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.

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?

You are welcome to start a gofundme page to purchase some quality time before the Court.

 

[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.

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.

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

I see no such qualification in the 2A. That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.

Quit making up fake requirements.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

I see no such qualification in the 2A. That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.

Quit making up fake requirements.

Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition. Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way. The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

I see no such qualification in the 2A. That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.

Quit making up fake requirements.

Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition. Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way. The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.

And it expressly states that because a militia is necessary, the right shall not be infringed. That's it. No "only when" etc. is written.

Your argument is THE VERY DEFINITION of composition fallacy!!!

Who taught you how to argue, dumbass?

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

I see no such qualification in the 2A. That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.

Quit making up fake requirements.

Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition. Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way. The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.

And it expressly states that because a militia is necessary, the right shall not be infringed. That's it. No "only when" etc. is written.

Your argument is THE VERY DEFINITION of composition fallacy!!!

Who taught you how to argue, dumbass?

How did you reach your conclusion?

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.

It clearly can be restated as; well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People being necessary to the security of a free State, the People, who are a well-regulated militia, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

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 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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If your argument is that the government owes us each a military firearm, I have no problem with that, but it is wholly unconnected to service in the National Guard.

 

[danielpalos]

If your argument is that the government owes us each a military firearm, I have no problem with that, but it is wholly unconnected to service in the National Guard.

Why is it that even Mexicans from Mexico seem to understand our federal form of Constitutional Government better than most Right-Wingers?

 

[Rigby5]

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

I see no such qualification in the 2A. That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.

Quit making up fake requirements.

Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition. Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way. The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.

And it expressly states that because a militia is necessary, the right shall not be infringed. That's it. No "only when" etc. is written.

Your argument is THE VERY DEFINITION of composition fallacy!!!

Who taught you how to argue, dumbass?

How did you reach your conclusion?

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.

It clearly can be restated as; well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People being necessary to the security of a free State, the People, who are a well-regulated militia, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

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 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.

But then what is the argument?
If the "whole people" are the militia who then can not be denied arms, that still prohibits any and all federal firearm laws.
That is because it is states alone who are supposed to need, define, manage, maintain, and legislate the militia.
All the feds are authorized to do is be able to call up the state militia if necessary for emergency use.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

I see no such qualification in the 2A. That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.

Quit making up fake requirements.

Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition. Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way. The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.

And it expressly states that because a militia is necessary, the right shall not be infringed. That's it. No "only when" etc. is written.

Your argument is THE VERY DEFINITION of composition fallacy!!!

Who taught you how to argue, dumbass?

How did you reach your conclusion?

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.

It clearly can be restated as; well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People being necessary to the security of a free State, the People, who are a well-regulated militia, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

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 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.

But then what is the argument?
If the "whole people" are the militia who then can not be denied arms, that still prohibits any and all federal firearm laws.
That is because it is states alone who are supposed to need, define, manage, maintain, and legislate the militia.
All the feds are authorized to do is be able to call up the state militia if necessary for emergency use.

Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?

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.

It says well regulated militia of the whole people not the unorganized militia of the whole people.

 

[Rigby5]

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

I see no such qualification in the 2A. That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.

Quit making up fake requirements.

Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition. Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way. The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.

And it expressly states that because a militia is necessary, the right shall not be infringed. That's it. No "only when" etc. is written.

Your argument is THE VERY DEFINITION of composition fallacy!!!

Who taught you how to argue, dumbass?

How did you reach your conclusion?

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.

It clearly can be restated as; well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People being necessary to the security of a free State, the People, who are a well-regulated militia, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

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 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.

But then what is the argument?
If the "whole people" are the militia who then can not be denied arms, that still prohibits any and all federal firearm laws.
That is because it is states alone who are supposed to need, define, manage, maintain, and legislate the militia.
All the feds are authorized to do is be able to call up the state militia if necessary for emergency use.

Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?

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.

It says well regulated militia of the whole people not the unorganized militia of the whole people.

