The Right To Bear Arms

[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)

Which means nothing in North Dakota, Oklahoma, or Hawaii.

Only if you ignore our federal form of Constitutional 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.

 

[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.

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

We already have and it is I.

 

[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.

Only if you ignore our federal form of Constitutional 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.

Illinois has no bearing on South Dakota, Virginia, or Arkansas. They can write their own constitutions. And again you're ignoring the 14th. Stop cherry-picking the little pieces you like out of the Constitution and consider the whole thing for a change.

 

[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.

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.

Only if you ignore our federal form of Constitutional 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.

So, the 2A was in explicit reservation of power to the states regarding any legislation or regulation of individuals purchasing firearms, correct?

And, if so, you would also agree that the NFA and all subsequent Federal gun laws are unconstitutional as FUCK, right?

You seem to be riding the fence and trying to have it both ways.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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?

Bro. Simply identifying fallacy is not enough. Every argument has fallacy. Otherwise, it would not be called argument. It would be called TRUTH.

All that you gain by identifying the fallacy is identifying the potential weakness in an argument, SO YOU CAN FORMULATE A COUNTER-ARGUMENT.

Simply saying "fallacy, fallacy, fallacy" does ZERO to advance your position. ZERO!!!

 

[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?

We already have and it is I.

You are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.

 

[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)

Which means nothing in North Dakota, Oklahoma, or Hawaii.

Only if you ignore our federal form of Constitutional 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.

Illinois has no bearing on South Dakota, Virginia, or Arkansas. They can write their own constitutions. And again you're ignoring the 14th. Stop cherry-picking the little pieces you like out of the Constitution and consider the whole thing for a change.

There is no appeal to ignorance of State's rights or our Tenth Amendment.

 

[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)

Which means nothing in North Dakota, Oklahoma, or Hawaii.

Only if you ignore our federal form of Constitutional 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.

So, the 2A was in explicit reservation of power to the states regarding any legislation or regulation of individuals purchasing firearms, correct?

And, if so, you would also agree that the NFA and all subsequent Federal gun laws are unconstitutional as FUCK, right?

You seem to be riding the fence and trying to have it both ways.

You seem to ignore our federal form of Constitutional government. Are you, fresh off the boat from Unitary government Europe?

 

[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.

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

We already have and it is I.

You are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.

No, I'm right when I argue with you, because you are wrong. Why do you think no one agrees with you?

 

[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.

Only if you ignore our federal form of Constitutional 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.

Illinois has no bearing on South Dakota, Virginia, or Arkansas. They can write their own constitutions. And again you're ignoring the 14th. Stop cherry-picking the little pieces you like out of the Constitution and consider the whole thing for a change.

There is no appeal to ignorance of State's rights or our Tenth Amendment.

And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There is no appeal to ignorance of State's rights or our Tenth Amendment.

This, and pretty much everything you type is an appeal to bafflement (or argument by gibberish) because you never actually say anything of substance.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You seem to ignore our federal form of Constitutional government. Are you, fresh off the boat from Unitary government Europe?

Well, why don't you point out SPECIFICALLY where and how I am wrong WITHOUT your repeated appeal to gibberish.

 

[justinacolmena]

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

Don't be such a jackass murderer-for-hire, you stupid dumbfuck democrat.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our 2nd Amendment (like much of our constitution) is not about the security of a free state, but the separation of Federal authority verses State authority.

Only a fool would identify the operative clause of the 2A to be the establishment or security of a free state, much like a fool would believe a breakfast has the right to food in the example below:

The 2A was originally a limit on Federal authority. The context of the Constitution's ratification process and the concerns of each State that the FedGov would be trading one gun-grabbing tyrant for another.

For 200 years, everyone understood that the 2A banned the Federal government from infringing on individual gun rights. Even the 1934 National Firearms Act was careful to stay within the FedGov's taxing authority, because EVERYONE KNEW that the FedGov had no authority to ban any guns, BECAUSE of the 2A.

It has only been since Marxists have been unable to pull off a successful revolution that ANYONE has EVER tried to willfully misinterpret the very plain language that the federal government will not infringe on individual gun rights.

It makes perfect sense that Dan Palos is so convinced that his bullshit interpretation is correct, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He is, after all, a fucking communist shit.

Gun grabbers are commies and commies are gun grabbers.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Cue: "a militia of the whole people..."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Our 2nd Amendment (like much of our constitution) is not about the security of a free state, but the separation of Federal authority verses State authority.

Only a fool would identify the operative clause of the 2A to be the establishment or security of a free state, much like a fool would believe a breakfast has the right to food in the example below:

The 2A was originally a limit on Federal authority. The context of the Constitution's ratification process and the concerns of each State that the FedGov would be trading one gun-grabbing tyrant for another.

