Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[M14 Shooter]

"The right of each individual free person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's how an individualist amendment would be written. You don't include anything about a militia or national security. You don't use a collective term. You don't qualify it in any way.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
If you believe otherwise, you are either ignorant of the issue or are lying to yourself.

See, the problem with that can be stated in one question: if it's unconnected with the militia, then why does the text connect it with the militia?

Please feel free to read the full explanation:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[Pete7469]

I very much doubt that there is anyone in this forum with whom you have any sort of relationship such that it is appropriate to address any such person as “dear”. In my case, the term would be appropriate only to or from female relatives close friends or acquaintances, such as my wife, my mother, my sister, my niece, a few assorted cousins, and a few close friends. Certainly not some light-loafered stranger on an internet forum.

You know why most people ignore you bed wetter?

It is because you have not posted a moderately useful response to anything.

It's time for you to have a retroactive self abortion. The second amendment has been solidified by the SCOTUS who has also solidified obozocare yet you're still creating a horrid ammonia smell in the basement.

Your insipid insults impress no one. I suggest a large dose of sleeping pills and alcohol in a swimming pool.

Sorry Bob, this wasn't supposed to be directed at you and for some reason I can't delete it.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, dear; it is.

I very much doubt that there is anyone in this forum with whom you have any sort of relationship such that it is appropriate to address any such person as “dear”. In my case, the term would be appropriate only to or from female relatives close friends or acquaintances, such as my wife, my mother, my sister, my niece, a few assorted cousins, and a few close friends. Certainly not some light-loafered stranger on an internet forum.

how special of you, dear. any Thing more than diversion or do you now realize, you don't have a clue or a Cause.

 

[danielpalos]

The current text: "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 generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

The current text: "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 generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces.

You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
A big NO to your suggestion.

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person. There is a difference. Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person.

I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?

did you miss it? one is collective and one is Individual.

So you don't have the actual definitions?

anything more than diversion? one is Collective and one is Individual.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The current text: "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 generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces.

You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
A big NO to your suggestion.

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person. There is a difference. Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person.

I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?

did you miss it? one is collective and one is Individual.

So you don't have the actual definitions?

anything more than diversion? one is Collective and one is Individual.

Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm glad you're on the right page.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person. There is a difference. Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person.
I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?

did you miss it? one is collective and one is Individual.

So you don't have the actual definitions?

anything more than diversion? one is Collective and one is Individual.

Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.
I'm glad you're on the right page.

I love how anti-gun loons prattle on about this like it hasn't been settled.

 

[danielpalos]

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person. There is a difference. Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person.

I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?

did you miss it? one is collective and one is Individual.

So you don't have the actual definitions?

anything more than diversion? one is Collective and one is Individual.

Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm glad you're on the right page.

Except, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose, which Also, has a Collective term and not an Individual term. are we on the same page and text, now?

 

[danielpalos]

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person.
I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?

did you miss it? one is collective and one is Individual.

So you don't have the actual definitions?

anything more than diversion? one is Collective and one is Individual.

Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.
I'm glad you're on the right page.

I love how anti-gun loons prattle on about this like it hasn't been settled.

That opinion was a simple waste of the Peoples tax monies and settled nothing and Only accomplished a political passion of the moment through venue shopping.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law as a privilege or immunity in our Republic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is not the point; the point is that the People is not the Person.

I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?

did you miss it? one is collective and one is Individual.

So you don't have the actual definitions?

anything more than diversion? one is Collective and one is Individual.

Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm glad you're on the right page.

Except, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose, which Also, has a Collective term and not an Individual term. are we on the same page and text, now?

I agree, I cannot appeal to your ignorance.

 

[danielpalos]

did you miss it? one is collective and one is Individual.

So you don't have the actual definitions?

anything more than diversion? one is Collective and one is Individual.

Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm glad you're on the right page.

Except, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose, which Also, has a Collective term and not an Individual term. are we on the same page and text, now?

I agree, I cannot appeal to your ignorance.

which ignorance is that, dear.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you don't have the actual definitions?

anything more than diversion? one is Collective and one is Individual.

Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm glad you're on the right page.

Except, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose, which Also, has a Collective term and not an Individual term. are we on the same page and text, now?

I agree, I cannot appeal to your ignorance.

which ignorance is that, dear.

That somehow the 2A doesn't apply to individuals.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

So.... where's the compromise?
What do we get in return for agreeing to give up some of our rights?

 

[danielpalos]

anything more than diversion? one is Collective and one is Individual.

Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm glad you're on the right page.

Except, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose, which Also, has a Collective term and not an Individual term. are we on the same page and text, now?

I agree, I cannot appeal to your ignorance.

which ignorance is that, dear.

That somehow the 2A doesn't apply to individuals.

You misunderstand the like usual, dear; our Second Article of Amendment specifically prefers well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.

 

[danielpalos]

dears; there can be No Compromise regarding our supreme law of the land, should well regulated militias of the People, need to faithfully execute the laws of the land.

Only well regulated militias of the People of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[M14 Shooter]

anything more than diversion? one is Collective and one is Individual.

Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm glad you're on the right page.

Except, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose, which Also, has a Collective term and not an Individual term. are we on the same page and text, now?

I agree, I cannot appeal to your ignorance.

which ignorance is that, dear.

That somehow the 2A doesn't apply to individuals.

She's rejected reality and substituted her own.
No need to take her posts seriously.

 

[danielpalos]

Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm glad you're on the right page.

Except, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose, which Also, has a Collective term and not an Individual term. are we on the same page and text, now?

I agree, I cannot appeal to your ignorance.

which ignorance is that, dear.

That somehow the 2A doesn't apply to individuals.

She's rejected reality and substituted her own.
No need to take her posts seriously.

still nothing but fallacy for your Cause; how really really serious for your Cause is that, in the public domain.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm glad you're on the right page.

Except, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose, which Also, has a Collective term and not an Individual term. are we on the same page and text, now?

I agree, I cannot appeal to your ignorance.

which ignorance is that, dear.

That somehow the 2A doesn't apply to individuals.

You misunderstand the like usual, dear; our Second Article of Amendment specifically prefers well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.

You misunderstand the like usual, dear;

When Ed says that, he sounds stupid, you just sound gay.

our Second Article of Amendment specifically prefers well regulated militias of Individuals of the People

Yes, it specifically notes that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[danielpalos]

no dear, it doesn't. the terms are militia, and the People.

both terms are collective not Individual.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You misunderstand the like usual, dear; our Second Article of Amendment specifically prefers well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.

You misunderstand the like usual, dear;

When Ed says that, he sounds stupid, you just sound gay./QUOTE]

He sounds both.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

no dear, it doesn't. the terms are militia, and the People.

both terms are collective not Individual.

And yet, individual people have the right, despite your ignorance.