True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

dan, you need an avatar.

Try this one...

fits you to a t

i prefer Den, from the Heavy Metal comics.

I bet you do. I'm sure you fantasize about being a muscular hero, saving the girl and her showing you her gratitude by offering you her body.

But that, like your arguments here, are just a sad fantasy.

Woe is me,

I am the victim.

In some alternate reality, i could be Den.

 

[danielpalos]

If anything, instead of abolishing the 2nd amendment
it should be EXPANDED to protect equal right to defense in ALL forms

You are talking some silly Nonsense.

You just don't get it do you, GUNS are BAD, they prevent the wealthy from taking control of the American Sheeple Live Stock, and all live stock at some point needs to be Culled, you can Cull animals if they can fight back, in other words, the American Sheeple have TEETH, the TEETH are the GUNS in America, so before we can begin the Culling, we must first pull the teeth.

No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"

This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"

Which is as far as far too many people get,

They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"

"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

Just a tidbit of history for you. Your hero, George Mason, does not represent much of what the US Constitution actually says. That is why he refused to sign it.

And actually, George Mason wrote a precursor to the 2nd amendment.
from: Mason, Madison, and Militias: A Progressive for a Right to Bear Arms « The Stanford Progressive
"The predecessor to Madison’s Second Amendment came from dissenter George Mason’s proposals at the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention. In Section 17 of the proposal, Mason combined, word for word, a portion of the Massachusetts’ Declaration of Rights stating that the people have a right “to keep and to bear arms” with Article 13 from Virginia’s Declaration of Rights (which he also helped write) concerning a well-regulated militia as the defense against a standing army."

why should Anyone take the right wing wing seriously, story teller?

why not learn how to use a dictionary to learn how to tell better stories?

Militia of the People=a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. And, the whole body of Persons declared by law as being subject to call to military service


*Definition of MILITIA

 

[danielpalos]

dear, you have nothing but fallacy or you would debunk my argument with a better argument, every time this comes up.

Why not simply cede the point and argument.

I have asked and asked for evidence to backup your claims. YOu have provided none at all.

I have tried to engage you in actual debate of facts. You simply make claims with no proof or evidence at all.

It grow tiresome. YOu have made to real argument. Making spurious claims is not an argument.

And your "this is why no one takes rightwingers seriously" or "...just another appeal to ignorance" are just fillers in your nonsensical arguments. When we post facts and you post unproven claims, it is not us who are appealing to ignorance.

dear, you have no facts, Only fallacy induced fantasy. anyone can clam Any Thing. why not support Your contentions with actual arguments; not merely, claims to alleged arguments in your favor.

I have proven my claims. I claimed that the US Constitution cannot be overruled by a state constitution or state law. I provided proof in the Supremacy Clause and several examples of the US Constitution overruling state laws. You simply claimed otherwise, without an iota of evidence.

I contend that the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd amendment refers to citizen soldiers, armed and ready to step up when needed. I provided proof by citing examples of militia used during the times the 2nd amendment was written and during the war that had just ended at that time.

I have said that the word "people" in the 2nd amendment is indeed plural. Because it refers to the population of the nation. I have asked, repeatedly, for any evidence that the 2nd is a collective right, as you claim. You simply keep saying "look in the dictionary". But the first 10 amendments were written specifically to guarantee individual rights. That was stated in the writings of both Madison and Jefferson. So a "collective right" would not have been written into the Bill of Rights at all.

It is you, Dannyboy, that have been relying on fallacy and ignorance. But, like your claims that you are due "your turn" with a woman, whether she wants you or not, your grasp of what the US Constitution says is twisted.

Unless you can offer links or proof to support your claims, I am tired of you simply repeating the same thing over and over.

YOu have lost this argument over and over. Come up with proof or go back to discussing your perverse views on relationships.

dear, you have nothing but fallacy or you would debunk my argument with a better argument, every time this comes up.

Why not simply cede the point and argument.

I have asked and asked for evidence to backup your claims. YOu have provided none at all.

I have tried to engage you in actual debate of facts. You simply make claims with no proof or evidence at all.

It grow tiresome. YOu have made to real argument. Making spurious claims is not an argument.