For 200 years, everyone understood that the 2A banned the Federal government from infringing on individual gun rights. Even the 1934 National Firearms Act was careful to stay within the FedGov's taxing authority, because EVERYONE KNEW that the FedGov had no authority to ban any guns, BECAUSE of the 2A.

It has only been since Marxists have been unable to pull off a successful revolution that ANYONE has EVER tried to willfully misinterpret the very plain language that the federal government will not infringe on individual gun rights.

It makes perfect sense that Dan Palos is so convinced that his bullshit interpretation is correct, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He is, after all, a fucking communist shit.

Gun grabbers are commies and commies are gun grabbers.

Ignorant, wrongheaded nonsense.

The Federal government in fact has the authority to ban weapons not within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Current caselaw holds that neither the Federal government nor state governments may ban handguns.

And the issue has nothing to do with non-existent ‘Marxists’ or mythical ‘gun grabbers – such baseless idiocy is typical rightwing demagoguery, fearmongering, and lies.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Our 2nd Amendment (like much of our constitution) is not about the security of a free state, but the separation of Federal authority verses State authority.

Only a fool would identify the operative clause of the 2A to be the establishment or security of a free state, much like a fool would believe a breakfast has the right to food in the example below:

The 2A was originally a limit on Federal authority. The context of the Constitution's ratification process and the concerns of each State that the FedGov would be trading one gun-grabbing tyrant for another.

For 200 years, everyone understood that the 2A banned the Federal government from infringing on individual gun rights. Even the 1934 National Firearms Act was careful to stay within the FedGov's taxing authority, because EVERYONE KNEW that the FedGov had no authority to ban any guns, BECAUSE of the 2A.

It has only been since Marxists have been unable to pull off a successful revolution that ANYONE has EVER tried to willfully misinterpret the very plain language that the federal government will not infringe on individual gun rights.

It makes perfect sense that Dan Palos is so convinced that his bullshit interpretation is correct, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He is, after all, a fucking communist shit.

Gun grabbers are commies and commies are gun grabbers.

Ignorant, wrongheaded nonsense.

The Federal government in fact has the authority to ban weapons not within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Current caselaw holds that neither the Federal government nor state governments may ban handguns.

And the issue has nothing to do with non-existent ‘Marxists’ or mythical ‘gun grabbers – such baseless idiocy is typical rightwing demagoguery, fearmongering, and lies.

What guns are specifically mentioned in the Second? Lol this'll be good

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Federal government in fact has the authority to ban weapons not within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Well, current military service includes the use of automatic weapons, does it not? For a militia to be effective, the people would need arms equivalent to that of an invading force, right?

So, the Hughes Amendment is unconstitutional pursuant to the Miller holding?

I agree.

Give us back machine guns.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our 2nd Amendment (like much of our constitution) is not about the security of a free state, but the separation of Federal authority verses State authority.

Only a fool would identify the operative clause of the 2A to be the establishment or security of a free state, much like a fool would believe a breakfast has the right to food in the example below:

The 2A was originally a limit on Federal authority. The context of the Constitution's ratification process and the concerns of each State that the FedGov would be trading one gun-grabbing tyrant for another.

For 200 years, everyone understood that the 2A banned the Federal government from infringing on individual gun rights. Even the 1934 National Firearms Act was careful to stay within the FedGov's taxing authority, because EVERYONE KNEW that the FedGov had no authority to ban any guns, BECAUSE of the 2A.

It has only been since Marxists have been unable to pull off a successful revolution that ANYONE has EVER tried to willfully misinterpret the very plain language that the federal government will not infringe on individual gun rights.

It makes perfect sense that Dan Palos is so convinced that his bullshit interpretation is correct, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He is, after all, a fucking communist shit.

Gun grabbers are commies and commies are gun grabbers.

Ignorant, wrongheaded nonsense.

The Federal government in fact has the authority to ban weapons not within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Current caselaw holds that neither the Federal government nor state governments may ban handguns.

And the issue has nothing to do with non-existent ‘Marxists’ or mythical ‘gun grabbers – such baseless idiocy is typical rightwing demagoguery, fearmongering, and lies.

What guns are specifically mentioned in the Second? Lol this'll be good

He is talking about the Miller holding, which is funny, because under Miller, we should have machine guns.

 

[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?

We already have and it is I.

You are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.

No, I'm right when I argue with you, because you are wrong. Why do you think no one agrees with you?

lol. I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. That means You have to be Wrong even though you are on the right.