The Role of Government in Maintaining a Well Regulated Militia!?!

[Abatis]

NO, it doesn't, it's the last part of a sentence, the first part of that sentence is a precondition for the last part.

And again, and again, and again, and again, and again I'll ask you to cite and quote where that is represented in any writings of the framers or the determinations of SCOTUS. The booming, hollow barrel of your cranium does not count as an authoritative source.

That's a precondition, why was the class cancelled?
Why did they bother to include that bit of information?
The same with a bomb scare.
Why bother?

Why bother responding if you never have any intention of answering my questions?

Automobiles were NOT intended to kill something............GUNS are.

It's an exercise in grammar, specifically pertaining to dependent clauses. It was not intended to elicit one of your many diversions.

.

 

[progressive hunter]

And again, and again, and again, and again, and again I'll ask you to cite and quote where that is represented in any writings of the framers or the determinations of SCOTUS. The booming, hollow barrel of your cranium does not count as an authoritative source.



Why bother responding if you never have any intention of answering my questions?



It's an exercise in grammar, specifically pertaining to dependent clauses. It was not intended to elicit one of your many diversions.

.

youre asking a lot from someone with very little to offer,,

 

[Abatis]

it would have said the right of militia members to keep and bear arms,,

THAT'S what the constitution says, you fucking moron.

OMG.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

For someone who is so emphatic about what the Constitution "says", it is not encouraging to see you tell such a bald lie when the words of the Constitution soundly rejects your imaginative "reading".

The protected entity is not the militia; the entity the 2ndA expressly protects are "the people", a much broader class that those who were obligated in law to enroll in the militia, the "free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years".

No enrolled militia member has any need for a "right to keep and bear arms" because everything he does with the arm he chooses to muster with, is an obligation in law. This is the logical and legal hurdle you refuse to address, because you are unable to defend your ridiculous "reading" in the face of those facts. You can never clear this hurdle into the realm of constitutional legitimacy . . .

.

 

[progressive hunter]

For someone who is so emphatic about what the Constitution "says", it is not encouraging to see you tell such a bald lie when the words of the Constitution soundly rejects your imaginative "reading".

The protected entity is not the militia; the entity the 2ndA expressly protects are "the people", a much broader class that those who were obligated in law to enroll in the militia, the "free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years".

No enrolled militia member has any need for a "right to keep and bear arms" because everything he does with the arm he chooses to muster with, is an obligation in law. This is the logical and legal hurdle you refuse to address, because you are unable to defend your ridiculous "reading" in the face of those facts. You can never clear this hurdle into the realm of constitutional legitimacy . . .

.

are you talking to me???

if so why,, I have made it clear the right is for the person not a militia member,,,

 

[Abatis]

There are no inherent or unalienable "rights".
Those who gave you those "rights" can easily take them away.

We have "rights" given to us by the government.
Every stupid comment you gave about "rights", is originated in a government court or document.
SO.............................you're dumbass thinks they are "natural", "inherent" or "unalienable".

Poor teabagger.

It doesn't matter if your modern, leftist politics force you to deny the principles of this nation's founding and establishment under the Constitution.

What matters is the SCOTUS, the body duty bound to enforce the Constitution and the inviolate, unchangeable principles it is established upon, respects the contract that demands the government treat our original, fundamental rights as pre-existing government, not created or granted by the Constitution thus in no manner dependent on the Constitution for their existence.

You need not expend any of your limited cognition trying to deny and disparage the principles that the government is contractually bound to respect as absolutely unchangeable for as long as this Constitution is in force.

 

[Abatis]

are you talking to me???

if so why,, I have made it clear the right is for the person not a militia member,,,

I quoted you for the truth it spoke, for context of the goofy leftist's statement about what (he feels) the Constitution says . . .

 

[Abatis]

The COURT'S "interpretation"?

Yes, that's what SCOTUS does and when it gives its interpretation it is what the Constitution means and the law of the land.

I truly hate The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) and want to see that case revisited and overruled. That action would reinvigorate the 14thA's "privileges or immunities" clause and bring about true constitutional recognition and protection for unenumerated rights . . .

