# True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment



## luosT_tcR

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.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

The Second says you're full of it


----------



## Fenton Lum

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.




Well no.  But I've seen just as ludicrous interpretations on the other extreme.


----------



## couch protester

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.


You must be a rapist or terrorist spreading propaganda to brainwash Americans so we won't protect ourselves from you Hannibal Lector.


----------



## Wyatt earp

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.




Stupid fucking moron...


----------



## emilynghiem

luosT_tcR said:


> 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!!!


----------



## regent

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.


----------



## martybegan

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.


----------



## luosT_tcR

emilynghiem said:


> 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.


----------



## emilynghiem

luosT_tcR said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Why do we have to wait for conflicts to escalate to the point of threatening to use guns for defense?
Is that the only choice of equalizer?

Currently only the big corporations and interests that can afford to lobby and/or have leverage to sue and WIN in federal courts can get their way.
It's not just guns alone that defend rights, but the fact that the NRA can AFFORD LAWYERS TO SUE -- IN FEDERAL COURT -- IF LINES GET CROSSED.

The only thing that stopped Obamacare were lawsuits that WON in federal court.
Who can afford that?

So we don't have equal defense in this country.
The feds can get into our pocketbooks and harass using the IRS.

Taking up guns is not enough to stop the onslaught and oppression of rights.
Look to the lawyers and lobbies that can afford legal defense.

The day that the average person can go to a group and get the same defense for a complaint,
maybe we'll have equality! Thank you luosT_tcR  Keep posting and keep your mind well loaded!


----------



## luosT_tcR

Well I can look at the bright side as you have pointed out, but it really all means nothing as long as an average shmoe has the abilities to defend them selves, YES our courts can say this or that but it wont save me from a bullet:
Example :
Lets say you have a really HOT looking teen age daughter, I then get my powerful lawyers to have you deemed as unfit parents, and then provide your HOT looking daughter a foster-home at my Manchin ( im now a foster perant Ha Ha ) ................................ I then commence to using your HOT looking teen aged daughter as a plastic FUCK doll.
 Now under normal cercomestances such as in other NON-gun ownership countries all would be good, I could just continue fucking the shit out of your daughter until I grow tired of listening to her screaming then return her to child protective services when that pussy get old after about a few weeks.
But here in gun-toting America . ............ Oh No.... I would get shot on the court house steps by parents ..... probably YOU, once the jury of sheeple are presented with evidence of the hole thing it would be impossible to get them to convict you for shooting me, thus......... if I value my own life and health I should not attempt such a thing wile the American Sheeple continue to have guns.
Ok now you have seen it from a wealthy persons perspective, lets ban all guns and turn America into a gun free paradise just like Thailand.


----------



## peabody

I wonder if BB guns would be OK? Someone could lose an eye.


----------



## luosT_tcR

No BB guns are NOT OK, they got some powerful ones out there that can kill and cause seriouse injury just like a regular firearm, they should be banned too.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

luosT_tcR said:


> No BB guns are NOT OK, they got some powerful ones out there that can kill and cause seriouse injury just like a regular firearm, they should be banned too.



we are given the freedom to have guns  to protect ourselves from criminals and liberals. Do you understand?
* 

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" 

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334*


----------



## Cecilie1200

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.



So when you say, "Misinterpreted", what you ACTUALLY mean is that your paranoid fantasies don't approve of what it says, not that it doesn't actually say exactly that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

regent said:


> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.



It does?  In what language, because in English, it has the least wiggle room of any Amendment?


----------



## Deleted member 61768

I say I an Army vet from the Vietnam Era and I will die rather than give up my "Right to Bear Arms" are you?


----------



## Eloy

regent said:


> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.


Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.


----------



## yiostheoy

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.


Do you have any idea what kind of idiot you are luosT_tcR ??

If you want to understand the 2nd Amendment then you need to carefully read the Heller decision written by Scalia.

You obviously have not.


----------



## yiostheoy

luosT_tcR said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Guns are freedom.

Guns are life.

Guns make everyone equal.

Guns prevent crime.

And if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.


----------



## yiostheoy

I always amuses me how foolish these anti gun hacks are.

I can hardly wait until they are attacked by someone with a knife.


----------



## yiostheoy

The Escape Channel was showing an FBI Files program where a Negro was using a bag of bricks to assault people from behind with.

The anti gun hacks think you can end crime by getting rid of guns.

Crime is ubiquitous and immortal.

And guns are the best way to stop it.


----------



## Deleted member 61768

Eloy said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
Click to expand...



LOL, State militias are not allowed to keep their firearms in their homes nor to open carry them like in the USA unlike in Switzerland. Best learn American Law!


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

luosT_tcR said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


I don't need a gun to hurt you or the cartel men you send to visit me. Knives, baseball bats and chicken wire work great in a place with no damn lights...

Also here in Texas the state grant me the right to own a long rifle and do you know what a twelve gauge shotgun with buck shot can do to you and having a pump action with one in the chamber and five extra round for amusement will make damn sure your visit is very painful!


----------



## Deleted member 61768

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need a gun to hurt you or the cartel men you send to visit me. Knives, baseball bats and chicken wire work great in a place with no damn lights...
> 
> Also here in Texas the state grant me the right to own a long rifle and do you know what a twelve gauge shotgun with buck shot can do to you and having a pump action with one in the chamber and five extra round for amusement will make damn sure your visit is very painful!
Click to expand...



Neither do I, one of my specialties was coming up with new bobby traps and silent ways of killing people. I still like to invent modernized booby traps. One of my latest involves compressed air cartridges and finishing nails. It sort of reminds me of the old "nail rounds" from the Vietnam time frame out of 40MM grenade launcher.


----------



## danielpalos

yiostheoy said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns are freedom.
> 
> Guns are life.
> 
> Guns make everyone equal.
> 
> Guns prevent crime.
> 
> And if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.
Click to expand...

More guns for Chicago!