And your "this is why no one takes rightwingers seriously" or "...just another appeal to ignorance" are just fillers in your nonsensical arguments. When we post facts and you post unproven claims, it is not us who are appealing to ignorance.

dear, you have no facts, Only fallacy induced fantasy. anyone can clam Any Thing. why not support Your contentions with actual arguments; not merely, claims to alleged arguments in your favor.

I have proven my claims. I claimed that the US Constitution cannot be overruled by a state constitution or state law. I provided proof in the Supremacy Clause and several examples of the US Constitution overruling state laws. You simply claimed otherwise, without an iota of evidence.

I contend that the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd amendment refers to citizen soldiers, armed and ready to step up when needed. I provided proof by citing examples of militia used during the times the 2nd amendment was written and during the war that had just ended at that time.

I have said that the word "people" in the 2nd amendment is indeed plural. Because it refers to the population of the nation. I have asked, repeatedly, for any evidence that the 2nd is a collective right, as you claim. You simply keep saying "look in the dictionary". But the first 10 amendments were written specifically to guarantee individual rights. That was stated in the writings of both Madison and Jefferson. So a "collective right" would not have been written into the Bill of Rights at all.

It is you, Dannyboy, that have been relying on fallacy and ignorance. But, like your claims that you are due "your turn" with a woman, whether she wants you or not, your grasp of what the US Constitution says is twisted.

Unless you can offer links or proof to support your claims, I am tired of you simply repeating the same thing over and over.

YOu have lost this argument over and over. Come up with proof or go back to discussing your perverse views on relationships.

dear, both militia and the people, are plural and collective, as is the Context in the first clause. What more specific language do your need?

Do you have any evidence, besides your own claims, that the 2nd amendment is a collective right? Being plural does not necessarily mean collective.

yes, it does, Especially in the Case of the Militia. It is a requirement for "concentration of force" purposes.

 

[WinterBorn]

dan, you need an avatar.

Try this one...

fits you to a t

i prefer Den, from the Heavy Metal comics.

I bet you do. I'm sure you fantasize about being a muscular hero, saving the girl and her showing you her gratitude by offering you her body.

But that, like your arguments here, are just a sad fantasy.

Woe is me,

I am the victim.

In some alternate reality, i could be Den.

Sad.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are talking some silly Nonsense.

You just don't get it do you, GUNS are BAD, they prevent the wealthy from taking control of the American Sheeple Live Stock, and all live stock at some point needs to be Culled, you can Cull animals if they can fight back, in other words, the American Sheeple have TEETH, the TEETH are the GUNS in America, so before we can begin the Culling, we must first pull the teeth.

No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"

This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"

Which is as far as far too many people get,

They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"

"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

Just a tidbit of history for you. Your hero, George Mason, does not represent much of what the US Constitution actually says. That is why he refused to sign it.

And actually, George Mason wrote a precursor to the 2nd amendment.
from: Mason, Madison, and Militias: A Progressive for a Right to Bear Arms « The Stanford Progressive
"The predecessor to Madison’s Second Amendment came from dissenter George Mason’s proposals at the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention. In Section 17 of the proposal, Mason combined, word for word, a portion of the Massachusetts’ Declaration of Rights stating that the people have a right “to keep and to bear arms” with Article 13 from Virginia’s Declaration of Rights (which he also helped write) concerning a well-regulated militia as the defense against a standing army."

why should Anyone take the right wing wing seriously, story teller?

why not learn how to use a dictionary to learn how to tell better stories?

Militia of the People=a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. And, the whole body of Persons declared by law as being subject to call to military service


*Definition of MILITIA

But the personal right ("the right of the people") is not collective. But well done for finally using some reference.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have asked and asked for evidence to backup your claims. YOu have provided none at all.

I have tried to engage you in actual debate of facts. You simply make claims with no proof or evidence at all.

It grow tiresome. YOu have made to real argument. Making spurious claims is not an argument.

And your "this is why no one takes rightwingers seriously" or "...just another appeal to ignorance" are just fillers in your nonsensical arguments. When we post facts and you post unproven claims, it is not us who are appealing to ignorance.

dear, you have no facts, Only fallacy induced fantasy. anyone can clam Any Thing. why not support Your contentions with actual arguments; not merely, claims to alleged arguments in your favor.

I have proven my claims. I claimed that the US Constitution cannot be overruled by a state constitution or state law. I provided proof in the Supremacy Clause and several examples of the US Constitution overruling state laws. You simply claimed otherwise, without an iota of evidence.

I contend that the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd amendment refers to citizen soldiers, armed and ready to step up when needed. I provided proof by citing examples of militia used during the times the 2nd amendment was written and during the war that had just ended at that time.

I have said that the word "people" in the 2nd amendment is indeed plural. Because it refers to the population of the nation. I have asked, repeatedly, for any evidence that the 2nd is a collective right, as you claim. You simply keep saying "look in the dictionary". But the first 10 amendments were written specifically to guarantee individual rights. That was stated in the writings of both Madison and Jefferson. So a "collective right" would not have been written into the Bill of Rights at all.

It is you, Dannyboy, that have been relying on fallacy and ignorance. But, like your claims that you are due "your turn" with a woman, whether she wants you or not, your grasp of what the US Constitution says is twisted.

Unless you can offer links or proof to support your claims, I am tired of you simply repeating the same thing over and over.

YOu have lost this argument over and over. Come up with proof or go back to discussing your perverse views on relationships.

I have asked and asked for evidence to backup your claims. YOu have provided none at all.

I have tried to engage you in actual debate of facts. You simply make claims with no proof or evidence at all.

It grow tiresome. YOu have made to real argument. Making spurious claims is not an argument.

And your "this is why no one takes rightwingers seriously" or "...just another appeal to ignorance" are just fillers in your nonsensical arguments. When we post facts and you post unproven claims, it is not us who are appealing to ignorance.

dear, you have no facts, Only fallacy induced fantasy. anyone can clam Any Thing. why not support Your contentions with actual arguments; not merely, claims to alleged arguments in your favor.

I have proven my claims. I claimed that the US Constitution cannot be overruled by a state constitution or state law. I provided proof in the Supremacy Clause and several examples of the US Constitution overruling state laws. You simply claimed otherwise, without an iota of evidence.

I contend that the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd amendment refers to citizen soldiers, armed and ready to step up when needed. I provided proof by citing examples of militia used during the times the 2nd amendment was written and during the war that had just ended at that time.

I have said that the word "people" in the 2nd amendment is indeed plural. Because it refers to the population of the nation. I have asked, repeatedly, for any evidence that the 2nd is a collective right, as you claim. You simply keep saying "look in the dictionary". But the first 10 amendments were written specifically to guarantee individual rights. That was stated in the writings of both Madison and Jefferson. So a "collective right" would not have been written into the Bill of Rights at all.

It is you, Dannyboy, that have been relying on fallacy and ignorance. But, like your claims that you are due "your turn" with a woman, whether she wants you or not, your grasp of what the US Constitution says is twisted.

Unless you can offer links or proof to support your claims, I am tired of you simply repeating the same thing over and over.

YOu have lost this argument over and over. Come up with proof or go back to discussing your perverse views on relationships.

dear, both militia and the people, are plural and collective, as is the Context in the first clause. What more specific language do your need?

Do you have any evidence, besides your own claims, that the 2nd amendment is a collective right? Being plural does not necessarily mean collective.

yes, it does, Especially in the Case of the Militia. It is a requirement for "concentration of force" purposes.

More spurious claims with no evidence. Why am I not surprised?

 

[danielpalos]

No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"

This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"

Which is as far as far too many people get,

They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"

"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

Just a tidbit of history for you. Your hero, George Mason, does not represent much of what the US Constitution actually says. That is why he refused to sign it.

And actually, George Mason wrote a precursor to the 2nd amendment.
from: Mason, Madison, and Militias: A Progressive for a Right to Bear Arms « The Stanford Progressive
"The predecessor to Madison’s Second Amendment came from dissenter George Mason’s proposals at the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention. In Section 17 of the proposal, Mason combined, word for word, a portion of the Massachusetts’ Declaration of Rights stating that the people have a right “to keep and to bear arms” with Article 13 from Virginia’s Declaration of Rights (which he also helped write) concerning a well-regulated militia as the defense against a standing army."

why should Anyone take the right wing wing seriously, story teller?

why not learn how to use a dictionary to learn how to tell better stories?

Militia of the People=a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. And, the whole body of Persons declared by law as being subject to call to military service


*Definition of MILITIA

But the personal right ("the right of the people") is not collective. But well done for finally using some reference.

Thank you for admitting "personal rights" are not in our Second Amendment. They are, however, in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, you have no facts, Only fallacy induced fantasy. anyone can clam Any Thing. why not support Your contentions with actual arguments; not merely, claims to alleged arguments in your favor.

I have proven my claims. I claimed that the US Constitution cannot be overruled by a state constitution or state law. I provided proof in the Supremacy Clause and several examples of the US Constitution overruling state laws. You simply claimed otherwise, without an iota of evidence.

I contend that the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd amendment refers to citizen soldiers, armed and ready to step up when needed. I provided proof by citing examples of militia used during the times the 2nd amendment was written and during the war that had just ended at that time.

I have said that the word "people" in the 2nd amendment is indeed plural. Because it refers to the population of the nation. I have asked, repeatedly, for any evidence that the 2nd is a collective right, as you claim. You simply keep saying "look in the dictionary". But the first 10 amendments were written specifically to guarantee individual rights. That was stated in the writings of both Madison and Jefferson. So a "collective right" would not have been written into the Bill of Rights at all.

It is you, Dannyboy, that have been relying on fallacy and ignorance. But, like your claims that you are due "your turn" with a woman, whether she wants you or not, your grasp of what the US Constitution says is twisted.

Unless you can offer links or proof to support your claims, I am tired of you simply repeating the same thing over and over.

YOu have lost this argument over and over. Come up with proof or go back to discussing your perverse views on relationships.

dear, you have no facts, Only fallacy induced fantasy. anyone can clam Any Thing. why not support Your contentions with actual arguments; not merely, claims to alleged arguments in your favor.

I have proven my claims. I claimed that the US Constitution cannot be overruled by a state constitution or state law. I provided proof in the Supremacy Clause and several examples of the US Constitution overruling state laws. You simply claimed otherwise, without an iota of evidence.

I contend that the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd amendment refers to citizen soldiers, armed and ready to step up when needed. I provided proof by citing examples of militia used during the times the 2nd amendment was written and during the war that had just ended at that time.

I have said that the word "people" in the 2nd amendment is indeed plural. Because it refers to the population of the nation. I have asked, repeatedly, for any evidence that the 2nd is a collective right, as you claim. You simply keep saying "look in the dictionary". But the first 10 amendments were written specifically to guarantee individual rights. That was stated in the writings of both Madison and Jefferson. So a "collective right" would not have been written into the Bill of Rights at all.

It is you, Dannyboy, that have been relying on fallacy and ignorance. But, like your claims that you are due "your turn" with a woman, whether she wants you or not, your grasp of what the US Constitution says is twisted.

Unless you can offer links or proof to support your claims, I am tired of you simply repeating the same thing over and over.

YOu have lost this argument over and over. Come up with proof or go back to discussing your perverse views on relationships.

dear, both militia and the people, are plural and collective, as is the Context in the first clause. What more specific language do your need?

Do you have any evidence, besides your own claims, that the 2nd amendment is a collective right? Being plural does not necessarily mean collective.

yes, it does, Especially in the Case of the Militia. It is a requirement for "concentration of force" purposes.

More spurious claims with no evidence. Why am I not surprised?

nobody takes the right wing seriously about "right flank" stuff, either.

 

[WinterBorn]

Which is as far as far too many people get,

They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"

"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

Just a tidbit of history for you. Your hero, George Mason, does not represent much of what the US Constitution actually says. That is why he refused to sign it.

And actually, George Mason wrote a precursor to the 2nd amendment.
from: Mason, Madison, and Militias: A Progressive for a Right to Bear Arms « The Stanford Progressive
"The predecessor to Madison’s Second Amendment came from dissenter George Mason’s proposals at the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention. In Section 17 of the proposal, Mason combined, word for word, a portion of the Massachusetts’ Declaration of Rights stating that the people have a right “to keep and to bear arms” with Article 13 from Virginia’s Declaration of Rights (which he also helped write) concerning a well-regulated militia as the defense against a standing army."

why should Anyone take the right wing wing seriously, story teller?

why not learn how to use a dictionary to learn how to tell better stories?

Militia of the People=a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. And, the whole body of Persons declared by law as being subject to call to military service


*Definition of MILITIA

But the personal right ("the right of the people") is not collective. But well done for finally using some reference.

Thank you for admitting "personal rights" are not in our Second Amendment. They are, however, in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

I did no such thing. SCOTUS has already ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. That is exactly what I said and what I meant.

You, however, insist that it is a collective right, with no evidence or backup to your claim.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have proven my claims. I claimed that the US Constitution cannot be overruled by a state constitution or state law. I provided proof in the Supremacy Clause and several examples of the US Constitution overruling state laws. You simply claimed otherwise, without an iota of evidence.

I contend that the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd amendment refers to citizen soldiers, armed and ready to step up when needed. I provided proof by citing examples of militia used during the times the 2nd amendment was written and during the war that had just ended at that time.

I have said that the word "people" in the 2nd amendment is indeed plural. Because it refers to the population of the nation. I have asked, repeatedly, for any evidence that the 2nd is a collective right, as you claim. You simply keep saying "look in the dictionary". But the first 10 amendments were written specifically to guarantee individual rights. That was stated in the writings of both Madison and Jefferson. So a "collective right" would not have been written into the Bill of Rights at all.

It is you, Dannyboy, that have been relying on fallacy and ignorance. But, like your claims that you are due "your turn" with a woman, whether she wants you or not, your grasp of what the US Constitution says is twisted.

Unless you can offer links or proof to support your claims, I am tired of you simply repeating the same thing over and over.

YOu have lost this argument over and over. Come up with proof or go back to discussing your perverse views on relationships.

I have proven my claims. I claimed that the US Constitution cannot be overruled by a state constitution or state law. I provided proof in the Supremacy Clause and several examples of the US Constitution overruling state laws. You simply claimed otherwise, without an iota of evidence.

I contend that the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd amendment refers to citizen soldiers, armed and ready to step up when needed. I provided proof by citing examples of militia used during the times the 2nd amendment was written and during the war that had just ended at that time.

I have said that the word "people" in the 2nd amendment is indeed plural. Because it refers to the population of the nation. I have asked, repeatedly, for any evidence that the 2nd is a collective right, as you claim. You simply keep saying "look in the dictionary". But the first 10 amendments were written specifically to guarantee individual rights. That was stated in the writings of both Madison and Jefferson. So a "collective right" would not have been written into the Bill of Rights at all.

It is you, Dannyboy, that have been relying on fallacy and ignorance. But, like your claims that you are due "your turn" with a woman, whether she wants you or not, your grasp of what the US Constitution says is twisted.

Unless you can offer links or proof to support your claims, I am tired of you simply repeating the same thing over and over.

YOu have lost this argument over and over. Come up with proof or go back to discussing your perverse views on relationships.

dear, both militia and the people, are plural and collective, as is the Context in the first clause. What more specific language do your need?

Do you have any evidence, besides your own claims, that the 2nd amendment is a collective right? Being plural does not necessarily mean collective.

yes, it does, Especially in the Case of the Militia. It is a requirement for "concentration of force" purposes.

More spurious claims with no evidence. Why am I not surprised?

nobody takes the right wing seriously about "right flank" stuff, either.

As I have said numerous times, your posts about whether people take the right wing seriously is simply irrelevant. It has absolutely no bearing on the conversation and is an outright lie. The "right wing" has been taken seriously enough to win the presidency and the majority in the senate several times in my lifetime. So spare us the continued nonsense.

I stated that you made spurious claims with no evidence. And that stands. Rather than offer one iota of evidence, you elect to go with a ridiculous logical fallacy and prove my point.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Which is as far as far too many people get,

They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"

"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

Just a tidbit of history for you. Your hero, George Mason, does not represent much of what the US Constitution actually says. That is why he refused to sign it.

And actually, George Mason wrote a precursor to the 2nd amendment.
from: Mason, Madison, and Militias: A Progressive for a Right to Bear Arms « The Stanford Progressive
"The predecessor to Madison’s Second Amendment came from dissenter George Mason’s proposals at the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention. In Section 17 of the proposal, Mason combined, word for word, a portion of the Massachusetts’ Declaration of Rights stating that the people have a right “to keep and to bear arms” with Article 13 from Virginia’s Declaration of Rights (which he also helped write) concerning a well-regulated militia as the defense against a standing army."

why should Anyone take the right wing wing seriously, story teller?

why not learn how to use a dictionary to learn how to tell better stories?

Militia of the People=a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. And, the whole body of Persons declared by law as being subject to call to military service


*Definition of MILITIA

But the personal right ("the right of the people") is not collective. But well done for finally using some reference.

Thank you for admitting "personal rights" are not in our Second Amendment. They are, however, in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

The second amendment is strictly about individual rights.

Any argument to the contrary is an immediate failure.

 

[emilynghiem]

You are talking some silly Nonsense.

You just don't get it do you, GUNS are BAD, they prevent the wealthy from taking control of the American Sheeple Live Stock, and all live stock at some point needs to be Culled, you can Cull animals if they can fight back, in other words, the American Sheeple have TEETH, the TEETH are the GUNS in America, so before we can begin the Culling, we must first pull the teeth.

No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"

This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"

Which is as far as far too many people get,

They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"

"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

Just a tidbit of history for you. Your hero, George Mason, does not represent much of what the US Constitution actually says. That is why he refused to sign it.

And actually, George Mason wrote a precursor to the 2nd amendment.
from: Mason, Madison, and Militias: A Progressive for a Right to Bear Arms « The Stanford Progressive
"The predecessor to Madison’s Second Amendment came from dissenter George Mason’s proposals at the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention. In Section 17 of the proposal, Mason combined, word for word, a portion of the Massachusetts’ Declaration of Rights stating that the people have a right “to keep and to bear arms” with Article 13 from Virginia’s Declaration of Rights (which he also helped write) concerning a well-regulated militia as the defense against a standing army."

why should Anyone take the right wing wing seriously, story teller?

why not learn how to use a dictionary to learn how to tell better stories?

Militia of the People=a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. And, the whole body of Persons declared by law as being subject to call to military service


*Definition of MILITIA

Dear danielpalos
One belief of the rightwing that I encourage all people of all views to take seriously
is the concept of natural laws that govern us as human beings independent of
these universal laws being written down and taught through church and state traditions.

We all WANT free exercise of our beliefs, which is our free will and free choice
to dissent or consent as we BELIEVE is right for us and/or for others.
We all naturally defend this free will by our human nature.

that is what the rightwing mean by naturally self-existent liberty
(they call it given by God, but nontheists can call it given by Nature, where Nature is God).

We all believe in DUE PROCESS before being deprived of our life liberty or property.
Again this natural right and process is written into the Bill of Rights as necessary to
defend from govt infringement, but this democratic process exists by the nature
of us being people who live together in society and require some means of managing
when we have conflicts and need to communicate to settle on AGREED TERMS.

The main difference between left and right,
while both believe people are the govt,
the right pushes for people to be the authority and govt is supposed to reflect our consent.
the left pushes for govt to be the central authority that establishes collective will
for the people to follow.

IN order to satisfy both sides, we need AGREEMENT between
people and the govt laws, so neither is imposing on the other.
And both are right: both the govt reflects the will of the people but not imposing it,
and whatever we establish as the collective will of the people becomes law we agree on.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If anything, instead of abolishing the 2nd amendment
it should be EXPANDED to protect equal right to defense in ALL forms

You are talking some silly Nonsense.

You just don't get it do you, GUNS are BAD, they prevent the wealthy from taking control of the American Sheeple Live Stock, and all live stock at some point needs to be Culled, you can Cull animals if they can fight back, in other words, the American Sheeple have TEETH, the TEETH are the GUNS in America, so before we can begin the Culling, we must first pull the teeth.

No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"

I always love definitive assertions as to the intent of a law by people with the English comprehension skills of a fourth-grader. It's VERY meaningful to be told that an explanatory clause is somehow a directive.

 

[emilynghiem]

If anything, instead of abolishing the 2nd amendment
it should be EXPANDED to protect equal right to defense in ALL forms

You are talking some silly Nonsense.

You just don't get it do you, GUNS are BAD, they prevent the wealthy from taking control of the American Sheeple Live Stock, and all live stock at some point needs to be Culled, you can Cull animals if they can fight back, in other words, the American Sheeple have TEETH, the TEETH are the GUNS in America, so before we can begin the Culling, we must first pull the teeth.