I am smarter than you because I understand that just because I hate the decision, that has no bearing whatsoever on whether Slaughterhouse is the law and the 14thA's "privileges or immunities" clause is still moot . . .

The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Do you disagree with that "interpretation"?

The STATE.............Pennsylvania.

Do you exhaust yourself trying so hard to miss the point?

Again................the COURT'S opinion.

No, actually all that is my opinion, my commentary, garnered from extensive study of the writings of the founders / framers, the debates on the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Court's determinations. What do you disagree with and if you do, why (providing legal argument, not your usual wishcasting of what you would prefer things to be).

 

[Smokin' OP]

And again, and again, and again, and again, and again I'll ask you to cite and quote where that is represented in any writings of the framers or the determinations of SCOTUS. The booming, hollow barrel of your cranium does not count as an authoritative source.

IN WORDS, you fucking dumbass.
Words have meanings.
That's why they are spoken and written.

Why bother responding if you never have any intention of answering my questions?



It's an exercise in grammar, specifically pertaining to dependent clauses. It was not intended to elicit one of your many diversions.

.

No, it was an exercise in gobbledygook.

"A well maintained road system being necessary to efficiently commute to and from work, the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed."

WTF is that?

 

[Smokin' OP]

For someone who is so emphatic about what the Constitution "says", it is not encouraging to see you tell such a bald lie when the words of the Constitution soundly rejects your imaginative "reading".

Sure..............As you ignore the first part of the sentence.

The protected entity is not the militia; the entity the 2ndA expressly protects are "the people", a much broader class that those who were obligated in law to enroll in the militia, the "free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years".

Then why is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" included?

No enrolled militia member has any need for a "right to keep and bear arms" because everything he does with the arm he chooses to muster with, is an obligation in law.

Yes they do, if they were enrolled in the militia.

This is the logical and legal hurdle you refuse to address, because you are unable to defend your ridiculous "reading" in the face of those facts. You can never clear this hurdle into the realm of constitutional legitimacy . . .

.

You just ignore words.
If you have to replace/repair anything electrical on your car do you just ignore the instructions to disconnect the battery first?

 

[Smokin' OP]

It doesn't matter if your modern, leftist politics force you to deny the principles of this nation's founding and establishment under the Constitution.

You seem to.

What matters is the SCOTUS,

Really?
The same ones that take bribes?
The same ones getting sweetheart "business" deals?
Then don't disclose them, when they are required to do so?

the body duty bound to enforce the Constitution and the inviolate, unchangeable principles it is established upon, respects the contract that demands the government treat our original, fundamental rights as pre-existing government, not created or granted by the Constitution thus in no manner dependent on the Constitution for their existence.

What principles?
Theirs?

You need not expend any of your limited cognition trying to deny and disparage the principles that the government is contractually bound to respect as absolutely unchangeable for as long as this Constitution is in force.

WTF?
So............what's up with the 27th AMENDMENT?
New laws being passed?
Old ones being abolished?

Seems as though their "principles" do change.

 

[Abatis]

youre asking a lot from someone with very little to offer,,

In 30+ years of enjoying the debate of gun rights vs. gun control, I do not expect an anti-gunner to provide any reasoned, supported argument, especially since Heller, Heller broke their brains. Through the 90's and early 2000's, when the lower courts were on their side, and I was arguing the "losing" side, anti's could muster supported argument, now it is unhinged emotionalism.

Today, I do not expect any active and vocal gun control advocate who is compelled to advance their illegitimacy and illegal laws, will ever be swayed by any philosophical, historical or legal argument . . . I do not post to them or for them; they have a head of cement impervious to reasoned argument.

I do challenge them because I really post for the interested lurker or reader who is not an ideologue but just wants to read effective debate. When someone like Smokin' OP continues to just advance his single-track BS and avoid and dissemble whenever they are challenged, it is good for the gun rights side; the vapidness of the anti-gun argument is exposed . . . It's why I post like I do, exactingly quoting and rebutting, point by point avoiding nothing and comprehensively rebutting each point they raise because every time an anti speaks, it is an opportunity to publicly dismantle and destroy their ideology.

