True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

[Darkwind]

True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

Get back to us when you learn your words.

Its not laments, its layman. It means someone without special knowledge of a particular subject.

That definition fits your childish attempt at redefining the Second to justify your fear.

 

[Auld Phart]

you seem to be telling stories...


Worthy of Mother Goose

All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

"The right" is singular. That is what the 2nd amendment guarantees to "the people", which is plural. It is not even limited to militia. That is why they used the word "militia" in the first clause and the word "people" in the second clause.

It is a right guaranteed to the people.

the militia and the people are plural.

Congrats. You passed 4th grade grammar.

But that has nothing to do with what I said, does it? The fact that "militia" was used in the first clause and "people" was used in the second clause shows they meant the right to keep and bear arms is for the people, not just the militia. Or they would have used "militia" in both places.

No, they wouldn't. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the whole People.

The right wing is simply, reading comprehension challenged.

The militia was able bodied males, between the ages of 16-45.

until you can disprove that, WITH A LINK, you're talking out your ass.

 

[danielpalos]

All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

"The right" is singular. That is what the 2nd amendment guarantees to "the people", which is plural. It is not even limited to militia. That is why they used the word "militia" in the first clause and the word "people" in the second clause.

It is a right guaranteed to the people.

the militia and the people are plural.

Congrats. You passed 4th grade grammar.

But that has nothing to do with what I said, does it? The fact that "militia" was used in the first clause and "people" was used in the second clause shows they meant the right to keep and bear arms is for the people, not just the militia. Or they would have used "militia" in both places.

No, they wouldn't. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the whole People.

The right wing is simply, reading comprehension challenged.

The militia was able bodied males, between the ages of 16-45.

until you can disprove that, WITH A LINK, you're talking out your ass.

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.

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

 

[Auld Phart]

"The right" is singular. That is what the 2nd amendment guarantees to "the people", which is plural. It is not even limited to militia. That is why they used the word "militia" in the first clause and the word "people" in the second clause.

It is a right guaranteed to the people.

the militia and the people are plural.

Congrats. You passed 4th grade grammar.

But that has nothing to do with what I said, does it? The fact that "militia" was used in the first clause and "people" was used in the second clause shows they meant the right to keep and bear arms is for the people, not just the militia. Or they would have used "militia" in both places.

No, they wouldn't. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the whole People.

The right wing is simply, reading comprehension challenged.

The militia was able bodied males, between the ages of 16-45.

until you can disprove that, WITH A LINK, you're talking out your ass.

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.

You're still talking out your ass.

show me a link describing the actual makeup of a militia in that era.

 

[danielpalos]

the militia and the people are plural.

Congrats. You passed 4th grade grammar.

But that has nothing to do with what I said, does it? The fact that "militia" was used in the first clause and "people" was used in the second clause shows they meant the right to keep and bear arms is for the people, not just the militia. Or they would have used "militia" in both places.

No, they wouldn't. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the whole People.

The right wing is simply, reading comprehension challenged.

The militia was able bodied males, between the ages of 16-45.

until you can disprove that, WITH A LINK, you're talking out your ass.

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.

You're still talking out your ass.

show me a link describing the actual makeup of a militia in that era.

Projecting much, right wingers? Only the clueless and the Causeless have to make excuses and appeal to ignorance.

This is Article Twelve of the New York State Constitution:

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.

 

[Auld Phart]

Congrats. You passed 4th grade grammar.

But that has nothing to do with what I said, does it? The fact that "militia" was used in the first clause and "people" was used in the second clause shows they meant the right to keep and bear arms is for the people, not just the militia. Or they would have used "militia" in both places.

No, they wouldn't. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the whole People.

The right wing is simply, reading comprehension challenged.

The militia was able bodied males, between the ages of 16-45.

until you can disprove that, WITH A LINK, you're talking out your ass.

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.

You're still talking out your ass.

show me a link describing the actual makeup of a militia in that era.

Projecting much, right wingers? Only the clueless and the Causeless have to make excuses and appeal to ignorance.

This is Article Twelve of the New York State Constitution:

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.

Still dodging the question.

try again...

with facts

 

[danielpalos]

No, they wouldn't. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the whole People.

The right wing is simply, reading comprehension challenged.

The militia was able bodied males, between the ages of 16-45.

until you can disprove that, WITH A LINK, you're talking out your ass.

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.

You're still talking out your ass.

show me a link describing the actual makeup of a militia in that era.

Projecting much, right wingers? Only the clueless and the Causeless have to make excuses and appeal to ignorance.

This is Article Twelve of the New York State Constitution:

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.

Still dodging the question.

try again...

with facts

nothing but diversion? words have to mean something.

Article Twelve of the New York State Constitution:

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

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

 

[Humorme]

the People consist of far more than those eligible to join a militia

irrelevant, when it concerns the security of a free State.

individual rights are in State Constitutions.

"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 fact that everyone not allowed to be in in a militia has no right to own arms, is IRRREVELANT?

You keep spewing the same crap.


Mason was one of many in the debates, why don't you quote someone else?

can't find anyone that agrees with you?

You do know even HIS quote makes you look like a fool, don't you?

"It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

the Militia was NOT the whole people.

It was only MEN, between the ages of 16-45.

anyone that would quote him is a fool.

This is where he was debating that concept, dear:

George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

I'm aware of that, jack...

was he talking to himself?

No one else discussing it?

No one had counterpoints?

This is a State supreme law of the land. As the common denominator for the common law, it makes common sense, for the common defense:

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 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.

The right wing is simply being silly with the natural and individual rights angle.

Is there a reason that you cannot produce a single, solitary case upon which to base your debunked theory?

You want to call people silly. Based upon what? Let the United States Supreme Court be your guide:

"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. . . Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature, by a private act, affecting particular persons ONLY, can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another?"

VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

The United States Supreme Court has so ruled... and EARLY in our nation's history. You are arguing with the United States Supreme Court in the earliest of precedents here. Note that decision was RULED on in 1795. You've made your arguments, called others silly, avoided giving direct answers to questions asked of you, and have failed to provide even one sentence from any source that calls what you've been told into question.

Furthermore, everything you've said is cryptic and non-responsive. You don't have a point; EVERYBODY that has offered an opinion, has shown, by factual information, that you are wrong. So, what's your point... other than to divert attention to babysitting you?

Nobody needs an angle on this. You've been proven wrong. Deal with it.

 

[Humorme]

just this one:

"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

It is the whole people, except for a few public officials

nope

Not then, not now

yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.

no age limits?

no gender limits?

you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?

Not having served in a militia, danielpalos seems to not be able to back up his / her statements. Furthermore, he / she wants to lecture everybody about where your individual Rights come from. Let's check out this article:

"Q:
What is the definition of individual rights?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
Individual rights is defined as the freedom to act, work, and behave without retribution bestowed upon members of an organization through legal, regulatory and societal standards, according to BussinessDictionary.com. Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life.


Individual rights can be constitutional rights, such as those liberties granted to American citizens in the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In the USA, individual natural rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution include personal security, personal liberty, such as the right to practice one's religion and personal property rights.

Human rights are another name for individual natural rights. Human rights recognize the dignity inherent in every person as a human being, regardless of his or her particular nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, class or any other group affiliation or characteristic. The concept of human rights asserts that the rights of an individual have primacy over the rights of institutions or groups.

Individual rights are often sub-classified as civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

Individual rights can be positive or negative. Positive rights oblige action, whereas negative rights oblige inaction. Individual civil and political rights typically are negative rights, while social and economic rights tend to be positive."

What is the definition of individual rights?

I want you to notice an important thing in that quote. It says:

"Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life."

If you care to check it out, that is the legal definition of an unalienable Right. And the United States Supreme Court in its earliest decisions have ruled that the Constitution does not grant Rights.

The people are the militia. It is a part of a State supreme law of the land. No amount of right wing, fallacy induced fantasy, can change that.

What kind of nonsense is that? What in the Hell is your point?

There is no "state supreme law of the land." In law, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the states have ruled that YOU ARE WRONG.

So what. The people are the militia. No argument there. BFD. The people have a Right to keep and bear Arms. That Right has been ruled to be an individual Right by the highest Courts of the land, including the United States Supreme Court. When it was challenged, it did not matter what the state said, the United States Supreme Court ruled and they say YOU ARE WRONG ON ALL COUNTS.

 

[Humorme]

Once again, of course all of them are plural. There were 2.5 million people in the country then. Not all fell under these rights at the time. But it was certainly not a situation for a singular word.

we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.

YOu are quibbling. I am stating a fact that the word "people" would have to be plural since it refers to the population of citizens. The whole "it is a collective right" does not bear up if you know the history of the Bill of Right. There is also not one iota of proof that it was ever intended to be a collective right. The rest of the amendments that use the same word certainly are not collective rights.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.

all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.

And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural. Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.

collective requires plural. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Did you even bother READING what WinterBorn told you? Let me repeat his words:

"The SCOTUS rulings are not fantasy. They are fact. Your claims that plural = collective is fantasy. Your claims that state constitutions override the US constitution is fantasy. You claim that the 2nd amendment speaks only about the militia is fantasy."

danielpalos, any time you want to pull your head out of your ass and get out of La La Land, feel free to put something better than what you've got so far onto the board. You blame your ignorance on the right, but I don't see the left jumping to your defense.

AND, BTW, what you proclaimed before - that stuff that proved you wrong... you ignored it. So, champ, tell us about your membership in a militia. Inquiring minds want to know. Were you ever in one? And if you don't answer, I am going to take that to mean you knew you were blowing smoke all the time you were arguing it.

 

[danielpalos]

irrelevant, when it concerns the security of a free State.

individual rights are in State Constitutions.

"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 fact that everyone not allowed to be in in a militia has no right to own arms, is IRRREVELANT?

You keep spewing the same crap.


Mason was one of many in the debates, why don't you quote someone else?

can't find anyone that agrees with you?

You do know even HIS quote makes you look like a fool, don't you?

"It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

the Militia was NOT the whole people.

It was only MEN, between the ages of 16-45.

anyone that would quote him is a fool.

This is where he was debating that concept, dear:

George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

I'm aware of that, jack...

was he talking to himself?

No one else discussing it?

No one had counterpoints?

This is a State supreme law of the land. As the common denominator for the common law, it makes common sense, for the common defense:

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 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.

The right wing is simply being silly with the natural and individual rights angle.

Is there a reason that you cannot produce a single, solitary case upon which to base your debunked theory?

You want to call people silly. Based upon what? Let the United States Supreme Court be your guide:

"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. . . Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature, by a private act, affecting particular persons ONLY, can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another?"

VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

The United States Supreme Court has so ruled... and EARLY in our nation's history. You are arguing with the United States Supreme Court in the earliest of precedents here. Note that decision was RULED on in 1795. You've made your arguments, called others silly, avoided giving direct answers to questions asked of you, and have failed to provide even one sentence from any source that calls what you've been told into question.

Furthermore, everything you've said is cryptic and non-responsive. You don't have a point; EVERYBODY that has offered an opinion, has shown, by factual information, that you are wrong. So, what's your point... other than to divert attention to babysitting you?

Nobody needs an angle on this. You've been proven wrong. Deal with it.

Natural rights are expressly declared in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

nope

Not then, not now

yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.

no age limits?

no gender limits?

you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?

Not having served in a militia, danielpalos seems to not be able to back up his / her statements. Furthermore, he / she wants to lecture everybody about where your individual Rights come from. Let's check out this article:

"Q:
What is the definition of individual rights?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
Individual rights is defined as the freedom to act, work, and behave without retribution bestowed upon members of an organization through legal, regulatory and societal standards, according to BussinessDictionary.com. Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life.


Individual rights can be constitutional rights, such as those liberties granted to American citizens in the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In the USA, individual natural rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution include personal security, personal liberty, such as the right to practice one's religion and personal property rights.

Human rights are another name for individual natural rights. Human rights recognize the dignity inherent in every person as a human being, regardless of his or her particular nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, class or any other group affiliation or characteristic. The concept of human rights asserts that the rights of an individual have primacy over the rights of institutions or groups.

Individual rights are often sub-classified as civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

Individual rights can be positive or negative. Positive rights oblige action, whereas negative rights oblige inaction. Individual civil and political rights typically are negative rights, while social and economic rights tend to be positive."

What is the definition of individual rights?

I want you to notice an important thing in that quote. It says:

"Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life."

If you care to check it out, that is the legal definition of an unalienable Right. And the United States Supreme Court in its earliest decisions have ruled that the Constitution does not grant Rights.

The people are the militia. It is a part of a State supreme law of the land. No amount of right wing, fallacy induced fantasy, can change that.

What kind of nonsense is that? What in the Hell is your point?

There is no "state supreme law of the land." In law, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the states have ruled that YOU ARE WRONG.

