The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

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.

Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

lol. You simply understand nothing of substance; are you on the Right-Wing?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I have several times. It must be too complicated for a right winger, like you.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

If it weren't for fallacy, Right-Wingers would have no arguments at all.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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]

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

Does it matter?

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;

 

[justinacolmena]

Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Hey dumbfuck. The right of the people. El derecho del pueblo. The universal human right. Learn some English and pass the bar.

 

[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.

I have several times. It must be too complicated for a right winger, like you.

Or you repeatedly failed to explain with any manner of competence.

So do you disagree with the Miller holding?

That's the case where the Supreme Court held that the second amendment protects only the ownership of military type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia and that a double barrel sought off shotgun was never intended to be used in a militia.

What does that mean for us?

Machine guns should be protected under the second amendment.

All precedent from the Supreme Court is rightly against your position going back more than 200 years. You should just give up on it.

 

[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?

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.

We've backed up our arguments with fact and reason. You have merely repeated yourself to no avail.

 

[hadit]

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.

Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.

 

[hadit]

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

Does it matter?

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;

And there you go again, saying the government owes me weapons. You have to be saying that because you say the government is supposed to arm the militia and you keep saying the militia and the people are one and the same.

 

[hadit]

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.

I have several times. It must be too complicated for a right winger, like you.

Or you repeatedly failed to explain with any manner of competence.

So do you disagree with the Miller holding?

That's the case where the Supreme Court held that the second amendment protects only the ownership of military type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia and that a double barrel sought off shotgun was never intended to be used in a militia.

What does that mean for us?

Machine guns should be protected under the second amendment.

All precedent from the Supreme Court is rightly against your position going back more than 200 years. You should just give up on it.

He claims the SC is wrong when he disagrees with them. It's that super duper legal mind of his that discovers all kinds of crap no one else in the world can see.

 

[danielpalos]

We've backed up our arguments with fact and reason. You have merely repeated yourself to no avail.

I already told you, you are simply Wrong even though you are on the Right merely Because I am Right even though I am on the left.

 

[hadit]

We've backed up our arguments with fact and reason. You have merely repeated yourself to no avail.

I already told you, you are simply Wrong even though you are on the Right merely Because I am Right even though I am on the left.

And the pigeon takes another lap.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.

Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?

If not,

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]

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

Does it matter?

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;

And there you go again, saying the government owes me weapons. You have to be saying that because you say the government is supposed to arm the militia and you keep saying the militia and the people are one and the same.

Should I insist our legislators do their Job?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[hadit]

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

Does it matter?

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;

And there you go again, saying the government owes me weapons. You have to be saying that because you say the government is supposed to arm the militia and you keep saying the militia and the people are one and the same.

Should I insist our legislators do their Job?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

So when do I get my AR?

 

[hadit]

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.

Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.

Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?

If not,

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.

What did they say when you notified them they got it wrong?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.

Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?

If not,

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.

To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.

I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing. You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.

Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Does it matter?

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;

And there you go again, saying the government owes me weapons. You have to be saying that because you say the government is supposed to arm the militia and you keep saying the militia and the people are one and the same.

Should I insist our legislators do their Job?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

So when do I get my AR?

Once you get organized and weapons qualified.

My motto is: Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!