.

 

[Abatis]

IN WORDS, you fucking dumbass.
Words have meanings.
That's why they are spoken and written.

But those words cannot be divorced from the philosophical foundations behind them. There are many foundational principles that the 2ndA is based on, your positions demand the violation of all of them.

No, it was an exercise in gobbledygook.

"A well maintained road system being necessary to efficiently commute to and from work, the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed."

WTF is that?

It is a sentence of identical grammatical form to the 2nd Amendment. It is an exercise in intellectual integrity, to challenge you to see if you invent the same restrictions from that dependent clause that you invent for the declaratory, dependent clause of the 2nd Amendment to be applied on the independent clause. Here's another one, let's see how you dissemble and avoid the challenges here:

A well educated electorate being necessary for the perpetuation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.​

Can only registered voters (the electorate) keep and read books?
Can only those books deemed "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" be owned and read?
Can books deemed NOT "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" be banned?
Can books that openly threaten the "perpetuation of a free state" be banned?
Can only those with an government certified IQ above 120 and deemed "well educated" by the government, keep and read books?

Expecting to fully understand the 2nd when one is purposefully ignorant of the principles behind it and the rules of the provision's construction, is folly and leads to exactly the positions you have posited.

You are giving the 2ndA a cursory reading applying modern definitions and inferences to the lexicon of the founders and that leads you to incorrect opinions on the meaning and the interpretation of the 2nd.

And again, another legal point upon which your position fails is that in order to argue that certain words impart conditions, qualifications and exceptions on the right, requires one to hold that the right emanates from those words and that construction.

In arguing that, one is arguing against the fundamental constitutional principle of inherent, retained rights, that rights are not granted, conferred or established by the Bill of Rights and you must ignore direct Supreme Court precedent reaffirming that principle multiple times.

If, as SCOTUS has said, the right to arms is not granted by the Constitution and the right to arms is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, how can the words upon which the right DOES NOT DEPEND be "interpreted" to dictate the nature, scope and extent of the right to arms?

.

 

[Abatis]

Sure..............As you ignore the first part of the sentence.

Again, not ignore, just relegating it to its proper function; as a statement of principle that is legally inert, it has no positive law effect or action. The 2ndA is negative law, it demands inaction!

Then why is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" included?

I told you, because the provision originally came from the states and they wanted to see the same principles they had in the state constitutions, represented in the federal Bill of Rights, addressing federal government overreach in the issue of military power.

Your position demands we accept that the expressly stated origination and ultimate purpose of the Bill of Rights, was an outright lie, or worse, a cruel deception foisted on the states and the people!

How does your "interpretation" that the 2ndA empowers the federal government with undefined, nebulous powers to dictate to the states and the people who shall be the federally approved arms keepers and bearers, align with the stated description of the types of clauses and intent of the Bill of Rights?

• THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Yes they do, if they were enrolled in the militia.

That doesn't explain why they need any recognition of a "right to keep and bear arms" . . . Everything a militia member does with his gun is an obligation in law and obedience to law; how is that an exercise of a "right" or require an exception of government power to fulfill?

You cannot explain how your position makes any sense legally . . .

Your position is logically and legally absurd.

You just ignore words.

That is fucking hilarious.
You invent a myriad of actions for words that have no basis in law.

 

[Abatis]

You seem to.

Gibberish . . .

Really?
The same ones that take bribes?
The same ones getting sweetheart "business" deals?
Then don't disclose them, when they are required to do so?

More gibberish . . .

What principles?
Theirs?

No, let's begin with the principle that all power originally resides in the people and the intermingled principles of express thus limited, conferred powers and retained rights. Again, your positions and arguments demand we violate those principles.

WTF?
So............what's up with the 27th AMENDMENT?

Huh? What became the 27thA was one of the original 12 proposed amendments transmitted to the states in 1789. The first two proposed amendments were not ratified in 1791.

New laws being passed?
Old ones being abolished?

Seems as though their "principles" do change.

WTF are you talking about?