So what. The people are the militia. No argument there. BFD. The people have a Right to keep and bear Arms. That Right has been ruled to be an individual Right by the highest Courts of the land, including the United States Supreme Court. When it was challenged, it did not matter what the state said, the United States Supreme Court ruled and they say YOU ARE WRONG ON ALL COUNTS.

where are you from? you seem to be clueless and Causeless as to our federal form of Government.

 

[danielpalos]

we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.

YOu are quibbling. I am stating a fact that the word "people" would have to be plural since it refers to the population of citizens. The whole "it is a collective right" does not bear up if you know the history of the Bill of Right. There is also not one iota of proof that it was ever intended to be a collective right. The rest of the amendments that use the same word certainly are not collective rights.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.

all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.

And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural. Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.

collective requires plural. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Did you even bother READING what WinterBorn told you? Let me repeat his words:

"The SCOTUS rulings are not fantasy. They are fact. Your claims that plural = collective is fantasy. Your claims that state constitutions override the US constitution is fantasy. You claim that the 2nd amendment speaks only about the militia is fantasy."

danielpalos, any time you want to pull your head out of your ass and get out of La La Land, feel free to put something better than what you've got so far onto the board. You blame your ignorance on the right, but I don't see the left jumping to your defense.

AND, BTW, what you proclaimed before - that stuff that proved you wrong... you ignored it. So, champ, tell us about your membership in a militia. Inquiring minds want to know. Were you ever in one? And if you don't answer, I am going to take that to mean you knew you were blowing smoke all the time you were arguing it.

writs of error can correct any legal fallacies.

want to try to get more serious?

 

[Humorme]

yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.

no age limits?

no gender limits?

you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?

Not having served in a militia, danielpalos seems to not be able to back up his / her statements. Furthermore, he / she wants to lecture everybody about where your individual Rights come from. Let's check out this article:

"Q:
What is the definition of individual rights?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
Individual rights is defined as the freedom to act, work, and behave without retribution bestowed upon members of an organization through legal, regulatory and societal standards, according to BussinessDictionary.com. Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life.


Individual rights can be constitutional rights, such as those liberties granted to American citizens in the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In the USA, individual natural rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution include personal security, personal liberty, such as the right to practice one's religion and personal property rights.

Human rights are another name for individual natural rights. Human rights recognize the dignity inherent in every person as a human being, regardless of his or her particular nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, class or any other group affiliation or characteristic. The concept of human rights asserts that the rights of an individual have primacy over the rights of institutions or groups.

Individual rights are often sub-classified as civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

Individual rights can be positive or negative. Positive rights oblige action, whereas negative rights oblige inaction. Individual civil and political rights typically are negative rights, while social and economic rights tend to be positive."

What is the definition of individual rights?

I want you to notice an important thing in that quote. It says:

"Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life."

If you care to check it out, that is the legal definition of an unalienable Right. And the United States Supreme Court in its earliest decisions have ruled that the Constitution does not grant Rights.

The people are the militia. It is a part of a State supreme law of the land. No amount of right wing, fallacy induced fantasy, can change that.

What kind of nonsense is that? What in the Hell is your point?

There is no "state supreme law of the land." In law, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the states have ruled that YOU ARE WRONG.

So what. The people are the militia. No argument there. BFD. The people have a Right to keep and bear Arms. That Right has been ruled to be an individual Right by the highest Courts of the land, including the United States Supreme Court. When it was challenged, it did not matter what the state said, the United States Supreme Court ruled and they say YOU ARE WRONG ON ALL COUNTS.

where are you from? you seem to be clueless and Causeless as to our federal form of Government.

Back to that standard canard that serves you so well.

You don't have a single, solitary statute, case or even another liberal to rely on. That would make YOU clueless.

You have never shown anyone on this board (or any other where I've encountered you) that you have something resembling a cause... which makes YOU causeless as you call it.

Stop projecting. It's only adding to the destruction of any credibility you thought you had.

 

[Humorme]

YOu are quibbling. I am stating a fact that the word "people" would have to be plural since it refers to the population of citizens. The whole "it is a collective right" does not bear up if you know the history of the Bill of Right. There is also not one iota of proof that it was ever intended to be a collective right. The rest of the amendments that use the same word certainly are not collective rights.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.

all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.

