The Right To Bear Arms

[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.

That is silly because the 2nd amendment is not at all the source of individual gun rights.
The 2nd amendment is only a strict and total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
Sure it gives a reason why, but clearly it is not the only reason why, and why does not really even matter, since the point is still that the federal government shall make no law at all infringing on gun rights of anyone.

No, it doesn't. It says well regulated militia of the People shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That is still true today.

You're just making that up. It says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the militia.

You are just making that stuff up. The People are the Militia. Thus, the Militia are the People. They are not seperate.

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

Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.

 

[hadit]

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.

That is correct. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's very clear.

Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia and thus Necessary to the security of a free State. All terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.

Same then with the First. What registered protest group are you in?

 

[hadit]

Dan Palos sees this when he reads the 2A:

A well-regulated national guard is the militia and only the right of members of the national guard to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed while they are members of the national guard.

Yes. It is literally that stupid.

The People who are the national guard are the militia. See how that works. Why mention the militia at all if it means nothing to right wingers?

That's not what you've been endlessly regurgitating. You keep saying that the militia is the whole people, thus negating your own argument. Please pick a horse and stay on it.

 

[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.

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

That's not what it says.

Yes, it is.

No, it says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. You know this, yet keep yammering on.

 

[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?

Start a gofundme account so we can find out.

You told them they were wrong, tell us what they said. Or couldn't you hear because they were laughing too hard?

All it takes is capital to purchase justice under our form of Capitalism. Start a gofundme page or simply be "too chicken" because you are full of fallacy.

I'm not saying they were wrong. I'm not saying my legal expertise is greater than theirs. That's all you. Now, since I'm sure you served notice to the Supreme Court that an internet keyboard jockey has said they are wrong and he is right, what did they say in reply and how long will it be before they issue a proclamation declaring you to be the ultimate source of legal expertise?

 

[danielpalos]

Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People who are subject to the police power of a State.

This is a State's sovereign Right:

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

 

[danielpalos]

Same then with the First. What registered protest group are you in?

Where does it say that in the "prefatory clause"?

 

[danielpalos]

Dan Palos sees this when he reads the 2A:

A well-regulated national guard is the militia and only the right of members of the national guard to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed while they are members of the national guard.

Yes. It is literally that stupid.

The People who are the national guard are the militia. See how that works. Why mention the militia at all if it means nothing to right wingers?

That's not what you've been endlessly regurgitating. You keep saying that the militia is the whole people, thus negating your own argument. Please pick a horse and stay on it.

That is your straw man argument.

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]

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.

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

That's not what it says.

Yes, it is.

No, it says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. You know this, yet keep yammering on.

No, it says well regulated militia of the People have a right to keep and bear Arms for the security needs of their State (or the Union).

 

[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.

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

Start a gofundme account so we can find out.

You told them they were wrong, tell us what they said. Or couldn't you hear because they were laughing too hard?

All it takes is capital to purchase justice under our form of Capitalism. Start a gofundme page or simply be "too chicken" because you are full of fallacy.

I'm not saying they were wrong. I'm not saying my legal expertise is greater than theirs. That's all you. Now, since I'm sure you served notice to the Supreme Court that an internet keyboard jockey has said they are wrong and he is right, what did they say in reply and how long will it be before they issue a proclamation declaring you to be the ultimate source of legal expertise?

Where is Your argument and notice before the Court?

 

[Rigby5]

The intent was to not have a standing army, and instead have the states encourage personal firearm ownership and group training so that the feds could call upon them when necessary.

Not sure how you reached your conclusion. GI stands for general issue; that includes Arms.

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;

GI has usually meant "Government Issue" as in the GI Bill for veteran's education.

But what does "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia", have to do with anything?
When the government provides for widows and orphans, that does not mean the government is the only source of support for widows and orphans or that the government then somehow is supposed to own the widows and orphans.
It just means the government is ALLOWED to do provide support if it decides it wants to.
And of course in time of emergencies like invasion, then the government would want to provided for turning the disorganized militia into an organized defense force.
The point of this article is that for the federal government to be able to allocate any funding for anything, it has to be specifically authorized to be able to make that expenditure of our money. So to pay for an army for defense from invasion, then this article was needed in order to allow that.
It says nothing about where the troops should come from or how they would gain arms expertise.
Nor does it say what the main purpose of those men at arms would be when not needed for any national emergency.
For clearly the MAIN use of men at arms in any country is much greater on the state, local, and individual level. Even more so back then when there were no police and there were many more local threats, and very few national threats.

To put this into perspective, the Confederate arsenals provided by the states, held a total of 160,000 small arms, while the Confederate arsenals had to support an army that would grow from 750,000 to 1,000,000 men. So then clearly the vast majority of the Confederate forces were using personal arms. And the Union started with a similar ratio, until they ramped up production. No one would ever try to pay for and store even a fraction of the arms one would need for some unexpected emergency like invasion. Arms stored in armories would be a terrible idea in that the people would not be familiar with them in time, and they would soon become obsolete as weapons rapidly keep changing and improving. Some arms are always put into armories, but it is considered a small and temporary buffer and not the main means of arms.