What I'm talking about is that because the powers granted to the federal government are expressly enumerated and thus limited, means that government cannot act to retroactively alter the principles of its establishment. SCOTUS has given us guidelines to work with on these maxims you ignore and violate:

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.​

​

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.​

​

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"​

​

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)​

Do you try to be in complete opposition to everything this nation is founded upon or it that just an unavoidable product of you embracing un-American leftist politics?

 

[Smokin' OP]

But those words cannot be divorced from the philosophical foundations behind them. There are many foundational principles that the 2ndA is based on, your positions demand the violation of all of them.

"Philosophical foundations"?
The ones you ignore.

Here are the bills proposed before the 2nd amendment was finally enacted.

James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Now, THAT'S what teabaggers and the courts really wanted passed.
So....Are you going to ignore 3/4 of that bill too?
Really focus on that first sentence.

Here is one from later, July 28.
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms".

Then the final version.
"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".

IF ""The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country", passed as the final version that passed, we wouldn't even be arguing.

It is a sentence of identical grammatical form to the 2nd Amendment. It is an exercise in intellectual integrity, to challenge you to see if you invent the same restrictions from that dependent clause that you invent for the declaratory, dependent clause of the 2nd Amendment to be applied on the independent clause. Here's another one, let's see how you dissemble and avoid the challenges here:

A well educated electorate being necessary for the perpetuation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.​

Can only registered voters (the electorate) keep and read books?

YES.
"During the era of slavery in the United States, the education of enslaved African Americans, except for religious instruction, was discouraged, and eventually made illegal in most of the Southern states.

Can only those books deemed "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" be owned and read?

As the fallacy is read in context..........YES.

Can books deemed NOT "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" be banned?

See above.

Can books that openly threaten the "perpetuation of a free state" be banned?

See above.

Can only those with an government certified IQ above 120 and deemed "well educated" by the government, keep and read books?

Well how would a person even attain that without.........READING?

Expecting to fully understand the 2nd when one is purposefully ignorant of the principles behind it and the rules of the provision's construction, is folly and leads to exactly the positions you have posited.

BS.
Your entire premise is a folly.

You are giving the 2ndA a cursory reading applying modern definitions and inferences to the lexicon of the founders and that leads you to incorrect opinions on the meaning and the interpretation of the 2nd.

That's your opinion.

And again, another legal point upon which your position fails is that in order to argue that certain words impart conditions, qualifications and exceptions on the right, requires one to hold that the right emanates from those words and that construction.

In arguing that, one is arguing against the fundamental constitutional principle of inherent, retained rights, that rights are not granted, conferred or established by the Bill of Rights and you must ignore direct Supreme Court precedent reaffirming that principle multiple times.

There are no
"Inherent" or "Retained" rights.
Someone GAVE you those "rights" then called them retained or inherent.

If, as SCOTUS has said, the right to arms is not granted by the Constitution

Then WTF did they base their decision on?
And why do teabaggers wash, rinse and repeat........" the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"?

and the right to arms is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, how can the words upon which the right DOES NOT DEPEND be "interpreted" to dictate the nature, scope and extent of the right to arms?

.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Gibberish . . .



More gibberish . . .


No, let's begin with the principle that all power originally resides in the people

The government.

and the intermingled principles of express thus limited, conferred powers and retained rights.

'Rights given by............the government.

Again, your positions and arguments demand we violate those principles.



Huh? What became the 27thA was one of the original 12 proposed amendments transmitted to the states in 1789. The first two proposed amendments were not ratified in 1791.

It doesn't matter, the constitution was changed.
Something you stated............couldn't be.

"You need not expend any of your limited cognition trying to deny and disparage the principles that the government is contractually bound to respect as absolutely unchangeable for as long as this Constitution is in force"

WTF are you talking about?

What I'm talking about is that because the powers granted to the federal government are expressly enumerated and thus limited, means that government cannot act to retroactively alter the principles of its establishment. SCOTUS has given us guidelines to work with on these maxims you ignore and violate:

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.​

See above.

​

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.​

​

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"​

​

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)​

Do you try to be in complete opposition to everything this nation is founded upon or it that just an unavoidable product of you embracing un-American leftist politics?

