The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes, idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.

Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.

Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.

Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago

Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.

dailycaller.com

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.

A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.

Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.

We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.

Insist our legislators do their (paid) 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.

Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........

That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.

Oh, so you're saying that the government owes me some weapons?

Sure. Insist your legislators organize more militia (so you can get weapons qualified) and ensure we have no security problems in our free States.

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.

To the militia mobile!

 

[Rigby5]

If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes, idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.

Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.

Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.

Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago

Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.

dailycaller.com

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.

A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.

Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.

We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.

Insist our legislators do their (paid) 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.

Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........

That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.

To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.

And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.

 

[Rigby5]

Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation. Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance. Well, whatever floats your boat!

Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.

How is this an "ad hominem" argument?

Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy. You need a valid argument for rebuttal.

The English language, grammar and punctuation is NOT a valid argument? You really did skip grammar and punctuation in school, didn't you? But now you profess to be an authority on the English language? Really?

Yes, it is when you merely claim your unsubstantiated opinion without supporting it with a valid argument.

Where does it say you can ignore the first clause due to a comma?

Who is ignoring the first clause?

You're ignoring the purpose of the first clause and giving it some meaning that it does not have. Further ignoring the second clause. Your interpretation of the entire amendment requires you to resign weird meaning to each word.

My interpretation is quite plain and requires no twisted tortured interpretation.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state.

The word "being" is a form of the verb "is." You know, am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, become, feel, seem.

A well regulated militia IS necessary for the security of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and....etc.

in other words, to keep the states free, they need to be able to organize a militia in times of emergency. Because that militia is drawn from the entire population, and because of past practices of having private citizens bring their own arms to participate in a militia, we (the federal government) will not exercise authority over any aspect of private citizens keeping their private arms so that they can bear them at a time of need.

Simple. Practicable. Applicable. Does not require a tortured interpretation.

Why do you motherfuckers have to complicate the fuck out of everything when you know history and you know good and goddamn well what the intent was?

Why don't you motherfuckers just fucking admit exactly what we have been saying? You want to deprive us of the right to keep and bear arms and you are trying to interpret the Constitution in a way so that you can.

Do you understand that anybody who does that is a traitor and an enemy of the United States and its people.?

I understand you simply know nothing about the law. You cannot ignore the first clause. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

The first clause of the 2nd Amendment gives A reason why there should be no federal firearm laws.
But in no way does that at all suggest it is the ONLY reason why there should be no federal firearm laws.

I agree that the Intent and Purpose clause cannot be ignored or separated from that which it limits.

The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
Each state has different firearm needs and concerns, so it is not a federal matter in any way.
And many federal firearm laws, like prohibiting firearm ownership to ex-felons, seems totally illegal to me.

 

[danielpalos]

If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes, idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.

Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.

Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.

Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago

Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.

dailycaller.com

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.

A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.

Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.

We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.

Insist our legislators do their (paid) 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.

Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........

That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.

To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.

And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.

The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.

How did you reach that conclusion?

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]

If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes, idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.

Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.

Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.

Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago

Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.

dailycaller.com

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.

A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.

Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.

We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.

Insist our legislators do their (paid) 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.

Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........

That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.

To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.

And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.

The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.

Then since the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (private right), the government owes me some weapons.

 

[hadit]

The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.

How did you reach that conclusion?

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

How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?

 

[danielpalos]

If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes, idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.

Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.

Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.

Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago

Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.

dailycaller.com

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.

A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.

Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.

We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.

Insist our legislators do their (paid) 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.

Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........

That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.

To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.

And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.

The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.

Then since the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (private right), the government owes me some weapons.

It is a public right. Remember, right wingers, y'all allege no checks for Individuals from our general welfare clause.

 

[danielpalos]

The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.

How did you reach that conclusion?

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

How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?

It doesn't. The police power is a State's sovereign right. It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.

 

[hadit]

If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes, idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.

Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.

Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.

Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago

Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.

dailycaller.com

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.

A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.

Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.

We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.

Insist our legislators do their (paid) 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.

Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........

That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.

To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.

And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.

The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.

Then since the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (private right), the government owes me some weapons.

It is a public right. Remember, right wingers, y'all allege no checks for Individuals from our general welfare clause.

Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.

 

[hadit]

The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.

How did you reach that conclusion?

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

How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?

It doesn't. The police power is a State's sovereign right. It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.

It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.

 

[danielpalos]

Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.

Means nothing to me. Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court. Your fallacies are even less, impressive.

 

[danielpalos]

The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.

How did you reach that conclusion?

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

How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?

It doesn't. The police power is a State's sovereign right. It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.

It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.

Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes, idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.

Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.

Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.

Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago

Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.

dailycaller.com

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.

A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.

Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.

We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.

Insist our legislators do their (paid) 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.

Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........

That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.

To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.

And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.

The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.

Contrary to the plain language?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.

How did you reach that conclusion?

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

How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?

It doesn't. The police power is a State's sovereign right. It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.

It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.

Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.

But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes, idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.

Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.

Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.

Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago

Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.

dailycaller.com

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.

A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.

Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.

We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.

Insist our legislators do their (paid) 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.

Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........

That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.

To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.

And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.

The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.

Then since the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (private right), the government owes me some weapons.

It is a public right. Remember, right wingers, y'all allege no checks for Individuals from our general welfare clause.

A "public right" is no right at all. You may as well just say that there is no right.

The "people's food" only gets eaten by a select few.

The "people's house" only gets used by the rich and powerful.

Can I eat the "people's" food?

No. That food belongs to the people.

Well, I am a person. Why can't I eat it?

You are not the people.

Then, who gets to eat it?

The people. Not you.

 

[hadit]

The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.

How did you reach that conclusion?

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

How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?

It doesn't. The police power is a State's sovereign right. It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.

It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.

Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.

Whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed?

 

[frigidweirdo]

If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes, idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.

Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.

Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.

Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago

Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.

dailycaller.com

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.

A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.

Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.

We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.

Insist our legislators do their (paid) 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.

Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........

That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.

To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.

And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.

The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.

Then since the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (private right), the government owes me some weapons.

It is a public right. Remember, right wingers, y'all allege no checks for Individuals from our general welfare clause.

Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.

Well, technically the 2A is a limit on the powers of the Federal government.

The right is assumed to be individual.

In fact, it makes no sense as individual.

The point of the right to keep arms (the right to own weapons) was to stop the feds being able to de-arm the militia by taking the militia's weaponry.

The point of the right to bear arms (the right to be in the militia) was to stop the feds from stopping individual being in the militia.

Imagine if the militia had a right to be in the militia.

 

[hadit]

Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.

Means nothing to me. Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court. Your fallacies are even less, impressive.

Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes, idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.

Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.

Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.

Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago

Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.

dailycaller.com

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.

A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.

Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.

We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.

Insist our legislators do their (paid) 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.

Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........

That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.

To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.

And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.

The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.

Contrary to the plain language?

What plain language are you referring to? There are no Individual or singular terms plainly used in our Second Amendment.

Here is some plain language for you:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia