The Right To Bear Arms

[hadit]

Which has no effect in Arkansas.

It is an example of a State's right. All States have a similar clause.

We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.

What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment? Our Second Amendment is quite clear. The People are the Militia.

Yet you say the militia is all the people, so what's your problem? The 14th ensures that the states can't pass unconstitutional laws, which means they cannot infringe on the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

What unconstitutional laws?

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.

Our Second Amendment is Constitutional law.

It's both for the security of a free state and about securing the right of the people. The two go hand in hand.

Are you a faggot or trannie who got bounched from the army? If so, I am sorry for you. That's not right in my opinion, but that has FUCK ALL to do with the 2A.

I cannot believe I have been arguing with someone so fucking ignorant.

Jesus.

So apparently you were “bounched” and that had a profound effect on you. Sad

Was it painful?

Obvious spelling trolls are obvious.

 

[danielpalos]

That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, thus ignored.

Then why were homosexuals once banned from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union?

 

[danielpalos]

Which has no effect in Arkansas.

It is an example of a State's right. All States have a similar clause.

We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.

What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment? Our Second Amendment is quite clear. The People are the Militia.

Yet you say the militia is all the people, so what's your problem? The 14th ensures that the states can't pass unconstitutional laws, which means they cannot infringe on the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

What unconstitutional laws?

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.

Our Second Amendment is Constitutional law.

That's right, and the states can't pass laws that violate it. Ever think of that?

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.

Only if you ignore the first clause And sacrifice the End to the Means. Only right-wingers repeat that historical mistake and allege they are "for the gospel Truth".

 

[danielpalos]

Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms?

Yes, you butt pirates and trannies can keep and bear arms. Nobody cares whose dick you suck or chop off. That is HARDLY a qualifier within the meaning of the 2A. Totally irrelevant.

Trump's controversial transgender military policy goes into effect
“The policy is insidious in operation but designed to be as comprehensive a ban as possible,” the nonpartisan Palm Center, which studies LGBTQ military issues, stated.--https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-s-controversial-transgender-military-policy-goes-effect-n993826

A Democrat had to reverse your right wing bigotry and hypocrisy.

That has nothing to do with the 2nd, ignored.

In other words, you don't really care if the People are infringed as long as You are not Infringed. I get it, right-wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not individual liberty or natural rights.

Clearly....


It couldn't POSSIBLY be about BOTH. That would be........too deep for the likes of you.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of express law. That is usually how deep the right wing goes.

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

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

The unorganized militia and criminals of the People, do not.

Quit pretending the Illinois state constitution has bearing on the 2nd Amendment. And yes, individuals have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, full stop. Doesn't matter if they're part of a militia or not (you claim the militia is all the people), and it doesn't matter if they're bearing arms "for the security needs of their State or the Union". That's something you just made up.

It demonstrates a free State's sovereign right to police itself with the traditional use of the police power. That is all, right-winger. Your red herrings are worthless in argumentation venues.

 

[hadit]

That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, thus ignored.

Then why were homosexuals once banned from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union?

What part of ignored don't you understand?

 

[hadit]

Which has no effect in Arkansas.

It is an example of a State's right. All States have a similar clause.

We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.

What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment? Our Second Amendment is quite clear. The People are the Militia.

Yet you say the militia is all the people, so what's your problem? The 14th ensures that the states can't pass unconstitutional laws, which means they cannot infringe on the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

What unconstitutional laws?

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.

Our Second Amendment is Constitutional law.

That's right, and the states can't pass laws that violate it. Ever think of that?

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.

Only if you ignore the first clause And sacrifice the End to the Means. Only right-wingers repeat that historical mistake and allege they are "for the gospel Truth".

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.

 

[hadit]

Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms?

Yes, you butt pirates and trannies can keep and bear arms. Nobody cares whose dick you suck or chop off. That is HARDLY a qualifier within the meaning of the 2A. Totally irrelevant.

Trump's controversial transgender military policy goes into effect
“The policy is insidious in operation but designed to be as comprehensive a ban as possible,” the nonpartisan Palm Center, which studies LGBTQ military issues, stated.--https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-s-controversial-transgender-military-policy-goes-effect-n993826

A Democrat had to reverse your right wing bigotry and hypocrisy.

That has nothing to do with the 2nd, ignored.

In other words, you don't really care if the People are infringed as long as You are not Infringed. I get it, right-wingers.

What part of ignored don't you understand?

 

[hadit]

Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not individual liberty or natural rights.

Clearly....


It couldn't POSSIBLY be about BOTH. That would be........too deep for the likes of you.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of express law. That is usually how deep the right wing goes.

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

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

The unorganized militia and criminals of the People, do not.

Quit pretending the Illinois state constitution has bearing on the 2nd Amendment. And yes, individuals have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, full stop. Doesn't matter if they're part of a militia or not (you claim the militia is all the people), and it doesn't matter if they're bearing arms "for the security needs of their State or the Union". That's something you just made up.

It demonstrates a free State's sovereign right to police itself with the traditional use of the police power. That is all, right-winger. Your red herrings are worthless in argumentation venues.

Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".

 

[The Irish Ram]

Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible. Both are subject to vast interpretation.

Actually, neither are subject to interpretation. Insisting that they must mean something other than what they say is where the fault and confusion sets in.

This right shall not be infringed, means this right shall not be infringed. It does not say, this right shall not be infringed, except for...

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Your point?

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 (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved. There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.

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

 

[hadit]

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.

Your point?

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 (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And there you go again, undermining your own argument by saying the militia is all of the people, which of course means it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia.

 

[hadit]

Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved. There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.

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

Since the state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution, as written it specifically makes the right to keep and bear arms an individual one. You emphasized it. The only conclusion is to state that the 2nd applies to individuals.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Your point?

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 (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And there you go again, undermining your own argument by saying the militia is all of the people, which of course means it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not 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

 

[danielpalos]

Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved. There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.

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

Since the state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution, as written it specifically makes the right to keep and bear arms an individual one. You emphasized it. The only conclusion is to state that the 2nd applies to individuals.

I only emphasize that there are no Individual or Singular Terms, in our federal Second Amendment.

 

[hadit]

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.

Your point?

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 (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And there you go again, undermining your own argument by saying the militia is all of the people, which of course means it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not 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

So if the militia is the whole people, then the 2nd applies to the whole people, which means it's an individual right, just as the SC found.

 

[hadit]

Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved. There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.

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

Since the state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution, as written it specifically makes the right to keep and bear arms an individual one. You emphasized it. The only conclusion is to state that the 2nd applies to individuals.

I only emphasize that there are no Individual or Singular Terms, in our federal Second Amendment.

Just as there are none in the First, yet the state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Your point?

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 (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And there you go again, undermining your own argument by saying the militia is all of the people, which of course means it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not 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

So if the militia is the whole people, then the 2nd applies to the whole people, which means it's an individual right, just as the SC found.

Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is well regulated militia of the whole People not inclusive of the unorganized militia. They must have been more right wing back then.

 

[danielpalos]

Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved. There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.

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

Since the state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution, as written it specifically makes the right to keep and bear arms an individual one. You emphasized it. The only conclusion is to state that the 2nd applies to individuals.

I only emphasize that there are no Individual or Singular Terms, in our federal Second Amendment.

Just as there are none in the First, yet the state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often?

The first clause of our Second Amendment explains it quite well.

Yes, that activist Court ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means; contrary to the dictates of legal axioms and plain reason.