----------



## danielpalos

Paparock said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need a gun to hurt you or the cartel men you send to visit me. Knives, baseball bats and chicken wire work great in a place with no damn lights...
> 
> Also here in Texas the state grant me the right to own a long rifle and do you know what a twelve gauge shotgun with buck shot can do to you and having a pump action with one in the chamber and five extra round for amusement will make damn sure your visit is very painful!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do I, one of my specialties was coming up with new bobby traps and silent ways of killing people. I still like to invent modernized booby traps. One of my latest involves compressed air cartridges and finishing nails. It sort of reminds me of the old "nail rounds" from the Vietnam time frame out of 40MM grenade launcher.
Click to expand...

shouldn't you be, well regulated?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Paparock said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need a gun to hurt you or the cartel men you send to visit me. Knives, baseball bats and chicken wire work great in a place with no damn lights...
> 
> Also here in Texas the state grant me the right to own a long rifle and do you know what a twelve gauge shotgun with buck shot can do to you and having a pump action with one in the chamber and five extra round for amusement will make damn sure your visit is very painful!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do I, one of my specialties was coming up with new bobby traps and silent ways of killing people. I still like to invent modernized booby traps. One of my latest involves compressed air cartridges and finishing nails. It sort of reminds me of the old "nail rounds" from the Vietnam time frame out of 40MM grenade launcher.
Click to expand...


If someone attempt to break into my home there are only three entery points and one is in the kitchen through a window and the other two are in the living room through the front door,or Windows.

I have no Windows in my bedroom and the closet has is secured...

To get to my bedroom you would have to go through a small hall.

The bedroom door is exterior with a deadbolt lock and regular exterior lock.

In my bedroom I have a tool box that contain a four pound hammer and one twenty-two ounce hammer...

Also two gauges of bailing wire with two key ring loops and wireman tools...

So as you read I have what I need to mess with someone if they come through my door.

So when the op'er write about how Americans do not need guns, well the op'er should think some Americans are trained not to use a gun unless it is the last resort...


----------



## Eloy

Paparock said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, State militias are not allowed to keep their firearms in their homes nor to open carry them like in the USA unlike in Switzerland. Best learn American Law!
Click to expand...

That state militias require firearms to be kept in an armory is proof that they are well-regulated.


----------



## danielpalos

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need a gun to hurt you or the cartel men you send to visit me. Knives, baseball bats and chicken wire work great in a place with no damn lights...
> 
> Also here in Texas the state grant me the right to own a long rifle and do you know what a twelve gauge shotgun with buck shot can do to you and having a pump action with one in the chamber and five extra round for amusement will make damn sure your visit is very painful!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do I, one of my specialties was coming up with new bobby traps and silent ways of killing people. I still like to invent modernized booby traps. One of my latest involves compressed air cartridges and finishing nails. It sort of reminds me of the old "nail rounds" from the Vietnam time frame out of 40MM grenade launcher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone attempt to break into my home there are only three entery points and one is in the kitchen through a window and the other two are in the living room through the front door,or Windows.
> 
> I have no Windows in my bedroom and the closet has is secured...
> 
> To get to my bedroom you would have to go through a small hall.
> 
> The bedroom door is exterior with a deadbolt lock and regular exterior lock.
> 
> In my bedroom I have a tool box that contain a four pound hammer and one twenty-two ounce hammer...
> 
> Also two gauges of bailing wire with two key ring loops and wireman tools...
> 
> So as you read I have what I need to mess with someone if they come through my door.
> 
> So when the op'er write about how Americans do not need guns, well the op'er should think some Americans are trained not to use a gun unless it is the last resort...
Click to expand...

I saw "Gettysburg" the movie.  Real sergeants don't even fire their weapon, unless they want to, "show off".


----------



## ding

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.


The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." 

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._


----------



## ding

Eloy said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, State militias are not allowed to keep their firearms in their homes nor to open carry them like in the USA unlike in Switzerland. Best learn American Law!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That state militias require firearms to be kept in an armory is proof that they are well-regulated.
Click to expand...

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


----------



## ding

Eloy said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
Click to expand...

_The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." 

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army._


----------



## frigidweirdo

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.



The true interpretation is that it A) is a limitation on the US government (and now state govts), B) that there is a right to keep arms and a right to bear arms, C) the right to keep arms merely prevents the US govt from stopping individuals, before due process, from being able to own weapons, which means as long as individuals can get weapons, the US govt isn't infringing this, for example by banning certain types of weaponry. The Supreme Court has stated that it is usual militia weaponry, which in the modern era isn't much more than a hand gun, D) the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, E) the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected with the federal govt, and the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those guns.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The true interpretation is that it A) is a limitation on the US government (and now state govts), B) that there is a right to keep arms and a right to bear arms, C) the right to keep arms merely prevents the US govt from stopping individuals, before due process, from being able to own weapons, which means as long as individuals can get weapons, the US govt isn't infringing this, for example by banning certain types of weaponry. The Supreme Court has stated that it is usual militia weaponry, which in the modern era isn't much more than a hand gun, D) the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, E) the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected with the federal govt, and the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those guns.
Click to expand...

Since the 2nd Amendment was meant to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government from usurping its power, the minimum standard for a militia today (i.e. we the people) is a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine.


----------



## Wyld Kard

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.





> Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.



Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.  



> This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns



That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.  A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights.   *That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.*



> because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS


BECAUSE  TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.


----------



## Wyld Kard

luosT_tcR said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


And who is the "_WE_" that you're referring to?  Who is "_the wealthy_" that you're referring to?  Is it the corrupt globalists like the Bilderbergs who want more control over the American people by trying taking their freedom away?

If that's the case than GUNS are GOOD.


----------



## yiostheoy

frigidweirdo said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The true interpretation is that it A) is a limitation on the US government (and now state govts), B) that there is a right to keep arms and a right to bear arms, C) the right to keep arms merely prevents the US govt from stopping individuals, before due process, from being able to own weapons, which means as long as individuals can get weapons, the US govt isn't infringing this, for example by banning certain types of weaponry. The Supreme Court has stated that it is usual militia weaponry, which in the modern era isn't much more than a hand gun, D) the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, E) the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected with the federal govt, and the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those guns.
Click to expand...