No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"

Dear FireFly
The 2nd Amendment does not give "crazies" any right to bear or abuse arms to defy or violate laws and rights of others. To do so would violate the REST of the Bill of Rights which include right of security in our persons houses and effects and not to be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of laws. Read the whole thing. The laws state clearly that no right shall be construed to disparage other rights or laws. So the whole thing checks itself and is clear that arms are to be used for defense, taken in full context and enforced consistently together!

As for well regulated militia, if this meant that people could only bear arms under a govt regulated militia, do you think for ONE SECOND that Texas would ever agree to join the Union? We are talking about a state that used to be its own nation, and fought its own wars, yes including individuals armed with their own guns and fighting for themselves. If what you propose is the true meaning of the law, I don't see any Texans willing to join the union if that means giving up their guns to govt control through govt regulated militia. That makes no sense. Texas was already set up where people exercised their own right to bear arms and defend themselves. They wouldn't give that up. And change their whole culture.
Are you kidding me?

 

[Cecilie1200]

115,000 people in the USA are shot every year. That's more than in wars!!! All these disabled people are a huge burden on US all.

Do you have a link for that? Perhaps a breakdown of how many are accidental injuries, suicides or murders?

Only 479 killed legally!!! Wow I guess shooting 116,255 people was all worth it!!!

116,255 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, or by police intervention.>

35,141 people die from gun violence

• 12,246 murdered
• 21,637 die from suicide
• 500 killed unintentionally
• 479 killed by legal intervention
• 279 die but intent was unknown

81,114 people survive gun injuries:

• 60,041 injured in an attack
• 3,700 survive a suicide attempt
• 16,428 shot unintentionally
• 945 people are shot by legal intervention

Millions of guns are sold every year in “no questions asked” transactions. Experts estimate that 1 in 5 guns now sold in America are done so without a Brady background check.

The Brady Campaign? Really? That REALLY was the only source of stats you could find, and yet for some reason, you expect us to take you seriously and debate with you like you're an actual, thinking person?

Do you EVER come out of your tiny, leftist echo chamber?

 

[emilynghiem]

115,000 people in the USA are shot every year. That's more than in wars!!! All these disabled people are a huge burden on US all.

Do you have a link for that? Perhaps a breakdown of how many are accidental injuries, suicides or murders?

Only 479 killed legally!!! Wow I guess shooting 116,255 people was all worth it!!!

116,255 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, or by police intervention.>

35,141 people die from gun violence

• 12,246 murdered
• 21,637 die from suicide
• 500 killed unintentionally
• 479 killed by legal intervention
• 279 die but intent was unknown

81,114 people survive gun injuries:

• 60,041 injured in an attack
• 3,700 survive a suicide attempt
• 16,428 shot unintentionally
• 945 people are shot by legal intervention

Millions of guns are sold every year in “no questions asked” transactions. Experts estimate that 1 in 5 guns now sold in America are done so without a Brady background check.

Dear FireFly may I ask do you have the same compassion and concern
for the millions of lives lost that could have been saved with spiritual healing
for mental illness that costs NOTHING for this free therapy?

Because of the freedom to choose, people cannot be forced to go through the one cure I've found that heals these ills, from mental illness including schizophrenia PTSD and suicidal or homocidal obsessions, to drug and other addictions/abuses.

Not just these crimes you list, but other crimes and diseases that cost lives,
all can be prevented by addressing the mental or criminal illness including drug addictions
behind so many trafficking and gun crimes, through the spiritual healing methods and cures.

So many lives could be saved if people CHOSE to get this free help!

So the cost of FREEDOM means that many people die every day, every year
from ills that have been cured for FREE.

Do you think about that?
Those losses are also due to having freedom in this country.

My friend Olivia who has offered and provided FREE spiritual healing therapy to people who ask and agree, CRIES for the children and people she cannot get help to in time to save their lives. It's SAD that people don't know or they refuse help when it's FREE and it's saved people's lives and minds from mental, criminal even physical illness such as cancer and diabetes, and diseases with no medical cures.

See www.christianhealingmin.org

these solutions are FREE they have been medically researched
yet the cost of human freedom means people have to choose this freely
And those who don't know end up dying for lack of knowledge

How many more people die from the combination of gun violence, other crimes and other diseases which could be prevented by curing the root causes?

