaten.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[hadit]

...
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.

It definitely does inhibit states from doing things like forming a state church, such as some of the colonies had when they became a part of the Republic.

Interesting point.
But if I imagine back to Wm. Penn wanting to start Pennsylvania, it does not seem so awful to have a state tied to a particular religion. That is exactly what Israel is doing. But perhaps you are right and there should be no state religion because there will always some in that state, of other religions, and if someone decides to change religions, does that mean they would have to move?

Some of the original colonies not only had a state church but you were required to attend services.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

That is simply right-wing propaganda and rhetoric. Organized militia muster at an armory should it be required.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

To the militia mobile!

Wrong.
Very few arms are ever kept at armories.
That would allow for a very susceptible weak link in any level of defense.

Almost all the arms, including cannon, used in the American Revolution were privately owned.
That is the best way to do it, and that is what Switzerland, Israel, etc., all do.

To provide for arming means to allow government to spend tax money on supplemental arms, and was not intended to mean the government should provide all arms.
That would be silly since there were no local police and everyone had to protect themselves all the time.
Protection is not just from some foreign invasion you would have weeks to prepare for.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

That is simply right-wing propaganda and rhetoric. Organized militia muster at an armory should it be required.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

To the militia mobile!

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no mention of an armory in the amendment. And why do you keep saying the government owes me weapons?

Not enough reading comprehension skills to go around on the right wing? Congress is expressly delegated the authority to Arm the militia; that can happen more efficaciously at an armory.

 

[hadit]

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.

Not good enough.
For if bearing arms allows you to form a militia, it then also implies that bearing arms can allow criminal gangs to form.
That implies both good and bad, so then does not imply automatically that there should be no local restrictions.
I only tend to be against most local restrictions because criminals are not deterred by them anyway, since they intend to violate much more serious laws.
But surely you can not seriously be trying to say there can't be any gun laws?
How about a regulation of no arms to prison visitors?

That amendment, as written, assumes that every person is allowed access to firearms. Case law since that point has been putting restrictions in place on who can possess firearms and what types of firearms can be possessed by anyone. We are at the point now where to go much further we need to amend the Constitution.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.
In a democratic republic, only individuals have rights, and sovereign states only have delegated authority.
You said it yourself, that state powers come from what the people enumerate when they create that entity and delegate to it.
A created entity can never have rights, as rights are supposed to be inherent and immutable.
Even prisoners are supposed to still have rights, just subordinated to the rights of others they threaten.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The word "law" here refers to legislations, but actually rights are the source of legal authority that allows legislation to be written, and inherent rights really are supreme law of the land really.
All written legislation then has to conform to and be authorized by those inherent rights they derive from.

That means states can not go off and arbitrarily decide to do things anyway they way.
The constitution is supposed to divide jurisdictions and delineate federal and state jurisdictions.

However, there are still superior principles to all federal and state legislation, because the come from inherent rights of individuals.
And federal gun control laws violate both the 2nd amendment and those basic superior principles.
The federal government was denies any firearms jurisdiction by the constitution, and individuals need to be the source of armed force in any democratic republic.

 

[Rigby5]

...
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.

It definitely does inhibit states from doing things like forming a state church, such as some of the colonies had when they became a part of the Republic.

Interesting point.
But if I imagine back to Wm. Penn wanting to start Pennsylvania, it does not seem so awful to have a state tied to a particular religion. That is exactly what Israel is doing. But perhaps you are right and there should be no state religion because there will always some in that state, of other religions, and if someone decides to change religions, does that mean they would have to move?

Some of the original colonies not only had a state church but you were required to attend services.

I know, but it does not seem totally wrong for people to have religious communities, like the Mormons, etc., if they want. The main problems I see are if those of other religions want to move there or someone wants to change religion?

 

[Rigby5]

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.

That is simply right-wing propaganda and rhetoric. Organized militia muster at an armory should it be required.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

To the militia mobile!

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no mention of an armory in the amendment. And why do you keep saying the government owes me weapons?

Not enough reading comprehension skills to go around on the right wing? Congress is expressly delegated the authority to Arm the militia; that can happen more efficaciously at an armory.

Nah, to be useful, people need to practice, monthly at least.
And it would take way too long for everyone to get to an armory.
Not to mention that armory weapons likely would need cleaning, adjustments, repairs, etc., before they would be ready for service. No one has ever relied on armories for rapid defense.
Everyone in frontier families had home defense weapons.
It is only recently that arms ownership have started to decline.
And that really is a very bad idea, since the odds of violence, catastrophe, civil unrest, foreign conflict, etc., is increasing, not decreasing.

 

[hadit]

...
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.

It definitely does inhibit states from doing things like forming a state church, such as some of the colonies had when they became a part of the Republic.

Interesting point.
But if I imagine back to Wm. Penn wanting to start Pennsylvania, it does not seem so awful to have a state tied to a particular religion. That is exactly what Israel is doing. But perhaps you are right and there should be no state religion because there will always some in that state, of other religions, and if someone decides to change religions, does that mean they would have to move?

Some of the original colonies not only had a state church but you were required to attend services.

I know, but it does not seem totally wrong for people to have religious communities, like the Mormons, etc., if they want. The main problems I see are if those of other religions want to move there or someone wants to change religion?

There is certainly no prohibition against forming communities and people do it all the time. The difference here is that we don't want the government enforcing community using the force of law.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Yes. Diagram that sentence, please. It will teach you how ******* wrong you are.