Excellent frigidweirdo !!

You read Heller correctly.

Most people have not.

Good man !!!


----------



## frigidweirdo

Wildcard said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.  A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights.   *That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BECAUSE  TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
Click to expand...


Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.

The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.


----------



## yiostheoy

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> If someone attempt to break into my home there are only three entery points and one is in the kitchen through a window and the other two are in the living room through the front door,or Windows.
> 
> I have no Windows in my bedroom and the closet has is secured...
> 
> To get to my bedroom you would have to go through a small hall.
> 
> The bedroom door is exterior with a deadbolt lock and regular exterior lock.
> 
> In my bedroom I have a tool box that contain a four pound hammer and one twenty-two ounce hammer...
> 
> Also two gauges of bailing wire with two key ring loops and wireman tools...
> 
> So as you read I have what I need to mess with someone if they come through my door...



With a shotgun, any intruder can blast your bedroom door hinges and lock away.

So a shotgun in the hands of any intruder would supersede anything you would have in your bedroom besides another shotgun or else an assault carbine.  Those would be your only two viable defenses against an intruder wanting to get into your bedroom.


----------



## frigidweirdo

yiostheoy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The true interpretation is that it A) is a limitation on the US government (and now state govts), B) that there is a right to keep arms and a right to bear arms, C) the right to keep arms merely prevents the US govt from stopping individuals, before due process, from being able to own weapons, which means as long as individuals can get weapons, the US govt isn't infringing this, for example by banning certain types of weaponry. The Supreme Court has stated that it is usual militia weaponry, which in the modern era isn't much more than a hand gun, D) the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, E) the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected with the federal govt, and the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent frigidweirdo !!
> 
> You read Heller correctly.
> 
> Most people have not.
> 
> Good man !!!
Click to expand...


Well, actually I read the original documents and knew this BEFORE the Heller case was published.


----------



## there4eyeM

As with all human matters, humans decide what human terms mean when they wish to determine them.


----------



## yiostheoy

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, actually I read the original documents and knew this BEFORE the Heller case was published.


I did as well but before Heller it was not clear to me what the significance of the militia clause was.  And Ginsberg still has her head way up her old wrinkled bunghole about that as well.

Scalia spelled out nicely what any strict constructionist non-activist SCOTUS justice is going to rule.

Whereas the far left including the 4 dissenting justices in Heller will always misinterpret the relevance of the militia clause.

Trump and Pence have saved the 2nd Amendment and the SCOTUS for now.  Which ever one of them serves out Trump's elected term will most likely nominate very strict constructionist justices.


----------



## there4eyeM

There is a difference between 1776 and 2017.
There is a difference between 2 rounds per minute and 600 rounds per minute.
There is a difference in terms whenever humans decide so.
There is an inalienable right to think.


----------



## yiostheoy

there4eyeM said:


> There is a difference between 1776 and 2017.
> There is a difference between 2 rounds per minute and 600 rounds per minute.
> There is a difference in terms whenever humans decide so.
> There is an inalienable right to think.


I think Scalia would have disagreed with you on most of that little rant of yours.

As long as a firearm is appropriate for militia duty, it is covered by the 2nd Amendment according to Scalia.

And Scalia's opinion is infinitely more significant than yours.


----------



## there4eyeM

There is a difference between being alive and not.


----------



## frigidweirdo

yiostheoy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually I read the original documents and knew this BEFORE the Heller case was published.
> 
> 
> 
> I did as well but before Heller it was not clear to me what the significance of the militia clause was.  And Ginsberg still has her head way up her old wrinkled bunghole about that as well.
> 
> Scalia spelled out nicely what any strict constructionist non-activist SCOTUS justice is going to rule.
> 
> Whereas the far left including the 4 dissenting justices in Heller will always misinterpret the relevance of the militia clause.
> 
> Trump and Pence have saved the 2nd Amendment and the SCOTUS for now.  Which ever one of them serves out Trump's elected term will most likely nominate very strict constructionist justices.
Click to expand...


Heller was an attempt at saying what was right, but also pandering to the gun crowd, and not making things too explicit for them to have to accept it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

yiostheoy said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between 1776 and 2017.
> There is a difference between 2 rounds per minute and 600 rounds per minute.
> There is a difference in terms whenever humans decide so.
> There is an inalienable right to think.
> 
> 
> 
> I think Scalia would have disagreed with you on most of that little rant of yours.
> 
> As long as a firearm is appropriate for militia duty, it is covered by the 2nd Amendment according to Scalia.
> 
> And Scalia's opinion is infinitely more significant than yours.
Click to expand...


The problem is, it's not the people who have the right, it's the govt that's restricted.


----------



## yiostheoy

frigidweirdo said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between 1776 and 2017.
> There is a difference between 2 rounds per minute and 600 rounds per minute.
> There is a difference in terms whenever humans decide so.
> There is an inalienable right to think.
> 
> 
> 
> I think Scalia would have disagreed with you on most of that little rant of yours.
> 
> As long as a firearm is appropriate for militia duty, it is covered by the 2nd Amendment according to Scalia.
> 
> And Scalia's opinion is infinitely more significant than yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, it's not the people who have the right, it's the govt that's restricted.
Click to expand...

there4eyeM is simply giving nonsense childish responses which make it clear he/she has not read Heller at all.

Typical juvenile behavior.

College undergrads tend to remain juvenile in this respect as well.


----------



## there4eyeM

So simple to 'trigger' gunners.