And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural. Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.

collective requires plural. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Did you even bother READING what WinterBorn told you? Let me repeat his words:

"The SCOTUS rulings are not fantasy. They are fact. Your claims that plural = collective is fantasy. Your claims that state constitutions override the US constitution is fantasy. You claim that the 2nd amendment speaks only about the militia is fantasy."

danielpalos, any time you want to pull your head out of your ass and get out of La La Land, feel free to put something better than what you've got so far onto the board. You blame your ignorance on the right, but I don't see the left jumping to your defense.

AND, BTW, what you proclaimed before - that stuff that proved you wrong... you ignored it. So, champ, tell us about your membership in a militia. Inquiring minds want to know. Were you ever in one? And if you don't answer, I am going to take that to mean you knew you were blowing smoke all the time you were arguing it.

writs of error can correct any legal fallacies.

want to try to get more serious?

A writ of error is where an appellate court requires a lower court to produce the records of a trial. That has NOTHING to with anything on this thread.

If you think that an error was made, and you seem to think that you alone have a monopoly on the answers, what writs have you gotten a judge to sign off on?

I have a feeling this is like your pitiful attempt at pretending to know something about militias only to find out you've never been IN one. Well news flash: You have been unable to dazzle us with brilliance and you can't baffle us with B.S, either. Perry Mason you ain't.

 

[danielpalos]

no age limits?

no gender limits?

you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?

Not having served in a militia, danielpalos seems to not be able to back up his / her statements. Furthermore, he / she wants to lecture everybody about where your individual Rights come from. Let's check out this article:

"Q:
What is the definition of individual rights?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
Individual rights is defined as the freedom to act, work, and behave without retribution bestowed upon members of an organization through legal, regulatory and societal standards, according to BussinessDictionary.com. Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life.


Individual rights can be constitutional rights, such as those liberties granted to American citizens in the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In the USA, individual natural rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution include personal security, personal liberty, such as the right to practice one's religion and personal property rights.

Human rights are another name for individual natural rights. Human rights recognize the dignity inherent in every person as a human being, regardless of his or her particular nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, class or any other group affiliation or characteristic. The concept of human rights asserts that the rights of an individual have primacy over the rights of institutions or groups.

Individual rights are often sub-classified as civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

Individual rights can be positive or negative. Positive rights oblige action, whereas negative rights oblige inaction. Individual civil and political rights typically are negative rights, while social and economic rights tend to be positive."

What is the definition of individual rights?

I want you to notice an important thing in that quote. It says:

"Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life."

If you care to check it out, that is the legal definition of an unalienable Right. And the United States Supreme Court in its earliest decisions have ruled that the Constitution does not grant Rights.

The people are the militia. It is a part of a State supreme law of the land. No amount of right wing, fallacy induced fantasy, can change that.

What kind of nonsense is that? What in the Hell is your point?

There is no "state supreme law of the land." In law, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the states have ruled that YOU ARE WRONG.

So what. The people are the militia. No argument there. BFD. The people have a Right to keep and bear Arms. That Right has been ruled to be an individual Right by the highest Courts of the land, including the United States Supreme Court. When it was challenged, it did not matter what the state said, the United States Supreme Court ruled and they say YOU ARE WRONG ON ALL COUNTS.

where are you from? you seem to be clueless and Causeless as to our federal form of Government.

Back to that standard canard that serves you so well.

You don't have a single, solitary statute, case or even another liberal to rely on. That would make YOU clueless.

You have never shown anyone on this board (or any other where I've encountered you) that you have something resembling a cause... which makes YOU causeless as you call it.

Stop projecting. It's only adding to the destruction of any credibility you thought you had.

dear, natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment has terms that are plural, not singular.

 

[danielpalos]

nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.

all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.

And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural. Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.

collective requires plural. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Did you even bother READING what WinterBorn told you? Let me repeat his words:

"The SCOTUS rulings are not fantasy. They are fact. Your claims that plural = collective is fantasy. Your claims that state constitutions override the US constitution is fantasy. You claim that the 2nd amendment speaks only about the militia is fantasy."

danielpalos, any time you want to pull your head out of your ass and get out of La La Land, feel free to put something better than what you've got so far onto the board. You blame your ignorance on the right, but I don't see the left jumping to your defense.

AND, BTW, what you proclaimed before - that stuff that proved you wrong... you ignored it. So, champ, tell us about your membership in a militia. Inquiring minds want to know. Were you ever in one? And if you don't answer, I am going to take that to mean you knew you were blowing smoke all the time you were arguing it.

writs of error can correct any legal fallacies.

want to try to get more serious?