 

[Cecilie1200]

115,000 people in the USA are shot every year. That's more than in wars!!! All these disabled people are a huge burden on US all.

Do you have a link for that? Perhaps a breakdown of how many are accidental injuries, suicides or murders?

Only 479 killed legally!!! Wow I guess shooting 116,255 people was all worth it!!!

116,255 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, or by police intervention.>

35,141 people die from gun violence

• 12,246 murdered
• 21,637 die from suicide
• 500 killed unintentionally
• 479 killed by legal intervention
• 279 die but intent was unknown

81,114 people survive gun injuries:

• 60,041 injured in an attack
• 3,700 survive a suicide attempt
• 16,428 shot unintentionally
• 945 people are shot by legal intervention

Millions of guns are sold every year in “no questions asked” transactions. Experts estimate that 1 in 5 guns now sold in America are done so without a Brady background check.

Brady Campaign?

No thanks

Diss the messenger because you can't refute the facts!!!

No, diss the messenger because they don't deal in facts, just propaganda. Learn the difference between "facts" and "what I REALLY want the facts to be".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you have a link for that? Perhaps a breakdown of how many are accidental injuries, suicides or murders?

Only 479 killed legally!!! Wow I guess shooting 116,255 people was all worth it!!!

116,255 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, or by police intervention.>

35,141 people die from gun violence

• 12,246 murdered
• 21,637 die from suicide
• 500 killed unintentionally
• 479 killed by legal intervention
• 279 die but intent was unknown

81,114 people survive gun injuries:

• 60,041 injured in an attack
• 3,700 survive a suicide attempt
• 16,428 shot unintentionally
• 945 people are shot by legal intervention

Millions of guns are sold every year in “no questions asked” transactions. Experts estimate that 1 in 5 guns now sold in America are done so without a Brady background check.

Brady Campaign?

No thanks

Diss the messenger because you can't refute the facts!!!

I refuted the facts.

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

You didn't refute jack shit. Your link is only a small fraction of those shot here in the USA. It confirms that 12,246 are illegally murdered. 116,255 got shot & 81,114 survived their gunshots.

So you're saying that the Brady Campaign is vastly more informed about homicides than the FBI is? Are you really going to go with that position?

 

[Natural Citizen]

All might benefit by reading The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison for a clearer understanding of the States use of force against Federal usurpers.

 

[Penelope]

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.

Dear luosT_tcR in addition to the criminal oppression you describe
our nation still faces the equivalent in terms of civil and corporate oppression.

When media, political parties, and the LEGAL system of defense
is monopolized by corporate interests buying out politicians, media and judges/courts
then we have this going on with lack of equal legal defense to protect ourselves and representation, from "bigger bullies" such as in your scenario.

I watched an entire community in a nationally registered historic landmark site
bulldozed down to a few remaining churches because of corporate collusion and monopoly with local govt bought out by developer interests not treated equally as other citizens.

None of us can acquire legal representation much less equal defense or time in court much less a win. Because of professional conflicts of interest both financially and politically between lawyers judges and govt.

The "bigger bully" wins using means that are not checked by govt as abuses of power
or public resources/authority, but are "legalized" by govt and lawyers who defend the source of bigger financial backing or tax revenues, while there is nothing to defend the interests and rights of regular working citizens (who also pay for the legal defense of city govts against us in lawsuits, if you can see the outrageous injustice in that)

Where is equal protection of the laws between citizens and bigger corporate interests?

If anything, instead of abolishing the 2nd amendment
it should be EXPANDED to protect equal right to defense in ALL forms
including LEGAL defense equal to oppressive threats by larger groups especially govt and corporations with unequal resources and influence,
and mediation and consensus to defend political beliefs from infringement by equal creeds or beliefs of opponents.

If Trump and Clinton took this on, we'd see real quick who is for equality and who is for continued monopoly, by which competing interests, on our democratic process, media and govt!!!

Isn't it funny Bundy is a hero, and the kneelers are crap. First is a guy who thinks he is above the law and doesn't pay taxes, and the second is to draw attention to racial injustice by the police, the former is armed, the latter only kneels.
The former is a patriot, those on their knees are not.