----------



## yiostheoy

frigidweirdo said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually I read the original documents and knew this BEFORE the Heller case was published.
> 
> 
> 
> I did as well but before Heller it was not clear to me what the significance of the militia clause was.  And Ginsberg still has her head way up her old wrinkled bunghole about that as well.
> 
> Scalia spelled out nicely what any strict constructionist non-activist SCOTUS justice is going to rule.
> 
> Whereas the far left including the 4 dissenting justices in Heller will always misinterpret the relevance of the militia clause.
> 
> Trump and Pence have saved the 2nd Amendment and the SCOTUS for now.  Which ever one of them serves out Trump's elected term will most likely nominate very strict constructionist justices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heller was an attempt at saying what was right, but also pandering to the gun crowd, and not making things too explicit for them to have to accept it.
Click to expand...

I don't think Scalia was pandering.

He was a hunter and he loved his guns.

He also understood that when/if you disarm a population you turn them into slaves.

So I believe Scalia was sincere.

As for the others who joined him in the opinion, while I suspect none of them has ever touched a gun of any kind in their lives, they agreed with Scalia's research on the "rights of Englishmen" (which ironically Englishmen in England have lost centuries ago) and among them that right to keep (in their homes) and bear (in a militia such as the English Civil War) arms.

Obviously Ginsberg and the other communists on the High Court disagreed.  They too have never touched a gun, they hate guns, and they did not give a ratz azz what Scalia's research discovered.


----------



## yiostheoy

there4eyeM said:


> So simple to 'trigger' gunners.


... as well as anti gun morons.


----------



## yiostheoy

there4eyeM said:


> There is a difference between being alive and not.


Slaves cling to life at all costs including giving away their freedom.


----------



## there4eyeM

Owning firearms does not exclude being reasonable.
Understanding how words and rights work is essential to sane discourse.


----------



## frigidweirdo

yiostheoy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually I read the original documents and knew this BEFORE the Heller case was published.
> 
> 
> 
> I did as well but before Heller it was not clear to me what the significance of the militia clause was.  And Ginsberg still has her head way up her old wrinkled bunghole about that as well.
> 
> Scalia spelled out nicely what any strict constructionist non-activist SCOTUS justice is going to rule.
> 
> Whereas the far left including the 4 dissenting justices in Heller will always misinterpret the relevance of the militia clause.
> 
> Trump and Pence have saved the 2nd Amendment and the SCOTUS for now.  Which ever one of them serves out Trump's elected term will most likely nominate very strict constructionist justices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heller was an attempt at saying what was right, but also pandering to the gun crowd, and not making things too explicit for them to have to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think Scalia was pandering.
> 
> He was a hunter and he loved his guns.
> 
> He also understood that when/if you disarm a population you turn them into slaves.
> 
> So I believe Scalia was sincere.
> 
> As for the others who joined him in the opinion, while I suspect none of them has ever touched a gun of any kind in their lives, they agreed with Scalia's research on the "rights of Englishmen" (which ironically Englishmen in England have lost centuries ago) and among them that right to keep (in their homes) and bear (in a militia such as the English Civil War) arms.
> 
> Obviously Ginsberg and the other communists on the High Court disagreed.  They too have never touched a gun, they hate guns, and they did not give a ratz azz what Scalia's research discovered.
Click to expand...


Well, maybe Scalia was looking out for his own interests. Either way there is a definite "this is what the constitution says" and "this is how we're going to write it up", with them being two different things but being the same at the same time. 

The right of Englishmen wasn't the right of Englishmen at all, it was the "right" (read privilege) of landowners and the rich. 

The problem with the Supreme Court is the same as with the rest of America. Partisanship takes over. Judges should be appointed who are impartial, who regardless of what they love or hate, rule on the constitution. But with them being promoted by partisans themselves, it'll never happen.


----------



## Deleted member 61768

Eloy said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, State militias are not allowed to keep their firearms in their homes nor to open carry them like in the USA unlike in Switzerland. Best learn American Law!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That state militias require firearms to be kept in an armory is proof that they are well-regulated.
Click to expand...



That does not meet "the right of the people to *keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" now does it!


----------



## Deleted member 61768

Liberal Courts, judges, and politicians need to actually lock up those who break the existing laws and stop trying to take away guns from law abiding Americans; then the carnage in Chicago would at least slow down! Stop blaming the object and start holding the person doing the crime accountable!!!


----------



## Eloy

Paparock said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, State militias are not allowed to keep their firearms in their homes nor to open carry them like in the USA unlike in Switzerland. Best learn American Law!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That state militias require firearms to be kept in an armory is proof that they are well-regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That does not meet "the right of the people to *keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" now does it!
Click to expand...

It does meet the requirement for the home guard to be well-regulated as was the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Deleted member 61768

Eloy said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, State militias are not allowed to keep their firearms in their homes nor to open carry them like in the USA unlike in Switzerland. Best learn American Law!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That state militias require firearms to be kept in an armory is proof that they are well-regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That does not meet "the right of the people to *keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" now does it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does meet the requirement for the home guard to be well-regulated as was the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...


And as long as it only meets half of the Second Amendment that is all that matters to you right? I was in the only Airborne Infantry National Guard unit in the United States and while we may have been well regulated we were not free to keep and bear our arms so the peoples right as a whole were most definitely infringed upon. Try addressing the whole of the Second Amendment as it was written by the founders. It was written so that the common citizen could have a firearm at hand and be rallied a a "minutes notice" to defend the people. If you bothered to read how and why the "militias" were formed by the founding fathers but that is not your purpose now is it.


----------



## Eloy

Paparock said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, State militias are not allowed to keep their firearms in their homes nor to open carry them like in the USA unlike in Switzerland. Best learn American Law!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That state militias require firearms to be kept in an armory is proof that they are well-regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That does not meet "the right of the people to *keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" now does it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does meet the requirement for the home guard to be well-regulated as was the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as long as it only meets half of the Second Amendment that is all that matters to you right? I was in the only Airborne Infantry National Guard unit in the United States and while we may have been well regulated we were not free to keep and bear our arms so the peoples right as a whole were most definitely infringed upon. Try addressing the whole of the Second Amendment as it was written by the founders. It was written so that the common citizen could have a firearm at hand and be rallied a a "minutes notice" to defend the people. If you bothered to read how and why the "militias" were formed by the founding fathers but that is not your purpose now is it.
Click to expand...