A writ of error is where an appellate court requires a lower court to produce the records of a trial. That has NOTHING to with anything on this thread.

If you think that an error was made, and you seem to think that you alone have a monopoly on the answers, what writs have you gotten a judge to sign off on?

I have a feeling this is like your pitiful attempt at pretending to know something about militias only to find out you've never been IN one. Well news flash: You have been unable to dazzle us with brilliance and you can't baffle us with B.S, either. Perry Mason you ain't.

i have made no errors. both militia and the people are plural. natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

 

[Humorme]

Not having served in a militia, danielpalos seems to not be able to back up his / her statements. Furthermore, he / she wants to lecture everybody about where your individual Rights come from. Let's check out this article:

"Q:
What is the definition of individual rights?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
Individual rights is defined as the freedom to act, work, and behave without retribution bestowed upon members of an organization through legal, regulatory and societal standards, according to BussinessDictionary.com. Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life.


Individual rights can be constitutional rights, such as those liberties granted to American citizens in the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In the USA, individual natural rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution include personal security, personal liberty, such as the right to practice one's religion and personal property rights.

Human rights are another name for individual natural rights. Human rights recognize the dignity inherent in every person as a human being, regardless of his or her particular nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, class or any other group affiliation or characteristic. The concept of human rights asserts that the rights of an individual have primacy over the rights of institutions or groups.

Individual rights are often sub-classified as civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

Individual rights can be positive or negative. Positive rights oblige action, whereas negative rights oblige inaction. Individual civil and political rights typically are negative rights, while social and economic rights tend to be positive."

What is the definition of individual rights?

I want you to notice an important thing in that quote. It says:

"Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life."

If you care to check it out, that is the legal definition of an unalienable Right. And the United States Supreme Court in its earliest decisions have ruled that the Constitution does not grant Rights.

The people are the militia. It is a part of a State supreme law of the land. No amount of right wing, fallacy induced fantasy, can change that.

What kind of nonsense is that? What in the Hell is your point?

There is no "state supreme law of the land." In law, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the states have ruled that YOU ARE WRONG.

So what. The people are the militia. No argument there. BFD. The people have a Right to keep and bear Arms. That Right has been ruled to be an individual Right by the highest Courts of the land, including the United States Supreme Court. When it was challenged, it did not matter what the state said, the United States Supreme Court ruled and they say YOU ARE WRONG ON ALL COUNTS.

where are you from? you seem to be clueless and Causeless as to our federal form of Government.

Back to that standard canard that serves you so well.

You don't have a single, solitary statute, case or even another liberal to rely on. That would make YOU clueless.

You have never shown anyone on this board (or any other where I've encountered you) that you have something resembling a cause... which makes YOU causeless as you call it.

Stop projecting. It's only adding to the destruction of any credibility you thought you had.

dear, natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment has terms that are plural, not singular.

That is where you sound either gay or a woman. Men do not address other men as "dear." So, champ, back to the standard canard.

FEDERAL LAW SAYS THAT STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS. You are now arguing with the states regarding that issue. But, since you want to go to the states, let's do that and let's get the state supreme courts to give you a lesson (for at least the third time on this thread alone):

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."

Nunn v. Georgia - Wikipedia

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

The states say your are full of shit. You've discounted the Constitution. You've shown you're no Perry Mason. Singular, plural... the states have said that the Right does not come from the state. The states say the Right is an individual Right and you do not have to be in a militia in order to own a firearm. That still squares with the rulings of the United States Supreme Court.

How much longer do you want to be like a rodent on a treadmill?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Second says you're full of it

The Supreme Court says not all firearms are protected by the Second Anendnent.

AR15s are not protected.

They can be and should be banned as similar to weapons of war.

Except that they're no more similar to "weapons of war" than any other gun is. And where, exactly, do you find that AR-15s are not protected under the 2nd Amendment?

 

[WinterBorn]

nope

Not then, not now

yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.

no age limits?

no gender limits?

you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?

the right wing, never gets it.

The People are the Militia. The legislature is responsible for an Organized militia of the people.

Did Germany, have only statutory militia?

The People are the Militia.

no

only able bodied men between the ages of 16-45 were allowed in the militia

This is an actual part of a State supreme law of the land:

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.

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not the concept of individual rights.

Source of that quote?