First of all, it is the states that define and provide the militia, so it is not up to the federal constitution, which only defines what the feds can and can not do.
Second is that how can the "well regulated militia of the whole People" be anything BUT the unorganized militia of the whole people. The whole people are not organized and never will be. There is no "organized militia" until it is called up, like for a posse after a bank robbery.
What the 2nd amendment hints at being able to be called upon does not have to exist all the time as an organized unit, but as an unorganized potential that could become an organized unit when necessary.
Just as if this country were to be invaded, we would start a mandatory draft.
Those drafted would not necessarily have time to be trained, so the founders wanted and expected everyone who could, to constantly own their own arms and be familiar enough with them so they could be called upon instantly in an emergency.

That is NOT the National Guard. Clearly the Founders did not trust or want any standing military that was essentially mercenary because they worked for pay.

There is no means by which anyone over age can be excluded.
While the state constitutions do not force women to have a militia responsibility, clearly it does not deny them and in reality women did fight in the revolution.
Denying universal participation in the defense of country, state, village, and individual home, would be an elitest society, contrary to the egalitarian principles of democratic republic.
For clearly the heart of a democratic republic depends upon the people being able to maintain their control over power by having control over arms.

Any attempt to divide the majority of the population from the means of force of arms, is a direct threat to the continuance of the democratic republic.
The only way to have a free people is to have a well armed people.
There can be no other way.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

I see no such qualification in the 2A. That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.

Quit making up fake requirements.

Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition. Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way. The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.

And it expressly states that because a militia is necessary, the right shall not be infringed. That's it. No "only when" etc. is written.

Your argument is THE VERY DEFINITION of composition fallacy!!!

Who taught you how to argue, dumbass?

How did you reach your conclusion?

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.

It clearly can be restated as; well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People being necessary to the security of a free State, the People, who are a well-regulated militia, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

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 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.

But then what is the argument?
If the "whole people" are the militia who then can not be denied arms, that still prohibits any and all federal firearm laws.
That is because it is states alone who are supposed to need, define, manage, maintain, and legislate the militia.
All the feds are authorized to do is be able to call up the state militia if necessary for emergency use.

Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?

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.

It says well regulated militia of the whole people not the unorganized militia of the whole people.

You prove again that you need to go back to law school.

 

[Colin norris]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.

Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.

The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.

This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.

There's nothing genius about the constitution. No government has ever tried to stop gun ownership. Its fully automatics which are the problem.
No one can argue with the unnecessary deaths associated with guns. Thise deaths are not collateral damage for gun ownership. That's absurd.
Trump the tyrant reigned for 4 years and not one shot fired in anger. So much for that justification.

 

[danielpalos]

First of all, it is the states that define and provide the militia, so it is not up to the federal constitution, which only defines what the feds can and can not do.

How did you reach that conclusion?

Article 1, Section 8: 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;

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I think Rigby5 is iron-clad proof that this is not a right v. left issue.

It's rather an up v. down issue.

(up being authoritarian and down being libertarian).

No government should have authority and power that the citizens themselves do not have. That is repugnant by all measures.

 

[danielpalos]

I think Rigby5 is iron-clad proof that this is not a right v. left issue.

It's rather an up v. down issue.

(up being authoritarian and down being libertarian).

No government should have authority and power that the citizens themselves do not have. That is repugnant by all measures.

Not at all. You simply don't understand the function of Government and why power is delegated to our representatives.

 

[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?

Once you get organized and weapons qualified.

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

None of that is constitutional. The government neither owes me weapons nor does it have to regulate me if I choose to own them. That's the law.

 

[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.

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.

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

You just made that up. It's not in the Second Amendment.

 

[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?

You are welcome to start a gofundme page to purchase some quality time before the Court.

I don't need to. You think they got it wrong, so what did they say when you told them?

 

[danielpalos]

None of that is constitutional. The government neither owes me weapons nor does it have to regulate me if I choose to own them. That's the law.

This is a State's 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)