I have read the Second Amendment and I believe it was intended for states' militias, not an individual right.
Remember that the states saw the federal government as a threat on liberty similar to the English monarchy was seen then. It was meant to guarantee the safety of states to bear arms and to defend themselves should the federal government become an autocracy.


----------



## Deleted member 61768

Eloy said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, State militias are not allowed to keep their firearms in their homes nor to open carry them like in the USA unlike in Switzerland. Best learn American Law!
> 
> 
> 
> That state militias require firearms to be kept in an armory is proof that they are well-regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That does not meet "the right of the people to *keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" now does it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does meet the requirement for the home guard to be well-regulated as was the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as long as it only meets half of the Second Amendment that is all that matters to you right? I was in the only Airborne Infantry National Guard unit in the United States and while we may have been well regulated we were not free to keep and bear our arms so the peoples right as a whole were most definitely infringed upon. Try addressing the whole of the Second Amendment as it was written by the founders. It was written so that the common citizen could have a firearm at hand and be rallied a a "minutes notice" to defend the people. If you bothered to read how and why the "militias" were formed by the founding fathers but that is not your purpose now is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Second Amendment and I believe it was intended for states' militias, not an individual right.
> Remember that the states saw the federal government as a threat on liberty similar to the English monarchy was seen then. It was meant to guarantee the safety of states to bear arms and to defend themselves should the federal government become an autocracy.
Click to expand...



All I can say is you are wrong according to our founding fathers and the documents they wrote!


----------



## danielpalos

ding said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
Click to expand...

Well regulated means what our federal Congress _prescribes_ it to mean.


----------



## Wyld Kard

frigidweirdo said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.  A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights.   *That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BECAUSE  TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
Click to expand...


*The Second Amendment reads*:  *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*

*The Second Amendment doesn’t read:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.*

Shall not be infringed.  Seems pretty much self-explanatory.

So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Wildcard said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.  A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights.   *That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BECAUSE  TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Second Amendment reads*:  *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*
> 
> *The Second Amendment doesn’t read:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.*
> 
> Shall not be infringed.  Seems pretty much self-explanatory.
> 
> So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you'd think. 

However can you find me one day in US history where all prisoners in US jails and prisons were allowed to keep guns inside prison? Just one day? 

I mean, if they made the law, and passed it, you'd think the next day, or a month later, or a year later, they'd be interpreting it pretty much how they intended it. So, which day in US history were prisoners allowed to have guns in prison?


----------



## Penelope

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> No BB guns are NOT OK, they got some powerful ones out there that can kill and cause seriouse injury just like a regular firearm, they should be banned too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we are given the freedom to have guns  to protect ourselves from criminals and liberals. Do you understand?
> *
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
> 
> -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334*
Click to expand...


*All**º** persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution. ()*

*No**º** freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]*

*There**º** shall be no standing army but in time of actual war.*

Printingº presses shall be free, except so far as by commission of private injury cause may be given of private action.

Allº Forfeitures heretofore going to the king, shall go to the state; save only such as the legislature may hereafter abolish.

Theº royal claim to Wrecks, waifs, strays, treasure-trove, royal mines, royal fish, royal birds, are declared to have been usurpations on common right.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0161-000


----------



## danielpalos

Wildcard said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.  A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights.   *That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BECAUSE  TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Second Amendment reads*:  *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*
> 
> *The Second Amendment doesn’t read:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.*
> 
> Shall not be infringed.  Seems pretty much self-explanatory.
> 
> So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.
Click to expand...

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.  A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights.   *That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BECAUSE  TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Second Amendment reads*:  *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*
> 
> *The Second Amendment doesn’t read:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.*
> 
> Shall not be infringed.  Seems pretty much self-explanatory.
> 
> So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.


----------



## Deleted member 61768

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.  A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights.   *That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BECAUSE  TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Second Amendment reads*:  *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*
> 
> *The Second Amendment doesn’t read:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.*
> 
> Shall not be infringed.  Seems pretty much self-explanatory.
> 
> So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
Click to expand...


The nation's first militia's arms were made up of the arms purchased and individually owned by each and every militia member when the Second Amendment was written that is why the founding fathers wrote that he right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed! The later form of centralized arms and issuing arms to members did not come about until many many years latter. You are trying to force your opinion upon the  Second Amendment rather than putting it into the historical context in which it was formed and written. Anyone who is an honest student of history who has read the deliberations and discussions around this subject can understand this. It is those who come at it with an agenda to prove have such a hard time with it!


----------



## Eloy

Paparock said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.
> 
> That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.  A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights.   *That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.*
> 
> BECAUSE  TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Second Amendment reads*:  *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*
> 
> *The Second Amendment doesn’t read:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.*
> 
> Shall not be infringed.  Seems pretty much self-explanatory.
> 
> So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation's first militia's arms were made up of the arms purchased and individually owned by each and every militia member when the Second Amendment was written that is why the founding fathers wrote that he right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed! The later form of centralized arms and issuing arms to members did not come about until many many years latter. You are trying to force your opinion upon the  Second Amendment rather than putting it into the historical context in which it was formed and written. Anyone who is an honest student of history who has read the deliberations and discussions around this subject can understand this. It is those who come at it with an agenda to prove have such a hard time with it!
Click to expand...

