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

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,584
Reaction score
6,879
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.
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.
We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.

(The pigeon takes another lap)
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,584
Reaction score
6,879
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.
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.
And you again ignore the 14th, which prevents states from passing unconstitutional laws. Regardless, the Illinois constitution has no bearing whatsoever on any other state.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,356
Reaction score
14,536
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
Ready? Here we go:



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



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



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



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



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



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



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




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



Am I winning the arguement yet?
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,356
Reaction score
14,536
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?
What don't you understand?
That is a question better directed toward you.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,356
Reaction score
14,536
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.
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.
Actually make a fucking argument so we can rebut it. So far, you have done nothing but barf up nonsense without explanation.
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,771
Reaction score
7,303
Points
290
We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.
Whining and saying stupid shit isn't "rebutting" anything.

Explain how machine guns can be regulated and even banned but assault rifles can't.

They pose the same danger to society and serve almost the exact function
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,929
Reaction score
3,634
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Ready? Here we go:



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



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



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



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



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



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



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




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



Am I winning the arguement yet?
It may take a while to dumb it down enough for the right wing.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,929
Reaction score
3,634
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?
That is a question better directed toward you.
I understand our Second Amendment is clear and unambiguous in any way. There is nothing left to implication due to the clarity of expression.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,929
Reaction score
3,634
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Actually make a fucking argument so we can rebut it. So far, you have done nothing but barf up nonsense without explanation.
You have no valid rebuttalls only fallacy. Even promiscuoous women are less full of fallacy and I give them a free pass on those grounds.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,929
Reaction score
3,634
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Explain how machine guns can be regulated and even banned but assault rifles can't.
Unconstitutional laws.
:dunno:
This is a State's sovereign right, secured by our Tenth Amendment.

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

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,356
Reaction score
14,536
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
Actually make a fucking argument so we can rebut it. So far, you have done nothing but barf up nonsense without explanation.
You have no valid rebuttalls only fallacy. Even promiscuoous women are less full of fallacy and I give them a free pass on those grounds.
Is the power to regulate arms held by the FedGov or the States?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,929
Reaction score
3,634
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Make sense or shut the fuck up!
Ask relevant questions, troll.
Is the power to regulate arms held by the FedGov or the States?
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;
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,929
Reaction score
3,634
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.
We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.

(The pigeon takes another lap)
In Right-Wing fantasy, you are Always Right.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$230.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top