True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.

There is no quibbling. You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.

natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

We have a Tenth Amendment.

STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS

Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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 People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

 

[Humorme]

There is no quibbling. You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.

natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

We have a Tenth Amendment.

STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS

Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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 People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Do you have any point? You just like attention?

 

[danielpalos]

natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

We have a Tenth Amendment.

STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS

Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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 People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Do you have any point? You just like attention?

Your simple surrender will be fine, gentlemen.

 

[Humorme]

STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS

Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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 People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Do you have any point? You just like attention?

Your simple surrender will be fine, gentlemen.

You are hilarious. You don't have any point, so you post absolute BULLSHIT until you think we're sick of the same nonsensical posts and then tell us tht you will accept our surrender. LMFAO.

Dude, for real. The United States Supreme Court has RULED you have an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS PURSUANT TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

 

[danielpalos]

Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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 People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Do you have any point? You just like attention?

Your simple surrender will be fine, gentlemen.

You are hilarious. You don't have any point, so you post absolute BULLSHIT until you think we're sick of the same nonsensical posts and then tell us tht you will accept our surrender. LMFAO.

Dude, for real. The United States Supreme Court has RULED you have an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS PURSUANT TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

Simple judicial forms of activism. There are no individual or natural rights in our federal Constitution or Second Amendment; y'all prove it Every time y'all try to ban any Person from keeping and bearing Arms, without Due Process.

 

[Auld Phart]

There is no quibbling. You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.

natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

We have a Tenth Amendment.

STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS

Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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 People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Still posting that lame talking point?


Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia

 

[Daryl Hunt]

it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.

Plural? Yes. Not collective. There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.

convicts are People, too?

Yes, they are. It's a separate discussion, but one I'd love to debate with you.

Under the Militia Act of 1792 Convicts are NOT Free Men therefore cannot be Citizens and cannot own, purchase nor possess firearms of any kind. And neither can anyone that isn't White, Male, Land Owners, or does not swear allegiance to the current Government of the Day. In otherwords, only about 8% of the population at any given time would be able to purchase, possess or own firearms of any kind if we used the same laws that our found fathers used.

Just a bit of information. The United States impounded weapons of the people that refused to swear allegiance to the newly formed United States even if they didn't fight or openly support the British during the conflict. And there were more people in the colonies that supported the British than the Revolutionaries. The French stated that there really wasn't that much of a difference between the Americans than the British only that the Americans were easier to get along with.

A few episodes of watching Death Valley Days (episodes of how the west was won - actual historical accounts) will clear this up for you. A guy would serve his time and a year later become sheriff. Convicts are people that are IN prison.

During the Colonial times, things were different. The definition of what was a Citizen was different than 100 years later. And it's was different 100 years later today. State laws do change.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

We have a Tenth Amendment.

STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS

Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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 People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Still posting that lame talking point?


Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia

The Federals don't have to right to neither give nor take any rights. it's the State that has that right.

 

[Auld Phart]

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

Back to that standard canard again? No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance. When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.

You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning. So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.

I can't help but ask, however, what do you get out of maintaining that ignorance?

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.

" the second clause."

Is where you show YOUR ignorance

 

[Auld Phart]

STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS

Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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 People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Still posting that lame talking point?


Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia

The Federals don't have to right to neither give nor take any rights. it's the State that has that right.

State law overrules the BIll of Rights?

since when?

 

[Auld Phart]

There is no quibbling. You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.

natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

We have a Tenth Amendment.

STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS

Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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 People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Here's a professor of law at UCLAs take on the second.




enjoy

 

[danielpalos]

natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

We have a Tenth Amendment.

STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS

Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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 People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Still posting that lame talking point?


Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

Back to that standard canard again? No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance. When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.

You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning. So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.

I can't help but ask, however, what do you get out of maintaining that ignorance?

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.

" the second clause."

Is where you show YOUR ignorance

the People is plural and collective, every time this issue comes up.

 

[danielpalos]

Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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 People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Still posting that lame talking point?


Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia

The Federals don't have to right to neither give nor take any rights. it's the State that has that right.

State law overrules the BIll of Rights?

since when?

Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates a sovereign, States' right.

 

[danielpalos]

natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

We have a Tenth Amendment.

STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS

Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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 People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Here's a professor of law at UCLAs take on the second.




enjoy

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

 

[WinterBorn]

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

Back to that standard canard again? No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance. When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.

You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning. So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.

I can't help but ask, however, what do you get out of maintaining that ignorance?

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.

" the second clause."

Is where you show YOUR ignorance

the People is plural and collective, every time this issue comes up.

No, still not a collective right. Just like the other amendments are not collective rights.

 

[danielpalos]

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

Back to that standard canard again? No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance. When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.

You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning. So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.

I can't help but ask, however, what do you get out of maintaining that ignorance?

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.

" the second clause."

Is where you show YOUR ignorance

the People is plural and collective, every time this issue comes up.

No, still not a collective right. Just like the other amendments are not collective rights.

yes, it is. all of our amendments are codified, collective rights of our Body Politic as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.

 

[Auld Phart]

STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS

Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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 People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Still posting that lame talking point?


Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, 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

and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.

 

[WinterBorn]

Back to that standard canard again? No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance. When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.

You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning. So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.

I can't help but ask, however, what do you get out of maintaining that ignorance?

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.

" the second clause."

Is where you show YOUR ignorance

the People is plural and collective, every time this issue comes up.

No, still not a collective right. Just like the other amendments are not collective rights.

yes, it is. all of our amendments are codified, collective rights of our Body Politic as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.

All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights. That is why they were written.

James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.

 

[danielpalos]

Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.

• "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 People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.

Still posting that lame talking point?


Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, 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

and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.

debunked by what? y'all have nothing but fallacy.