America id different today.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.  A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights.   *That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BECAUSE  TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Second Amendment reads*:  *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*
> 
> *The Second Amendment doesn’t read:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.*
> 
> Shall not be infringed.  Seems pretty much self-explanatory.
> 
> So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
Click to expand...

it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.  it really is, that simple.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Paparock said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.
> 
> That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.  A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights.   *That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.*
> 
> BECAUSE  TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Second Amendment reads*:  *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*
> 
> *The Second Amendment doesn’t read:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.*
> 
> Shall not be infringed.  Seems pretty much self-explanatory.
> 
> So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation's first militia's arms were made up of the arms purchased and individually owned by each and every militia member when the Second Amendment was written that is why the founding fathers wrote that he right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed! The later form of centralized arms and issuing arms to members did not come about until many many years latter. You are trying to force your opinion upon the  Second Amendment rather than putting it into the historical context in which it was formed and written. Anyone who is an honest student of history who has read the deliberations and discussions around this subject can understand this. It is those who come at it with an agenda to prove have such a hard time with it!
Click to expand...


Sort of. However you're not stating things clearly enough. 

The reason arms were purchased by militia members wasn't because of the 2A, it was because of the Militia Act of 1792 which essentially forced people to be in the militia and to turn up sufficiently armed. Not much of a problem in those days though. 

Secondly you act like there is only one right, the Right to keep and bear arms. There are two rights. The right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. The first is the right to own weapons, the second is the right to be in the militia. This is clear in the records of the Founding Fathers.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Where they said:

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Here it is clear that "militia duty" and "bearing arms" are being used synonymously. 

""No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

And here "render military service" is used synonymously with "militia duty" and "bear arms".

I'm not trying to force my opinion. I'm actually stating what the Second Amendment ACTUALLY MEANS. Why? Because I've done the research. The simple fact is that you haven't provided a single document to back yourself up with.


Hey, I'll add another one. The Heller case. 

"(1) 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."

My point is that the right to keep arms protects an individuals right to own weapons. 
The 2A has the right to keep arms, which is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that the govt cannot take away. This matches what the Supreme Court said. The part about self defense there has nothing to do with the 2A. There is a right to self defense, not from the 2A, however individuals can use whatever weaponry they have, Knives, TVs, guns, when defending themselves. 

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U. S. 542 , nor _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. _United States v. Miller_, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

They didn't strike down Presser. Funny that. Do you know Presser? Because Presser said:

"*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
*
So, individuals can't do what they like with their guns. They can't just walk the streets. The right to bear arms isn't the right to carry arms, it's the right to be in the militia. And the Heller case affirmed this. 

But hey, if you have any evidence to back up your claims, feel free to present it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.
> 
> That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.  A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights.   *That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.*
> 
> BECAUSE  TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Second Amendment reads*:  *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*
> 
> *The Second Amendment doesn’t read:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.*
> 
> Shall not be infringed.  Seems pretty much self-explanatory.
> 
> So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.  it really is, that simple.
Click to expand...


Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what? 

They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.


----------



## danielpalos

Paparock said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.
> 
> That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.  A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights.   *That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.*
> 
> BECAUSE  TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Second Amendment reads*:  *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*
> 
> *The Second Amendment doesn’t read:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.*
> 
> Shall not be infringed.  Seems pretty much self-explanatory.
> 
> So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation's first militia's arms were made up of the arms purchased and individually owned by each and every militia member when the Second Amendment was written that is why the founding fathers wrote that he right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed! The later form of centralized arms and issuing arms to members did not come about until many many years latter. You are trying to force your opinion upon the  Second Amendment rather than putting it into the historical context in which it was formed and written. Anyone who is an honest student of history who has read the deliberations and discussions around this subject can understand this. It is those who come at it with an agenda to prove have such a hard time with it!
Click to expand...

well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.  it really is, that simple.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Second Amendment reads*:  *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*
> 
> *The Second Amendment doesn’t read:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.*
> 
> Shall not be infringed.  Seems pretty much self-explanatory.
> 
> So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.  it really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?
> 
> They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

just lousy reading comprehension?  well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State; the unorganized militia is not.  it really is, that simple.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Second Amendment reads*:  *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*
> 
> *The Second Amendment doesn’t read:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.*
> 
> Shall not be infringed.  Seems pretty much self-explanatory.
> 
> So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.  it really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?
> 
> They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

wedge fries, curly cue fries, or onion rings, are not, specifically, enumerated as Necessary.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Second Amendment reads*:  *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*
> 
> *The Second Amendment doesn’t read:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.*
> 
> Shall not be infringed.  Seems pretty much self-explanatory.
> 
> So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation's first militia's arms were made up of the arms purchased and individually owned by each and every militia member when the Second Amendment was written that is why the founding fathers wrote that he right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed! The later form of centralized arms and issuing arms to members did not come about until many many years latter. You are trying to force your opinion upon the  Second Amendment rather than putting it into the historical context in which it was formed and written. Anyone who is an honest student of history who has read the deliberations and discussions around this subject can understand this. It is those who come at it with an agenda to prove have such a hard time with it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.  it really is, that simple.
Click to expand...


Ans still not legally binding.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Second Amendment reads*:  *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*
> 
> *The Second Amendment doesn’t read:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.*
> 
> Shall not be infringed.  Seems pretty much self-explanatory.
> 
> So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.
> 
> 
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.  it really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?
> 
> They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just lousy reading comprehension?  well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State; the unorganized militia is not.  it really is, that simple.
Click to expand...


Not at all. I know what it says, and I know how much legal impact it has. You're trying to tell me that "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state" legally binds the federal govt to do something. Okay, you think this, PROVE IT. Show me where the Founding Fathers said this was the case, show me where the Supreme Court said this was the case, show me something, anything. Because I know there is nothing there for you to prove, and I know you'll fail to prove this.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Second Amendment reads*:  *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*
> 
> *The Second Amendment doesn’t read:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.*
> 
> Shall not be infringed.  Seems pretty much self-explanatory.
> 
> So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.
> 
> 
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.  it really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?
> 
> They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wedge fries, curly cue fries, or onion rings, are not, specifically, enumerated as Necessary.
Click to expand...


What's your point? Reading comprehension problems? I said "could have".


