The Right To Bear Arms

[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.

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.

So you deny even that which you quote ad nauseum, which clearly states that the militia is the whole people, something you emphasize in the quote. Yet again you destroy your own argument for us. And you're also again adding things to the second amendment that aren't there. Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is the PEOPLE whose right to bear arms is protected, not the militia (which you also claim is the PEOPLE). The only way you can arrive at your conclusion is by adding things that just are not there.

 

[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?

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.

I wish for once you would realize what you're trying desperately to say but continually mangle. First, you keep quoting the Illinois state constitution. Now you're willing to throw it in the trash as an "activist Court".

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? One other question, is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

That is the dumbest fuckiing shit I have ever heard.

You are taking at least 10 leaps in logic to get where you are.

Holy **** you are stupid.

OUR (not your) 2nd Amendment does not clearly state "a well regulated militia of the whole people" dumbass. It says NOTHING about organization.

Making shit up.

Has your illegal ass ever heard of Minutemen? Answer the ******* question. Failure to do so proves you know jack ******* shit.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

ZERO to do with the 2A, you ignorant ****** ****.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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?

YOU ARE ******* STUPID!!!

The 2A has ZERO to do with a standing army and you faggots.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The second amendment was put into the consitution to fight fascist like you bastards. Our founders knew what big government dictators were all about.

Hell no it isn't out dated or obsolete.

It is if Patriots are closet sissies...which appears to be the case.

 

[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.

So you deny even that which you quote ad nauseum, which clearly states that the militia is the whole people, something you emphasize in the quote. Yet again you destroy your own argument for us. And you're also again adding things to the second amendment that aren't there. Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is the PEOPLE whose right to bear arms is protected, not the militia (which you also claim is the PEOPLE). The only way you can arrive at your conclusion is by adding things that just are not there.

The unorganized militia or criminals of the whole people may be Infringed unlike the Organized and well regulated militia of the whole people.

 

[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.

I wish for once you would realize what you're trying desperately to say but continually mangle. First, you keep quoting the Illinois state constitution. Now you're willing to throw it in the trash as an "activist Court".

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? One other question, is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?

Because I actually understand the Federalist Papers and the concepts they explain, unlike the Right-Wing who only have right wing fantasy to work with. Only right wingers appeal to Ignorance about Every Thing, even their own propaganda and rhetoric.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five

 

[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.

That is the dumbest fuckiing shit I have ever heard.

You are taking at least 10 leaps in logic to get where you are.

Holy **** you are stupid.

OUR (not your) 2nd Amendment does not clearly state "a well regulated militia of the whole people" dumbass. It says NOTHING about organization.

Making shit up.

Has your illegal ass ever heard of Minutemen? Answer the ******* question. Failure to do so proves you know jack ******* shit.

Simply because You say so without any valid argument to back it up? You are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.

 

[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.

ZERO to do with the 2A, you ignorant ****** ****.

Right wingers have zero to do with the 2A.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

I wish for once you would realize what you're trying desperately to say but continually mangle. First, you keep quoting the Illinois state constitution. Now you're willing to throw it in the trash as an "activist Court".

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? One other question, is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?

Because I actually understand the Federalist Papers and the concepts they explain, unlike the Right-Wing who only have right wing fantasy to work with. Only right wingers appeal to Ignorance about Every Thing, even their own propaganda and rhetoric.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five

You don't understand shit.

Minutemen?

 

[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?

YOU ARE ******* STUPID!!!

The 2A has ZERO to do with a standing army and you faggots.

Proof, right wingers have only fantasy and not even a consistent approach with their own propaganda and rhetoric.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 

[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.

I wish for once you would realize what you're trying desperately to say but continually mangle. First, you keep quoting the Illinois state constitution. Now you're willing to throw it in the trash as an "activist Court".

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? One other question, is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?

Because I actually understand the Federalist Papers and the concepts they explain, unlike the Right-Wing who only have right wing fantasy to work with. Only right wingers appeal to Ignorance about Every Thing, even their own propaganda and rhetoric.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five

You don't understand shit.

Minutemen?

You mean the well regulated militia who could be ready at a minute's notice, unlike the unorganized militia which proved itself worthless to the security of our free States in recent times?

Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies, comprising the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War. They were known for being ready at a minute's notice, hence the name.[1] Minutemen provided a highly mobile, rapidly deployed force that enabled the colonies to respond immediately to war threats.

The minutemen were among the first to fight in the American Revolution. Their teams constituted about a quarter of the entire militia. They were generally younger and more mobile--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen

Minutemen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some towns in Massachusetts had a long history of designating a portion of their militia as minutemen, with "minute companies" constituting special units within the militia system whose members underwent additional training and held themselves ready to turn out rapidly for emergencies, "at a minute's notice" and hence their name. Other towns, such as Lexington, preferred to keep their entire militia in a single unit.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

I wish for once you would realize what you're trying desperately to say but continually mangle. First, you keep quoting the Illinois state constitution. Now you're willing to throw it in the trash as an "activist Court".

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? One other question, is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?

