What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Right To Bear Arms

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,432
Reaction score
14,584
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
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
Again, no explanation....just bullshit.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,604
Reaction score
6,893
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.
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
Just like I said, the militia is the PEOPLE, and it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms that is protected. Did you forget that whole argument?
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,604
Reaction score
6,893
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.
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
The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,006
Reaction score
3,667
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
Just like I said, the militia is the PEOPLE, and it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms that is protected. Did you forget that whole argument?
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
67,006
Reaction score
3,667
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
The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.

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.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,432
Reaction score
14,584
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
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
The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.

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.
You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms. The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.

Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?

How can you torture the words to mean something other?

Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?

Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,006
Reaction score
3,667
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
The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.

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.
You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms. The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.

Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?

How can you torture the words to mean something other?

Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?

Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
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.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

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

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

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.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,432
Reaction score
14,584
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
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
The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
I don't think he understands how the 14th Amendment works to change the 2A into a restriction on both the FedGov and States.

The 14th amendment was sitting there waiting to fuck that authority out of both state and fed. The 14th amendment is an abomination of clumsy legal quagmires.

States were arguably not limited in being able to infringe on the rights of individuals before the 14th's privileges and immunities mandate. Too late now.

Only an amendment can fix that encroachment on State authority.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,006
Reaction score
3,667
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
The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
I don't think he understands how the 14th Amendment works to change the 2A into a restriction on both the FedGov and States.

The 14th amendment was sitting there waiting to fuck that authority out of both state and fed. The 14th amendment is an abomination of clumsy legal quagmires.

States were arguably not limited in being able to infringe on the rights of individuals before the 14th's privileges and immunities mandate. Too late now.

Only an amendment can fix that encroachment on State authority.
It is not true. Our Second Amendment is clear and completely unambiguous in any way.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,432
Reaction score
14,584
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
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
The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.

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.
You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms. The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.

Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?

How can you torture the words to mean something other?

Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?

Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
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.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

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

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

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.
Just what argument are you failing to make?

We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia. So?

That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms. Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.

Right?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,006
Reaction score
3,667
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
The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.

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.
You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms. The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.

Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?

How can you torture the words to mean something other?

Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?

Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
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.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

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

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

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.
Just what argument are you failing to make?

We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia. So?

That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms. Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.

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

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,604
Reaction score
6,893
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.
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
The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.

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.
You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms. The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.

Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?

How can you torture the words to mean something other?

Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?

Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
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.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

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

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

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.
Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,604
Reaction score
6,893
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.
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
The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.

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.
You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms. The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.

Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?

How can you torture the words to mean something other?

Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?

Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
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.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

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

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

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.
Just what argument are you failing to make?

We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia. So?

That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms. Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.

Right?
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
Which means nothing in Texas, or Florida, or Wisconsin. You know, the rest of the states.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,006
Reaction score
3,667
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
The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.

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.
You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms. The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.

Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?

How can you torture the words to mean something other?

Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?

Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
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.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

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

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

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.
Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.
You need a valid rebuttal, not a non sequitur which is usually considered a fallacy. Typical of the right wing who, never get it and don't ask relevant questions.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,432
Reaction score
14,584
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
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
The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.

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.
You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms. The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.

Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?

How can you torture the words to mean something other?

Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?

Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
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.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

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

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

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.
Just what argument are you failing to make?

We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia. So?

That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms. Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.

Right?
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
So what are you trying to argue?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,006
Reaction score
3,667
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
The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.

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.
You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms. The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.

Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?

How can you torture the words to mean something other?

Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?

Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
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.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

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

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

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.
Just what argument are you failing to make?

We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia. So?

That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms. Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.

Right?
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
Which means nothing in Texas, or Florida, or Wisconsin. You know, the rest of the states.
Only if you understand nothing of our Constitutional form of Government.

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.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,006
Reaction score
3,667
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
The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.

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.
You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms. The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.

Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?

How can you torture the words to mean something other?

Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?

Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
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.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

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

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

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.
Just what argument are you failing to make?

We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia. So?

That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms. Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.

Right?
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
So what are you trying to argue?
What don't you understand?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top