The Right To Bear Arms

Here you go, Dan:


https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-diagram-a-sentence#how-to-diagram-a-sentence-in-5-steps


https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-diagram-a-sentence#how-to-diagram-a-sentence-in-5-steps


How to Diagram a Sentence in 5 Steps
The kind of sentence you’re building will determine how you diagram. Below are some ways you can diagram sentences and build on them to create better writing:
  1. Start with two lines. Draw a horizontal line cut in the center by a vertical line. The left side of the vertical line represents the subject of the sentence (the person or thing performing the verb), and the right is the predicate (the words that modify the subject and usually introduce an action).
  2. Add the subject and predicate. For a basic sentence, start with a simple subject and a verb phrase. This becomes your independent clause, which is a sentence that can stand on its own. If you use “the man” as the subject and “waved” as the predicate, “The man waved” would be the resulting diagrammed sentence.
  3. Build on your independent clause. Some sentences involve a direct object—the “what” or the “whom” of the sentence—which is the recipient of the transitive verb (also known as the action verb). If you’re including a direct object, draw another vertical line to the right of the predicate—this will be where the direct object goes. An example of a complete sentence with a direct object is, “The darkness scared the baby.”
  4. Add modifiers. Sometimes words need additional modifiers in order to create a more specific picture—this is where indirect objects come into play. Direct objects receive the verb’s action, and indirect objects, which generally have a preposition with them, receive the direct object. Beneath your verb, draw a diagonal line connecting it with the indirect object. “The teachers gave their students (indirect object) a passing grade (direct object).” When diagrammed correctly, each element of your sentence is parsed in a visual way that ensures each piece is functioning as it should.
  5. Make your sentence more complex. If you want to write longer sentences, join two independent clauses with a comma or conjunction, and mark them with a dotted line on your diagram. Ensure that each sentence is its own complete thought and can stand on its own before combining it with another to make a compound sentence.
 
What is the "subject" of the sentence?

Which "what" or "who" in the 2A is the direct object and what is it's transient verb?

Here's a hint---there is only one independent clause.

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

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

(c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law.
 
...
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.
431.010. Organization Prohibited
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.

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

(c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law.
Community =/= military. Even you should know that.
 
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
Consistent enforcement and use of the Second Amendment has always relied on the Context of enforcing the rest of the Bill of Rights and Constitution it is part of.

No guns can be ever be used legally for the purpose of VIOLATING Constitutional laws and equal protections thereunder. Including * Right to life liberty and property/pursuit of happiness that cannot be deprived without DUE PROCESS
* Right to security in our persons houses and effects (ie right to property) from unreasonable searches or seizures that require lawful warrants
* Right to equal protections of the laws, including DUE PROCESS and all other rights in the Bill of Rights and Constitution, as well as rights reserved to people and states not authorized to Govt (by consent of voters, taxpayers or citizens/people affected by proposed policies)

The problem Lakhota
Is Liberals keep taking the 2A "out of context with the rest of the Constitution/Bill of Rights"

How is it the fault of law abiding citizens if you don't believe in, respect or follow the entire law in full context? Because you do this, YOU (not Constitutional law abiding citizens) require ADDED legislation to ensure the rest of the Bill of Rights is included as conditions on using the 2A for DEFENDING Constitutional laws and rights, not violating them.

Do we need a legal agreement that the 2A only applies to DEFENDING Constitutional laws, rights and protections, and can never be taken out of context and abused to VIOLATE rights or protections of others?

Do we need a Constitutional Convention, not on changing laws, but interpreting existing laws to stop this need for adding more and more legislation. Because people haven't agreed yet on enforcing Constitutional laws to begin with, which we already have in writing!

www.ethics-commission.net
 
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.
Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.
 
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.
Well regulated militia do; only the unorganized militia as individual persons of the People complain about gun control laws laws.
 
...
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.
431.010. Organization Prohibited
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.

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

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

I vaguely remember what this was about, and slightly disagree with the founders.
But the founder's intent was to prevent a private army from deliberately trying to intimidate the government with constant, hostile, and armed drills in front of the government buildings.
 
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.
Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.

The federal constitution is the supreme legislation of the land, but it is not supreme law.
For example, is says nothing about many individual rights that are superior to the constitution.
Like the right of privacy.
It is not in the constitution specifically, but is a superior unenumerated right, which can not legally be abridged by the constitution or any mere legislation.
The only time inherent rights like privacy can be abridged is when necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of others.

That really is obvious if you think about it, because where did the constitution come from?
It can't just be arbitrary because then we would have a dictatorship instead of a democratic republic.
The Declaration of Independence tells us where the constitution came from.
It came from the same inherent individual rights that justified our rebellion from England.
These inherent rights are supreme law of the land, and is where the justification and authority for the constitution came from.
 
