The Right To Bear Arms

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.
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.
It doesn't say that in our First Amendment. Our Second Amendment does expressly declare what is Necessary not Optional to the security of a free State.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,162
Reaction score
14,339
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
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.
That's like saying individuals do not have the independent right to assemble. NOT TRUE.

You can try to torture the words in the preforatory clause in a failed attempt to turn them into the operative clause all you want, but it does not work. Your interpretation is contrary to the plain language in the 2A. Your interpretation ignores the very purpose and concerns of the people in adopting a new constitutions (CONTEXT).

There are no collective rights that are not also held individually. Otherwise, there would be no individual rights.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,892
Reaction score
3,644
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.
The security of a free state is the stated reason, yes.

But, what is the operative clause in the sentence?
That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,892
Reaction score
3,644
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
That's like saying individuals do not have the independent right to assemble. NOT TRUE.

You can try to torture the words in the preforatory clause in a failed attempt to turn them into the operative clause all you want, but it does not work. Your interpretation is contrary to the plain language in the 2A. Your interpretation ignores the very purpose and concerns of the people in adopting a new constitutions (CONTEXT).

There are no collective rights that are not also held individually. Otherwise, there would be no individual rights.
No, it isn't. That is Your straw man argument.

There are no individual or singular terms used in our Second Amendment. And, the whole and entire People are the Militia. Only well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People are necessary to the security of our free States, and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,162
Reaction score
14,339
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
That is contrary to the plain language of the 2A. You are making things up AGAIN.

It says nothing about the whole or entire people. It says nothing about limits on the infringement being subject to keeping and bearing arms for the State or Union.

Clause 1: A well-regulated (meaning properly functioning) militia,
Clause 1A: being (a form of the "is" verb) necessary for the security of a free state,
Clause 2: the right of the people (can mean both as a whole and as individuals = people) shall not be infringed (zero regulation or restriction).

Tell me where I have misinterpreted the language.

Explain how I got it wrong. English is my first language. You?

You never explain anything.

You just repeat more bullshit and make up other shit.

My interpretation is correct.

Your "interpretation" is stupid and nonsensical.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,162
Reaction score
14,339
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
No, it isn't. That is Your straw man argument.
You have no idea what a strawman fallacy is, do you?

It could have been a false equivalency (it' not), but it is definitely NOT a strawman. You need to go back to debate school and learn what the fallacies really are, and how they are useful.

There are no individual or singular terms used in our Second Amendment.
By that logic, the U.S. Constitution protects ZERO individual rights. I have shown you how your idiot "logic" would be applicable to the 4th Amendment and even the 1st Amendment---because there are no "individual terms" in either of those, based on your idiot "logic."

People means individuals. It's the plural of person. You can't have people without persons.

And, the whole and entire People are the Militia.
And each individual is a member of the militia. You cannot separate the person from the people.

Only well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People are necessary to the security of our free States,
It may be true that a well-regulated militia is necessary, but you can hardly argue that it was a prerequisite to the right of the people NOT being infringed. That is pure idiocy and contrary to the VERY plain language.
and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
NOWHERE in the plain and clear language of the 2A is there such a qualification. The operation is simply "shall not be infringed" without qualification.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,541
Reaction score
6,863
Points
280
Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.
The security of a free state is the stated reason, yes.

But, what is the operative clause in the sentence?
That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
That's not in there, you added that last part. IOW, it doesn't say what you want it to say, so you change it. Bearing arms is an individual right, as found by the SC. Or, if you insist on continuing with this, what protest group do you belong to that confers the right to free speech for you?
 

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.
It doesn't say that in our First Amendment. Our Second Amendment does expressly declare what is Necessary not Optional to the security of a free State.
Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
 

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.
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.
It doesn't say that in our First Amendment. Our Second Amendment does expressly declare what is Necessary not Optional to the security of a free State.
Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
And, his interpretation is contrary to the historical context, where minutemen, who were always armed with their privately owned weapons, were expected to keep those weapons and bring them to answer the call to arms. He cannot resolve his nonsensical conflict with the practices at the time the 2A was ratified.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,892
Reaction score
3,644
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
That is contrary to the plain language of the 2A. You are making things up AGAIN.

It says nothing about the whole or entire people. It says nothing about limits on the infringement being subject to keeping and bearing arms for the State or Union.

Clause 1: A well-regulated (meaning properly functioning) militia,
Clause 1A: being (a form of the "is" verb) necessary for the security of a free state,
Clause 2: the right of the people (can mean both as a whole and as individuals = people) shall not be infringed (zero regulation or restriction).

Tell me where I have misinterpreted the language.

Explain how I got it wrong. English is my first language. You?

You never explain anything.

You just repeat more bullshit and make up other shit.