 

[danielpalos]

But what does "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia", have to do with anything?

lol. Government issue.

 

[Rigby5]

So if we can be restricted on firearms, then we don't have the authority to arm a military.

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.

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;

It seems you are assuming that legal authority comes from and originates with legislation, and that is incorrect.
Legal authority has to come first, BEFORE you have the delegated authority to be able to write legislation.
This is not an authoritarian dictatorship, so the only source of any legal authority comes from the inherent rights of all individuals.

The fact congress can pen legislation allowing for tax money to be spent on defensive arms, comes from the fact we all as individuals have that defensive individual rights, so then can delegate some of that inherent authority to a government to do it for us. It does not come from government or those who pen legislation for us. It comes from us as individuals, and those acting under the authority we delegate to them, can not then interfere at all in the primary source, our individual right of defense.

 

[danielpalos]

So if we can be restricted on firearms, then we don't have the authority to arm a military.

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.

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;

It seems you are assuming that legal authority comes from and originates with legislation, and that is incorrect.
Legal authority has to come first, BEFORE you have the delegated authority to be able to write legislation.
This is not an authoritarian dictatorship, so the only source of any legal authority comes from the inherent rights of all individuals.

The fact congress can pen legislation allowing for tax money to be spent on defensive arms, comes from the fact we all as individuals have that defensive individual rights, so then can delegate some of that inherent authority to a government to do it for us. It does not come from government or those who pen legislation for us. It comes from us as individuals, and those acting under the authority we delegate to them, can not then interfere at all in the primary source, our individual right of defense.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

That is silly because the 2nd amendment is not at all the source of individual gun rights.
The 2nd amendment is only a strict and total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
Sure it gives a reason why, but clearly it is not the only reason why, and why does not really even matter, since the point is still that the federal government shall make no law at all infringing on gun rights of anyone.

No, it doesn't. It says well regulated militia of the People shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That is still true today.

Not it does not.
It is clear they are listing a reason why the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it does not at all imply in any way that is the ONLY reason.
And in fact is never mentions that arms were necessary for the Union at all.
Implying that states may need arms against the Union if the Union were to become corrupt, just as the British rule had become corrupt and an armed rebellion warranted.

Nor does your version mention that bearing arms is an individual right.
If they were referring to weapons stored in federal armories, then no restriction in the Bill of Rights would have been necessary.
Why would you need to prohibit federal infringement on federal armories?
That makes no sense at all.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

That is silly because the 2nd amendment is not at all the source of individual gun rights.
The 2nd amendment is only a strict and total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
Sure it gives a reason why, but clearly it is not the only reason why, and why does not really even matter, since the point is still that the federal government shall make no law at all infringing on gun rights of anyone.

No, it doesn't. It says well regulated militia of the People shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That is still true today.

You're just making that up. It says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the militia.

You are just making that stuff up. The People are the Militia. Thus, the Militia are the People. They are not seperate.

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

Wrong.
The militia is a subset of the People.
If the adult male of the homestead is off hunting and a bear threatens, then a juvenile or female would need arms to deal with the local threat.
The point being that the inherent right of individual defense does not require arms only for national defense.
Arms are needed for the individual right of defense, by the entire population, not just those capable of joining a militia.

You are constantly switching what you mean by the militia.
If the militia is the People, then it includes juveniles and women as well, and is nothing at all like the restricted subset we might call the National Guard.

And the 2nd amendment can't just be referring to a subset because the need for defense is individual, coming from an individual inherent right. Nor can it then imply something under federal control like the National Guard, which is not even supposed to exist between national emergencies.

 

[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.

That is correct. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's very clear.

Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia and thus Necessary to the security of a free State. All terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.

The word "People" is all inclusive.
It leaves no one out.
Therefore has to imply it is an individual rights.
And we know it has to be because in a democratic republic, no legislation can be penned at all unless it is authorized by inherent individual rights.
There can not be a collective right because there would not be any authority to create a collective entity unless there was an inherent individual right preceding its creation.

 

[danielpalos]

Not it does not.
It is clear they are listing a reason why the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it does not at all imply in any way that is the ONLY reason.

Yes, it does and you are simply wrong, like usual for the Right Wing who are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.

The People are the Militia. Our Second Amendment simply specifies which persons of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. A well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, unlike the unorganized militia of the People.

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]

Wrong.
The militia is a subset of the People.

Wrong. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People is a subset of the whole and entire People.

 

[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.

That is correct. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's very clear.

Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia and thus Necessary to the security of a free State. All terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.

The word "People" is all inclusive.
It leaves no one out.
Therefore has to imply it is an individual rights.
And we know it has to be because in a democratic republic, no legislation can be penned at all unless it is authorized by inherent individual rights.
There can not be a collective right because there would not be any authority to create a collective entity unless there was an inherent individual right preceding its creation.

Yes, it is all inclusive. The people are the militia, all inclusively.