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.
Well regulated militia do; only the unorganized militia as individual persons of the People complain about gun control laws laws.

Nah, the Organized Militia is only in existence when the unorganized militia is called up for some specific threat.
In the mean time, you need people to be well versed with firearms and they have to be easily accessible. If all arms were stashed in some armory somewhere, no one would be ready if some emergency actually happened.

You should not refer to a "regulated" militia, because the original meaning of that wording "to keep regular", means to be well practices and smoothly functioning. When people refer to a "regular" digestion, they mean daily bowl movements, they do not intent to imply restrictions. The word "regulated" actually means the opposite of "restricted".
When you "regulate interstate commerce", you do not restrict it, but instead prevent any one state from restricting commerce from or to other states.
 
...
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.
431.010. Organization Prohibited
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.

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

(c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law.
Community =/= military. Even you should know that.
You disagree, Daniel. Why do you disagree that community is not the same as the military?
 
Another hint:
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.
Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.
So, why do you keep quoting state statutes?
 
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.
Well regulated militia do; only the unorganized militia as individual persons of the People complain about gun control laws laws.
Organized v. Unorganized is a bunch of BULLSHIT.

Statutes cannot supersede the Constitution. The Dick Act does NOT define the militia, does NOT establish the militia, and does not IN ANY FUCKING WAY limit the militia or the people. It ONLY establishes the National Guard, which is wholly unconnected from the militia because it is under the control of the standing U.S. Military. The militia must be completely independent and separate from government, and only tied to government to the extent government calls the militia to action against a military threat.

To the extent that the Dick Act is a half-assed attempt by statists to circumvent the constitution, that has already been shot down. It does NOTHING regarding our rights.

Take that tired, bullshit argument the fuck outta here.
 
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.
Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.

The federal constitution is the supreme legislation of the land, but it is not supreme law.
For example, is says nothing about many individual rights that are superior to the constitution.
Like the right of privacy.
It is not in the constitution specifically, but is a superior unenumerated right, which can not legally be abridged by the constitution or any mere legislation.
The only time inherent rights like privacy can be abridged is when necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of others.

That really is obvious if you think about it, because where did the constitution come from?
It can't just be arbitrary because then we would have a dictatorship instead of a democratic republic.
The Declaration of Independence tells us where the constitution came from.
It came from the same inherent individual rights that justified our rebellion from England.
These inherent rights are supreme law of the land, and is where the justification and authority for the constitution came from.
Agreed.

The Constitution does not grant or create rights. It only acts to limit the Federal Government to prevent the infringement of those rights.

Hell, the bill of rights was established with the constitution, yet the 2A refers to "the right of the people" which points to the already-existing right. It must follow that the intent of the 2A was to prevent the FedGov from having any legislative authority over any aspect of the right of individuals to keep or bear arms.

States may have, but that shit went the way of the dodo when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
 
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.
Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.

The federal constitution is the supreme legislation of the land, but it is not supreme law.
For example, is says nothing about many individual rights that are superior to the constitution.
Like the right of privacy.
It is not in the constitution specifically, but is a superior unenumerated right, which can not legally be abridged by the constitution or any mere legislation.
The only time inherent rights like privacy can be abridged is when necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of others.

That really is obvious if you think about it, because where did the constitution come from?
It can't just be arbitrary because then we would have a dictatorship instead of a democratic republic.
The Declaration of Independence tells us where the constitution came from.
It came from the same inherent individual rights that justified our rebellion from England.
These inherent rights are supreme law of the land, and is where the justification and authority for the constitution came from.
I am not sure what you mean. The judicature adjudicates based on our federal Constitution and express, supreme law of the land. The judicial branch is delegated the judicial power of the United States.
 
You disagree, Daniel. Why do you disagree that community is not the same as the military?
Because it is irrelevant. The People are the Militia. Our Second Amendment is clear.

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.
 
Another hint:
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.
Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.
So, why do you keep quoting state statutes?
Did you miss the concept? Because it is a State's sovereign right.
 
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.
Well regulated militia do; only the unorganized militia as individual persons of the People complain about gun control laws laws.
Organized v. Unorganized is a bunch of BULLSHIT.

Statutes cannot supersede the Constitution. The Dick Act does NOT define the militia, does NOT establish the militia, and does not IN ANY FUCKING WAY limit the militia or the people. It ONLY establishes the National Guard, which is wholly unconnected from the militia because it is under the control of the standing U.S. Military. The militia must be completely independent and separate from government, and only tied to government to the extent government calls the militia to action against a military threat.

To the extent that the Dick Act is a half-assed attempt by statists to circumvent the constitution, that has already been shot down. It does NOTHING regarding our rights.

Take that tired, bullshit argument the fuck outta here.
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
 

Forum List

Back
Top