The Right To Bear Arms

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,541
Reaction score
6,863
Points
280
The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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
The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment 14.
You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context. Our Second Amendment is clear.

What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
The People are the Militia. You cannot ignore that legal fact.
The militia is the people. People have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
The militia is the people.
The People are the Militia.
Which simply means the people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,541
Reaction score
6,863
Points
280
We're not talking about the Illinois state constitution. Stop quoting it as if it's relevant.
Did you forget your own right wing propaganda?

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

This is a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment:

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.
How does Illinois' constitution affect people in Texas?
States' rights.
IOW, it doesn't, and since we're talking about things that impact the entire nation, is totally irrelevant. Quit quoting it as if it's significant.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,541
Reaction score
6,863
Points
280
The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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
The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment 14.
You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?

I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.

The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion. It really screws up all else.
Our Second Amendment is more relevant. There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
There aren't any in the First Amendment either, yet you claim it applies to you individually.
Our First Amendment does not claim only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and therefore, only they can petition for redress of grievances.
There are no individual terms in the First Amendment. You're assuming it applies to you as an individual. IOW, the lack of individual terms in the Second is not sufficient to say it does not apply individually, and thus has the SC ruled.
So again, Daniel, you disagree. Tell us, precisely which of these statements do you actually disagree with?

There are no individual terms in the First Amendment.
You're assuming it applies to you as an individual.
The SC has ruled that the 2nd amendment protects the individual right to own firearms.

Which of those do you think is wrong?
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,162
Reaction score
14,339
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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
The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment 14.
You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context. Our Second Amendment is clear.

What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
The People are the Militia. You cannot ignore that legal fact.
The militia is the people. People have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
You are so fucking stupid!

Learn how to read fucking English!!!!!
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,162
Reaction score
14,339
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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
The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment 14.
You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context. Our Second Amendment is clear.

What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
The People are the Militia. You cannot ignore that legal fact.
The militia is the people. People have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
The militia is the people.
The People are the Militia.
Are the people the militia????

You think you're making a point, but you're not. You're a dumb fuck.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,162
Reaction score
14,339
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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
The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment 14.
You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?

I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.

The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion. It really screws up all else.
Our Second Amendment is more relevant. There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
There aren't any in the First Amendment either, yet you claim it applies to you individually.
Our First Amendment does not claim only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and therefore, only they can petition for redress of grievances.
You have completely fucked up the English language you dumb fuck.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,892
Reaction score
3,644
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Are the people the militia????

You think you're making a point, but you're not. You're a dumb fuck.
I know I am making a point, unlike You and other right wingers who have nothing but fallacy.

Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,892
Reaction score
3,644
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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
The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment 14.
You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?

I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.

The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion. It really screws up all else.
Our Second Amendment is more relevant. There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
There aren't any in the First Amendment either, yet you claim it applies to you individually.
Our First Amendment does not claim only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and therefore, only they can petition for redress of grievances.
You have completely fucked up the English language you dumb fuck.
That is just You not me.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,162
Reaction score
14,339
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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
The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment 14.
You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?

I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.

The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion. It really screws up all else.
Our Second Amendment is more relevant. There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
Nor in the 4th Amendment

There is no individual right to be secure in homes, etc. from unreasonable searches and seizures?


This is why you are stupid.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,162
Reaction score
14,339
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
Nor in the 4th Amendment

There is no individual right to be secure in homes, etc. from unreasonable searches and seizures?
This is why you are stupid.

Context means everything. That is why you are full of fallacy.
You wouldn't know what context means if it bit you on the ass.

When the 2A was drafted, who do you think was armed and how ?

Don't say COCKSUCKING SHIT about context. You know not what it means.

Learn English. Then talk shit, you no-English-speaking illegal alien
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,541
Reaction score
6,863
Points
280
Which simply means the people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
You simply don't understand that the People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
You keep saying that but it's irrelevant because the SC has ruled that the 2nd protects the individual right to bear arms.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,541
Reaction score
6,863
Points
280
Are the people the militia????

You think you're making a point, but you're not. You're a dumb fuck.
I know I am making a point, unlike You and other right wingers who have nothing but fallacy.

Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
The individual people have literal recourse to the Second Amendment.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,541
Reaction score
6,863
Points
280
The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
The State has a right to organize militia. The People are the Militia. You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
That is nothing but right wing propaganda.

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
The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment 14.
You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?

I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.

The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion. It really screws up all else.
Our Second Amendment is more relevant. There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
Nor in the 4th Amendment

There is no individual right to be secure in homes, etc. from unreasonable searches and seizures?


This is why you are stupid.
Or in the First Amendment. There is no right to free speech unless you're part of a regulated, licensed, government approved protest group. There is no individual right to assemble with whomever you want, you only have that right as part of a licensed, regulated, government approved assembly group. You can't just go from one group to another.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,892
Reaction score
3,644
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Context means everything. That is why you are full of fallacy.
The context of a private home? The one you are raiding and burglarizing under color of law?
How did you come up with Your scenario and why do You believe it is relevant?

Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,892
Reaction score
3,644
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Nor in the 4th Amendment

There is no individual right to be secure in homes, etc. from unreasonable searches and seizures?
This is why you are stupid.

Context means everything. That is why you are full of fallacy.
You wouldn't know what context means if it bit you on the ass.

When the 2A was drafted, who do you think was armed and how ?

Don't say COCKSUCKING SHIT about context. You know not what it means.

Learn English. Then talk shit, you no-English-speaking illegal alien
Says the ignoramus who is full of fallacy.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,892
Reaction score
3,644
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Which simply means the people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
You simply don't understand that the People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
You keep saying that but it's irrelevant because the SC has ruled that the 2nd protects the individual right to bear arms.
Not true and simply false on its face. Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,892
Reaction score
3,644
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Are the people the militia????

You think you're making a point, but you're not. You're a dumb fuck.
I know I am making a point, unlike You and other right wingers who have nothing but fallacy.

Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
The individual people have literal recourse to the Second Amendment.
The individual people who are organized into well-regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; but not themselves as Individuals of the People.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top