My interpretation is correct.

Your "interpretation" is stupid and nonsensical.
You don't know what you are talking about, typical of right-wingers.

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
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,892
Reaction score
3,644
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
No, it isn't. That is Your straw man argument.
You have no idea what a strawman fallacy is, do you?

It could have been a false equivalency (it' not), but it is definitely NOT a strawman. You need to go back to debate school and learn what the fallacies really are, and how they are useful.

There are no individual or singular terms used in our Second Amendment.
By that logic, the U.S. Constitution protects ZERO individual rights. I have shown you how your idiot "logic" would be applicable to the 4th Amendment and even the 1st Amendment---because there are no "individual terms" in either of those, based on your idiot "logic."

People means individuals. It's the plural of person. You can't have people without persons.

And, the whole and entire People are the Militia.
And each individual is a member of the militia. You cannot separate the person from the people.

Only well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People are necessary to the security of our free States,
It may be true that a well-regulated militia is necessary, but you can hardly argue that it was a prerequisite to the right of the people NOT being infringed. That is pure idiocy and contrary to the VERY plain language.
and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
NOWHERE in the plain and clear language of the 2A is there such a qualification. The operation is simply "shall not be infringed" without qualification.
The People are the Militia. You are either, organized and well-regulated or unorganized and subject to the police power of a State.

There is No One, who is unconnected with the Militia, only with organized and well regulated Militia; our Second Amendment is clear as to which subset of the Militia is Necessary to the security of a free State.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,892
Reaction score
3,644
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.
The security of a free state is the stated reason, yes.

But, what is the operative clause in the sentence?
That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
That's not in there, you added that last part. IOW, it doesn't say what you want it to say, so you change it. Bearing arms is an individual right, as found by the SC. Or, if you insist on continuing with this, what protest group do you belong to that confers the right to free speech for you?
You have no idea what you are talking and only resort to fallacy, legal or otherwise.

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
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,892
Reaction score
3,644
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
Because it should be self-evident.

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
 

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.
It doesn't say that in our First Amendment. Our Second Amendment does expressly declare what is Necessary not Optional to the security of a free State.
Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
And, his interpretation is contrary to the historical context, where minutemen, who were always armed with their privately owned weapons, were expected to keep those weapons and bring them to answer the call to arms. He cannot resolve his nonsensical conflict with the practices at the time the 2A was ratified.
His interpretation ignores everything beyond his desired conclusion.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,541
Reaction score
6,863
Points
280
Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
Because it should be self-evident.

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
It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,541
Reaction score
6,863
Points
280
Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.
The security of a free state is the stated reason, yes.

But, what is the operative clause in the sentence?
That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
That's not in there, you added that last part. IOW, it doesn't say what you want it to say, so you change it. Bearing arms is an individual right, as found by the SC. Or, if you insist on continuing with this, what protest group do you belong to that confers the right to free speech for you?
You have no idea what you are talking and only resort to fallacy, legal or otherwise.

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
Actually, I do know what I'm talking about, because that last part is NOT in the text of the Amendment. Go back and check. If you find "entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union", throw away the book you're reading or never go back to that web site again because it's lying to you.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,892
Reaction score
3,644
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
Because it should be self-evident.

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
It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy. The whole and entire People are the Militia.

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
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,162
Reaction score
14,339
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
That is contrary to the plain language of the 2A. You are making things up AGAIN.

It says nothing about the whole or entire people. It says nothing about limits on the infringement being subject to keeping and bearing arms for the State or Union.

Clause 1: A well-regulated (meaning properly functioning) militia,
Clause 1A: being (a form of the "is" verb) necessary for the security of a free state,
Clause 2: the right of the people (can mean both as a whole and as individuals = people) shall not be infringed (zero regulation or restriction).

Tell me where I have misinterpreted the language.

Explain how I got it wrong. English is my first language. You?

You never explain anything.

You just repeat more bullshit and make up other shit.

My interpretation is correct.

Your "interpretation" is stupid and nonsensical.
You don't know what you are talking about, typical of right-wingers.

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
Again, no explanation. Just bullshit.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,892
Reaction score
3,644
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.
The security of a free state is the stated reason, yes.

But, what is the operative clause in the sentence?
That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
That's not in there, you added that last part. IOW, it doesn't say what you want it to say, so you change it. Bearing arms is an individual right, as found by the SC. Or, if you insist on continuing with this, what protest group do you belong to that confers the right to free speech for you?
You have no idea what you are talking and only resort to fallacy, legal or otherwise.

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
Actually, I do know what I'm talking about, because that last part is NOT in the text of the Amendment. Go back and check. If you find "entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union", throw away the book you're reading or never go back to that web site again because it's lying to you.
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
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top