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Second Amendment reads*:  *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*
> 
> *The Second Amendment doesn’t read:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except: when it comes to certain types of arms like those which are deemed dangerous or sophisticated or automatic or those not envisioned at the time the Second Amendment was written.*
> 
> Shall not be infringed.  Seems pretty much self-explanatory.
> 
> So whenever the govt. attempts to prevent individuals from having certain types of arms, they are in violation of the constitution as well as a person's fundamental rights.
> 
> 
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation's first militia's arms were made up of the arms purchased and individually owned by each and every militia member when the Second Amendment was written that is why the founding fathers wrote that he right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed! The later form of centralized arms and issuing arms to members did not come about until many many years latter. You are trying to force your opinion upon the  Second Amendment rather than putting it into the historical context in which it was formed and written. Anyone who is an honest student of history who has read the deliberations and discussions around this subject can understand this. It is those who come at it with an agenda to prove have such a hard time with it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.  it really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ans still not legally binding.
Click to expand...

did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, or economics?

If it is specifically enumerated, it is specifically binding.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.  it really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?
> 
> They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just lousy reading comprehension?  well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State; the unorganized militia is not.  it really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all. I know what it says, and I know how much legal impact it has. You're trying to tell me that "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state" legally binds the federal govt to do something. Okay, you think this, PROVE IT. Show me where the Founding Fathers said this was the case, show me where the Supreme Court said this was the case, show me something, anything. Because I know there is nothing there for you to prove, and I know you'll fail to prove this.
Click to expand...

the Term is well regulated; that is the specific Term used.  it does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.  it really is that simple, except to the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.  it really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?
> 
> They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wedge fries, curly cue fries, or onion rings, are not, specifically, enumerated as Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point? Reading comprehension problems? I said "could have".
Click to expand...

You need to brush up on Contract law.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation's first militia's arms were made up of the arms purchased and individually owned by each and every militia member when the Second Amendment was written that is why the founding fathers wrote that he right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed! The later form of centralized arms and issuing arms to members did not come about until many many years latter. You are trying to force your opinion upon the  Second Amendment rather than putting it into the historical context in which it was formed and written. Anyone who is an honest student of history who has read the deliberations and discussions around this subject can understand this. It is those who come at it with an agenda to prove have such a hard time with it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.  it really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ans still not legally binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, or economics?
> 
> If it is specifically enumerated, it is specifically binding.
Click to expand...


Seems to be one of those things people just "know", not from facts, or evidence, but just because they decided it was so.

Again, it's still not legally binding. So.....?


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.  it really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?
> 
> They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wedge fries, curly cue fries, or onion rings, are not, specifically, enumerated as Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point? Reading comprehension problems? I said "could have".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to brush up on Contract law.
Click to expand...


No, I don't. Every post you write is short, lacking in substance, and yet you try and climb to the higher ground. It's not happening.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.  it really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?
> 
> They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just lousy reading comprehension?  well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State; the unorganized militia is not.  it really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all. I know what it says, and I know how much legal impact it has. You're trying to tell me that "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state" legally binds the federal govt to do something. Okay, you think this, PROVE IT. Show me where the Founding Fathers said this was the case, show me where the Supreme Court said this was the case, show me something, anything. Because I know there is nothing there for you to prove, and I know you'll fail to prove this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Term is well regulated; that is the specific Term used.  it does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.  it really is that simple, except to the right wing.
Click to expand...


So what if it's a specific term? I asked you to prove your point. You didn't. So I'll take it as your point in wrong.


----------



## peach174

Eloy said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
Click to expand...



They got it right.
You're the one who has it wrong.
Back then the state militias were the people.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, however the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The first part of the 2A says that a well regulated militia is what is required, but doesn't demand that a militia be well regulated. It just says it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nation's first militia's arms were made up of the arms purchased and individually owned by each and every militia member when the Second Amendment was written that is why the founding fathers wrote that he right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed! The later form of centralized arms and issuing arms to members did not come about until many many years latter. You are trying to force your opinion upon the  Second Amendment rather than putting it into the historical context in which it was formed and written. Anyone who is an honest student of history who has read the deliberations and discussions around this subject can understand this. It is those who come at it with an agenda to prove have such a hard time with it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are specifically declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.  it really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ans still not legally binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, or economics?
> 
> If it is specifically enumerated, it is specifically binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to be one of those things people just "know", not from facts, or evidence, but just because they decided it was so.
> 
> Again, it's still not legally binding. So.....?
Click to expand...

did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, or economics?

If it is _specifically_ enumerated, it is _specifically_ binding.

Any Thing to the contrary, is simply, legal fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.  it really is, that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?
> 
> They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wedge fries, curly cue fries, or onion rings, are not, specifically, enumerated as Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point? Reading comprehension problems? I said "could have".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to brush up on Contract law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't. Every post you write is short, lacking in substance, and yet you try and climb to the higher ground. It's not happening.
Click to expand...

just clueless and Causeless; i got it.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.  it really is, that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?
> 
> They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just lousy reading comprehension?  well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State; the unorganized militia is not.  it really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all. I know what it says, and I know how much legal impact it has. You're trying to tell me that "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state" legally binds the federal govt to do something. Okay, you think this, PROVE IT. Show me where the Founding Fathers said this was the case, show me where the Supreme Court said this was the case, show me something, anything. Because I know there is nothing there for you to prove, and I know you'll fail to prove this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Term is well regulated; that is the specific Term used.  it does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.  it really is that simple, except to the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what if it's a specific term? I asked you to prove your point. You didn't. So I'll take it as your point in wrong.
Click to expand...

Contract law depends on specific terms, dear.


----------



## danielpalos

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. But it doesn't have any legal power. It doesn't tell the federal govt to do anything. So... what?
> 
> They could have written "French Fries are essential to a fat gut", and it wouldn't have required anyone to do anything. It's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> wedge fries, curly cue fries, or onion rings, are not, specifically, enumerated as Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point? Reading comprehension problems? I said "could have".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to brush up on Contract law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't. Every post you write is short, lacking in substance, and yet you try and climb to the higher ground. It's not happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just clueless and Causeless; i got it.
Click to expand...


