The Right To Bear Arms

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To provide for organizing, arming,

Do you know what that means?

THe FedGov can give arms to the militia.



How does that answer my question?

 

[danielpalos]

To provide for organizing, arming,

Do you know what that means?

THe FedGov can give arms to the militia.



How does that answer my question?

By regulation.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

IS THE POWER TO REGULATE ARMS HELD BY THE FEDGOV OR THE STATES?

It's one of those either/or questions. Pick one.

 

[danielpalos]

IS THE POWER TO REGULATE ARMS HELD BY THE FEDGOV OR THE STATES?

It's one of those either/or questions. Pick one.

did you miss it in a previous post?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Don't give me the laughy face and bolt like a pussy.

Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?

I don't give a fuck about Congress having the authority to purchase arms for the militia. I am talking about the individual right.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


excessive trolling content removed


Just admit that you don't know the answer, Dan, so we can all laugh at you and move on.

 

[danielpalos]

Don't be such a troll.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Don't be such a troll.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Don't avoid the answer to my question.

You still have not answered the question.

Which

governing

body

should/does

have

the

authority

to

regulate

an

individual's

purchase

ownership

possession

and

use

of a fucking gun?

I can't make the question any clearer.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

That has nothing to do with an individual's purchase, ownership, possession or use of a fucking gun.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

That has nothing to do with an individual's purchase, ownership, possession or use of a fucking gun.

 

[danielpalos]

Don't be such a troll.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Don't avoid the answer to my question.

You still have not answered the question.

Which

governing

body

should/does

have

the

authority

to

regulate

an

individual's

purchase

ownership

possession

and

use

of a fucking gun?

I can't make the question any clearer.

Only if you ignore our federal form of Constitutional government. Are you a US citizen, Right-Winger?

 

[danielpalos]

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

That has nothing to do with an individual's purchase, ownership, possession or use of a fucking gun.

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]

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.

You can always be right when you completely ignore every rebuttal to your arguments. You can always be right when you insist your legal reasoning is superior to that of the justices on the SC and the rest of the legal profession. You can always be right when you just repeat ad nauseum meaningless one-liners.

IOW, you are not always right, you do not resort to the fewest fallacies and you do not win every argument.

 

[hadit]

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

That has nothing to do with an individual's purchase, ownership, possession or use of a fucking gun.

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 North Dakota, Oklahoma, or Hawaii.

 

[hadit]

Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


Just admit that you don't know the answer, Dan, so we can all laugh at you and move on.

Oh, he knows the answer, he just won't admit it.

 

[Lesh]

Is the power to regulate arms held by the FedGov or the States?

The States...except as required for a well regulated militia (which no longer exists)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Is the power to regulate arms held by the FedGov or the States?

The States...except as required for a well regulated militia (which no longer exists)

So, EXCLUSIVELY by the states? Right?

All federal gun laws are unconstitutional, right?

 

[Rigby5]

To provide for organizing, arming,

Do you know what that means?

THe FedGov can give arms to the militia.



How does that answer my question?

By regulation.

The Founders used the word "regulate" to mean "keep regular", as in a well functioning clock, regular bowel movements, etc.
Regulation does not mean to restrict.
It means the opposite, in to prevent restriction, like the article on regulating interstate commerce was to prevent states from restricting commerce by other states, through that state.

If the 2nd amendment were to ensure the feds could call up an Organized Militia and then arm them, the 2nd amendment would make no sense.

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

That obviously is not what the founders meant or intended, and in fact makes no sense at all.
Clearly the feds never owned enough weapons to arm more than a tiny fraction of the people needed for the American Rebellion or defense from invasion.

And the whole Bill of Rights was about restrictions against the federal government, nothing else.
So the main point would have been the need for a state militia to retain arms, not the need for the feds to be able to call up the militia.
And most state constitutions define the state militia as all able bodied adult males.
But given there were essentially zero police back then, so obviously defense was an individual right, and there is no such thing as a collective right.

 

[Rigby5]

...
Only if you ignore our federal form of Constitutional government. Are you a US citizen, Right-Winger?

A federation is a very loose grouping of sovereign entities for a very limited purpose.
Like the UN is a federation.
It is not imply a strong central government at all.
In fact, the whole federation thing from the Founders was borrowed from the Federation of 7 Iroquois nations.
A federal form of government is where strong state governments voluntarily decide to adopt a unified approach on a few items that are best handled collectively.
The Constitution empowers the federal government with very few authorities.
It could not even impose an income tax or have a standing military even.
Absolutely no jurisdiction over education, health care, drugs, guns, or anything better handled at the state or local level.
About the only things dedicated to the federal government were treaties, diplomacy, defense, interstate commerce, and immigration.

I agree with the SCOTUS that the 14th amendment was necessary and the feds had to increase to block state abuses of rights, but it is WAY out of control now, and the federal government is the biggest threat this country now faces.
For example, the Military Industrial Complex lying about Iraqi WMD, murdering 3 million Vietnamese, the federal War on Drugs, Prohibition, etc.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You can always be right when you completely ignore every rebuttal to your arguments. You can always be right when you insist your legal reasoning is superior to that of the justices on the SC and the rest of the legal profession. You can always be right when you just repeat ad nauseum meaningless one-liners.

IOW, you are not always right, you do not resort to the fewest fallacies and you do not win every argument.

lol. I gainsay your contention. Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?