The Right To Bear Arms

[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.

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.

Wrong.
For example, abortion rights rulings are based on the inherent individual right of privacy, which is not all mentioned in the Constitution in any way.
The constitution is not at all an attempt to create, list, or protect inherent individual rights.
It is just a division of jurisdiction between state and federal.
The whole point of the 14th amendment is about how the real basis for law and its source of authority comes from inherent individual rights.
The SCOTUS can use the constitution to help decide what these inherent individual rights are, based on the shadow they cast in the framing of the constitution, but many are not there, like the right of privacy.
We have to go back to ancient common law precedent to find them.
Which means the constitution is NOT the source of all law.
And what "supreme law of the land" means is not that it is the source of all law, but that it is the final arbiter of jurisdiction between state and federal jurisdiction.
There not only are layers above the Constitution, but there have to be, in order to authorize and justify the existence of the constitution itself.

 

[Rigby5]

Nah, the Organized Militia is only in existence when the unorganized militia is called up for some specific threat.

How did you reach that conclusion from our Second Amendment?

First of all there are other sources to look at that are much longer, detailed, and easier to understand than the 2nd amendment, and they clearly indicate that the Founders did not like or trust a standing mercenary military, and instead wanted an armed population so that citizen soldiers could be called up when needed instead.

But second is that if Organized Militia existed all the time, then the 2nd Amendment would make no sense.
Lets assume the Organized Militia were the National Guard.
Then with a permanent Organized Militia, the 2nd amendment would read something like:

{... The National Guard being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the National Guard to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. ...}

See why that makes no sense?
There is no point to a 2nd amendment restriction on the federal government if it were only about keeping an arm of the federal government armed and ready.
Restricting the federal government from disarming its own branch of service, makes no sense.
Clearly the 2nd amendment has to be about preventing the federal government from disarming something that is not part of the federal government. And the 2nd amendment then justifies this by saying that not disarming this something that is not federal, may also be useful to the federal government in future emergencies, if allowed to remain armed.

 

[danielpalos]

Wrong.
For example, abortion rights rulings are based on the inherent individual right of privacy, which is not all mentioned in the Constitution in any way.

Only because you appeal to ignorance of our federal form of Government, like most right-wingers.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.

 

[danielpalos]

First of all there are other sources to look at that are much longer, detailed, and easier to understand than the 2nd amendment, and they clearly indicate that the Founders did not like or trust a standing mercenary military, and instead wanted an armed population so that citizen soldiers could be called up when needed instead.

Our Second Amendment is an express part of our supreme law of the land.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.
For example, abortion rights rulings are based on the inherent individual right of privacy, which is not all mentioned in the Constitution in any way.

Only because you appeal to ignorance of our federal form of Government, like most right-wingers.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.

First of all, I am extreme left, progressive, liberal, not right-wing.
Second is that inherent individual rights are infinite so impossible to enumerate in state or federal law.
Only when specific inherent individual rights have a history of being abused do we bother recognizing and securing them in legislation.
The trick is for the courts to strike down legislation that is abusive right away, like the War on Drugs should have been.
Any and all federal weapons laws also are clearly inherently illegal.
It should be up to each state to decide if something like a coachgun should be legal or not.
For example, in places where there are poisonous snakes.

 

[NotVote]

I don't know about you, but I will always reserve the right to keep and arm bears.

 

[Rigby5]

First of all there are other sources to look at that are much longer, detailed, and easier to understand than the 2nd amendment, and they clearly indicate that the Founders did not like or trust a standing mercenary military, and instead wanted an armed population so that citizen soldiers could be called up when needed instead.

Our Second Amendment is an express part of our supreme law of the land.

Yes, but that does not mean there are higher sources we can look at and use to understand the short wording of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Grammar lesson:

Let's go eat grandma.

Or

Let's go eat, grandma.


Dan Palos does not see the difference.

 

[sartre play]

Maybe we should change the conversation, about the right to bare arms, FOCUS for a while on what we gun owners who have respect for guns and there use, what can we do to reduce the constant gun deaths. There will always be murder, yet there seems to be a new group of gun people who are different from us, that have little skill or respect for guns. & see them as tools to be used for power.

 

[danielpalos]

Wrong.
For example, abortion rights rulings are based on the inherent individual right of privacy, which is not all mentioned in the Constitution in any way.

Only because you appeal to ignorance of our federal form of Government, like most right-wingers.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.

First of all, I am extreme left, progressive, liberal, not right-wing.
Second is that inherent individual rights are infinite so impossible to enumerate in state or federal law.
Only when specific inherent individual rights have a history of being abused do we bother recognizing and securing them in legislation.
The trick is for the courts to strike down legislation that is abusive right away, like the War on Drugs should have been.
Any and all federal weapons laws also are clearly inherently illegal.
It should be up to each state to decide if something like a coachgun should be legal or not.
For example, in places where there are poisonous snakes.