THAT............would be Trump and his cult.

 

[Abatis]

"Philosophical foundations"?
The ones you ignore.

The ones I am forcing you to acknowledge -- that you repeatedly deny, e.g., that there are no inherent rights.

Here are the bills proposed before the 2nd amendment was finally enacted.

That the "religiously scrupulous" language was struck proves my arguments, not yours. A provision of negative law, demanding government not act is not the place to put positive law, especially in a provision that had nothing to do with militia operations.

The other argument against that clause was it could allow "constructive powers" that it could be employed to argue it gives Congress power to declare who is religiously scrupulous (to the point of everyone), and force disarmament of the citizenry.

Now, THAT'S what teabaggers and the courts really wanted passed.

Huh? WTF is that supposed to mean?

So....Are you going to ignore 3/4 of that bill too?

Uhhhhhh, yeah . . . especially because that language was rejected.

Here is one from later, July 28.
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms".

The word "best" was replaced with "necessary" because again, since this was negative law, demanding government not act, it was feared the word "best" could work to negate the clause 12 power to raise and support the national armed forces.

Then the final version.
"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".

IF ""The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country", passed as the final version that passed, we wouldn't even be arguing.

If, if, if . . . You refuse to acknowledge the principles behind what was passed, you hardly have any competency to debate what was rejected.

YES.
"During the era of slavery in the United States, the education of enslaved African Americans, except for religious instruction, was discouraged, and eventually made illegal in most of the Southern states.

The Bill of Rights was not ever intended to be enforced on the states. It was the ineffectiveness of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Freedman's Acts, restraining the discriminatory laws of the rebel states (including their anti-gun laws) that made the 14th Amendment an imperative.

As the fallacy is read in context..........YES.

No

See above.

Wrong.

See above.

Wrong.

Well how would a person even attain that without.........READING?

Correct, it protects a pre-existing right that was not granted by the enumeration but merely recognized and secured from illegitmate government action by the provision. You violate that principle.

BS.
Your entire premise is a folly.

But you cannot offer any argument based in law, why it is wrong. All you have is your malformed conclusions based in misguided, corrupted by 20th Century leftist politics personal opinions.

Marx wasn't a founding father . . . The oppositional arguments the founders / framers worked with and chose from, did not espouse any of the political positions you embrace today.

That's your opinion.

Based in extensive study, opinion you cannot refute with any legal argument.

There are no
"Inherent" or "Retained" rights.
Someone GAVE you those "rights" then called them retained or inherent.

Rights are not tangible transactional things. yes, they reside as philosophical principles but they are recognized and enforced by the contract known as the US Constituion. It doesn't matter if you reject the premises of inherent rights and what that demands of the US government, what matters is the government recognizes them and is contractually bound to treat them as real and binding. See the codification of Federalist argument AGAINST a bill of rights we see as the 9th and 10th Amendments . . . What do those Amendments mean to you, what does the word "retained" as a descriptor of the nature of rights, mean to you?

Then WTF did they base their decision on?

The foundational principles that all power originally resided in the people's hands and the government only possesses the limited, express powers granted to it -- with some powers formally and expressly called out as "rights" (exceptions of powers not granted, see Federalist 84) and forever held inviolate.

And why do teabaggers wash, rinse and repeat........" the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"?

Because that is the "restrictive clause" that binds government action against the right . . . It is repeatedly quoted by gun rights supporters because anti-liberty people like you are incessantly trying to negate that unconditional guarantee and qualify the unqualified reservation by the people forbidding government to act.

You quoted my question but did not otherwise acknowledge it and certainly did not answer it:

"(since) the right to arms is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, how can the words upon which the right DOES NOT DEPEND be "interpreted" to dictate the nature, scope and extent of the right to arms?"​

Care to answer that question?

.

 

[progressive hunter]

Then why is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" included?

because it says what we need and why we need it,, no where does it say its means you have to be a member of the militia to possess a weapon,,

or it would say "right of militia members instead or right of the people,,

its a qualifier not a precondition,,

if english was your first language you would know that,,

 

[Failzero]

Meanwhile I Build Firearms & Carry & train Legally