Because I actually understand the Federalist Papers and the concepts they explain, unlike the Right-Wing who only have right wing fantasy to work with. Only right wingers appeal to Ignorance about Every Thing, even their own propaganda and rhetoric.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five

While I am not responding to every post because I would just be repeating myself, I do want to make a point here.
The Federalist Papers are not written by the good guys like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc.
The Federalist Papers were written by Hamilton and Madison, the 2 who wanted a much stronger federal government than anyone else, and wanted less protection for individual rights.

In general you will find that it is right wingers who are the most "law and order" and agree with the Federalist Papers the most on strong central government.
In contrast, I am more of a left wing, progressive, liberal, and strongly dislike strong federal powers, and instead prefer a decentralized or almost anarchistic state.

In fact, gun control has always been a right wing opinion, where the first gun controls was to prevent Blacks, immigrants, and labor organizers from being armed. The next big gun control bout was around 1986 after Reagan got shot by Hinkley.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

I wish for once you would realize what you're trying desperately to say but continually mangle. First, you keep quoting the Illinois state constitution. Now you're willing to throw it in the trash as an "activist Court".

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? One other question, is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?

Because I actually understand the Federalist Papers and the concepts they explain, unlike the Right-Wing who only have right wing fantasy to work with. Only right wingers appeal to Ignorance about Every Thing, even their own propaganda and rhetoric.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five

You don't understand shit.

Minutemen?

You mean the well regulated militia who could be ready at a minute's notice, unlike the unorganized militia which proved itself worthless to the security of our free States in recent times?

Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies, comprising the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War. They were known for being ready at a minute's notice, hence the name.[1] Minutemen provided a highly mobile, rapidly deployed force that enabled the colonies to respond immediately to war threats.

The minutemen were among the first to fight in the American Revolution. Their teams constituted about a quarter of the entire militia. They were generally younger and more mobile--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen

Minutemen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some towns in Massachusetts had a long history of designating a portion of their militia as minutemen, with "minute companies" constituting special units within the militia system whose members underwent additional training and held themselves ready to turn out rapidly for emergencies, "at a minute's notice" and hence their name. Other towns, such as Lexington, preferred to keep their entire militia in a single unit.

I disagree.
The Minutemen were totally unorganized.
They did not wear uniform, were not paid, and were totally made up of volunteers who were not under any formal contract or commitment.

Read your own quote better:
{,,, Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies, comprising the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War. ...}

Civilian colonists, self-trained, and partisan, definitely means unorganized militia.,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

I wish for once you would realize what you're trying desperately to say but continually mangle. First, you keep quoting the Illinois state constitution. Now you're willing to throw it in the trash as an "activist Court".

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? One other question, is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?

Because I actually understand the Federalist Papers and the concepts they explain, unlike the Right-Wing who only have right wing fantasy to work with. Only right wingers appeal to Ignorance about Every Thing, even their own propaganda and rhetoric.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five

While I am not responding to every post because I would just be repeating myself, I do want to make a point here.
The Federalist Papers are not written by the good guys like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc.
The Federalist Papers were written by Hamilton and Madison, the 2 who wanted a much stronger federal government than anyone else, and wanted less protection for individual rights.

In general you will find that it is right wingers who are the most "law and order" and agree with the Federalist Papers the most on strong central government.
In contract, I am more of a left wing, progressive, liberal, and strongly dislike strong federal powers, and instead prefer a decentralized or almost anarchistic state.

In fact, gun control has always been a right wing opinion, where the first gun controls was to prevent Blacks, immigrants, and labor organizers from being armed. The next big gun control bout was around 1986 after Reagan got shot by Hinkley.

Agreed. The authoritarian right is all about guns for me but not for thee.

I too consider myself a liberal.

The label has somewhat lost its meaning.

 

[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.

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.

So you deny even that which you quote ad nauseum, which clearly states that the militia is the whole people, something you emphasize in the quote. Yet again you destroy your own argument for us. And you're also again adding things to the second amendment that aren't there. Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is the PEOPLE whose right to bear arms is protected, not the militia (which you also claim is the PEOPLE). The only way you can arrive at your conclusion is by adding things that just are not there.

The unorganized militia or criminals of the whole people may be Infringed unlike the Organized and well regulated militia of the whole people.

The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. You have to add things to make it different. Subsequent case law has denied felons the right to bear arms, but the amendment does not say that. The amendment is clear, the right to bear arms is an individual right.

 

[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?

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.

I wish for once you would realize what you're trying desperately to say but continually mangle. First, you keep quoting the Illinois state constitution. Now you're willing to throw it in the trash as an "activist Court".

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? One other question, is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?

Because I actually understand the Federalist Papers and the concepts they explain, unlike the Right-Wing who only have right wing fantasy to work with. Only right wingers appeal to Ignorance about Every Thing, even their own propaganda and rhetoric.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five

Is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?

 

[danielpalos]

I disagree.
The Minutemen were totally unorganized.
They did not wear uniform, were not paid, and were totally made up of volunteers who were not under any formal contract or commitment.

Read your own quote better:
{,,, Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies, comprising the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War. ...}

Civilian colonists, self-trained, and partisan, definitely means unorganized militia.,

Although the terms militia and minutemen are sometimes used interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided difference between the two. Militia were men in arms formed to protect their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile and able to assemble quickly. Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers.

Minutemen

A historical overview of the contributions of the minutemen to the American Revolution and earlier conflicts

www.ushistory.org

 

[danielpalos]

The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.

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

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.