Irrelevant since States have the traditional police power over Individuals of the people.

 

[danielpalos]

Maybe we should change the conversation, about the right to bare arms, FOCUS for a while on what we gun owners who have respect for guns and there use, what can we do to reduce the constant gun deaths. There will always be murder, yet there seems to be a new group of gun people who are different from us, that have little skill or respect for guns. & see them as tools to be used for power.

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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wrong.
For example, abortion rights rulings are based on the inherent individual right of privacy, which is not all mentioned in the Constitution in any way.

Only because you appeal to ignorance of our federal form of Government, like most right-wingers.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.

First of all, I am extreme left, progressive, liberal, not right-wing.
Second is that inherent individual rights are infinite so impossible to enumerate in state or federal law.
Only when specific inherent individual rights have a history of being abused do we bother recognizing and securing them in legislation.
The trick is for the courts to strike down legislation that is abusive right away, like the War on Drugs should have been.
Any and all federal weapons laws also are clearly inherently illegal.
It should be up to each state to decide if something like a coachgun should be legal or not.
For example, in places where there are poisonous snakes.

Irrelevant since States have the traditional police power over Individuals of the people.

Then, why is the FedGov regulating the purchase and possession of any weapons by individuals "of the people"?

Why is the FedGov assuming a traditional State role?

Explain it

(you won't because you can't)

 

[hadit]

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.

I wasn't talking about the militia. Please do try to actually read what is written before spewing yet another of your 5 favorite lines.

 

[eddiew37]

Bear this
It's all in the math

 

[danielpalos]

Wrong.
For example, abortion rights rulings are based on the inherent individual right of privacy, which is not all mentioned in the Constitution in any way.

Only because you appeal to ignorance of our federal form of Government, like most right-wingers.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.

First of all, I am extreme left, progressive, liberal, not right-wing.
Second is that inherent individual rights are infinite so impossible to enumerate in state or federal law.
Only when specific inherent individual rights have a history of being abused do we bother recognizing and securing them in legislation.
The trick is for the courts to strike down legislation that is abusive right away, like the War on Drugs should have been.
Any and all federal weapons laws also are clearly inherently illegal.
It should be up to each state to decide if something like a coachgun should be legal or not.
For example, in places where there are poisonous snakes.

Irrelevant since States have the traditional police power over Individuals of the people.

Then, why is the FedGov regulating the purchase and possession of any weapons by individuals "of the people"?

Why is the FedGov assuming a traditional State role?

Explain it

(you won't because you can't)

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I wasn't talking about the militia. Please do try to actually read what is written before spewing yet another of your 5 favorite lines.

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

 

[Utilitarian]

Bear this
It's all in the math

You can't find fraud if the system isn't designed to catch it.

The gun deaths figure is a bit deceptive anyway. It includes suicides. About 60% of all gun deaths are suicides, and so someone determined to kill themselves will find another way if they can't get a gun. Preventing suicide requires a different approach from preventing homicide.

 

[eddiew37]

Bear this
It's all in the math

You can't find fraud if the system isn't designed to catch it.

The gun deaths figure is a bit deceptive anyway. It includes suicides. About 60% of all gun deaths are suicides, and so someone determined to kill themselves will find another way if they can't get a gun. Preventing suicide requires a different approach from preventing homicide.

Saying you're correct ,,what have republicans done to help prevent suicide ? I guess NOTHING

 

[Utilitarian]

Bear this
It's all in the math

You can't find fraud if the system isn't designed to catch it.

The gun deaths figure is a bit deceptive anyway. It includes suicides. About 60% of all gun deaths are suicides, and so someone determined to kill themselves will find another way if they can't get a gun. Preventing suicide requires a different approach from preventing homicide.

Saying you're correct ,,what have republicans done to help prevent suicide ? I guess NOTHING

Your first error is assuming government is the best approach. Most of what prevents suicide is personal. Family should be the first resort.

For those without family or without a reliable one, there are community resources like churches and nonprofits. Short of that, government could get involved in public spending on mental health, but that's something best handled by local government, not the feds.

Ultimately, it comes down to one thing -- the depressed person seeking out help. Not every person with suicidal tendencies or thoughts is obvious about it. Some people internalize it. Those are the people hardest to stop, because they can act without anyone knowing there's an issue.

 

[hadit]

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.

I wasn't talking about the militia. Please do try to actually read what is written before spewing yet another of your 5 favorite lines.

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

Dude! I wasn't talking about the militia! Let it go.