Look, you've presented nothing, and now you're onto the insults. I think the ignore list is the right place for your crap.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> wedge fries, curly cue fries, or onion rings, are not, specifically, enumerated as Necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point? Reading comprehension problems? I said "could have".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to brush up on Contract law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't. Every post you write is short, lacking in substance, and yet you try and climb to the higher ground. It's not happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just clueless and Causeless; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you've presented nothing, and now you're onto the insults. I think the ignore list is the right place for your crap.
Click to expand...

just cherry picking your defense of valid arguments And abandoning your intellectual positions as well; how "brave" of you when on the US, national socialist right wing.


----------



## Eloy

peach174 said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They got it right.
> You're the one who has it wrong.
> Back then the state militias were the people.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook Elementary.


----------



## danielpalos

Eloy said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They got it right.
> You're the one who has it wrong.
> Back then the state militias were the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook Elementary.
Click to expand...

Should we ask the "Colonels General" of the Regiments of that which is enumerated necessary to the security (and domestic Tranquility) of our free, several, and sovereign, United States; for leadership advice?


----------



## ding

danielpalos said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They got it right.
> You're the one who has it wrong.
> Back then the state militias were the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook Elementary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we ask the "Colonels General" of the Regiments of that which is enumerated necessary to the security (and domestic Tranquility) of our free, several, and sovereign, United States; for leadership advice?
Click to expand...

You should do that.


----------



## ding

danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.


Yes, the people are the Militia.  The right wing just owns more guns.


----------



## danielpalos

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They got it right.
> You're the one who has it wrong.
> Back then the state militias were the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook Elementary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we ask the "Colonels General" of the Regiments of that which is enumerated necessary to the security (and domestic Tranquility) of our free, several, and sovereign, United States; for leadership advice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should do that.
Click to expand...

thank you for "seconding that motion".

Dear Colonels General of the Regiments of that which is Proclaimed _necessary_ to the security of our free States, should we ask the Union, for federal Standards?


----------



## danielpalos

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the people are the Militia.  The right wing just owns more guns.
Click to expand...

the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.


----------



## peach174

danielpalos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the people are the Militia.  The right wing just owns more guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.
Click to expand...



It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.


----------



## ding

peach174 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the people are the Militia.  The right wing just owns more guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
> The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
Click to expand...

He is right.  We the people, you and I and every other law abiding peace loving citizen are the militia.  He probably isn't.


----------



## danielpalos

peach174 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the people are the Militia.  The right wing just owns more guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
> The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  It is about, what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## ding

danielpalos said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the people are the Militia.  The right wing just owns more guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
> The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  It is about, what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...

Yes, to defend it from people like you.


----------



## miketx

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.


Come get them.


----------



## peach174

ding said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the people are the Militia.  The right wing just owns more guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
> The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is right.  We the people, you and I and every other law abiding peace loving citizen are the militia.  He probably isn't.
Click to expand...



No our state constitutions give the laws of who each state had the qualifications for militias.
Back then it was men between the ages of 18 to 45 yrs., which varied from each state, but women and children had the right to carry.


----------



## peach174

danielpalos said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the people are the Militia.  The right wing just owns more guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
> The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  It is about, what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...



What do you think the word protecting means?
That includes security.


----------



## ding

peach174 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the people are the Militia.  The right wing just owns more guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
> The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is right.  We the people, you and I and every other law abiding peace loving citizen are the militia.  He probably isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No our state constitutions give the laws of who each state had the qualifications for militias.
> Back then it was men between the ages of 18 to 45 yrs., which varied from each state, but women and children had the right to carry.
Click to expand...

Let's see what the guys who wrote it said it was about:

*The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.*

_"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."_

_- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28_

_"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."_

_- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28_

_The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia._

_“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." _

_- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_

*The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.*

_"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
_
*The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.*
_
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_

*Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.*


----------



## peach174

Exactly!


----------



## Chuz Life

Eloy said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, State militias are not allowed to keep their firearms in their homes nor to open carry them like in the USA unlike in Switzerland. Best learn American Law!
> 
> 
> 
> That state militias require firearms to be kept in an armory is proof that they are well-regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That does not meet "the right of the people to *keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" now does it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does meet the requirement for the home guard to be well-regulated as was the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as long as it only meets half of the Second Amendment that is all that matters to you right? I was in the only Airborne Infantry National Guard unit in the United States and while we may have been well regulated we were not free to keep and bear our arms so the peoples right as a whole were most definitely infringed upon. Try addressing the whole of the Second Amendment as it was written by the founders. It was written so that the common citizen could have a firearm at hand and be rallied a a "minutes notice" to defend the people. If you bothered to read how and why the "militias" were formed by the founding fathers but that is not your purpose now is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Second Amendment and I believe it was intended for states' militias, not an individual right.
> Remember that the states saw the federal government as a threat on liberty similar to the English monarchy was seen then. It was meant to guarantee the safety of states to bear arms and to defend themselves should the federal government become an autocracy.
Click to expand...


From the Constitution for the state of Indiana.

ARTICLE 12. Militia

Section 1. Composition

Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of ALL persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia MAY be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.



Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.


----------



## Cellblock2429

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.



/---- Barack is that you? Enjoying retirement?


----------



## danielpalos

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the people are the Militia.  The right wing just owns more guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
> The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  It is about, what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, to defend it from people like you.
Click to expand...

there should be no security problems in our free States.


----------



## danielpalos

peach174 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the people are the Militia.  The right wing just owns more guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
> The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  It is about, what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the word protecting means?
> That includes security.
Click to expand...

Why do any of our several States have any form of security problem?


----------



## Chuz Life

danielpalos said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the people are the Militia.  The right wing just owns more guns.
> 
> 
> 
> the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
> The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  It is about, what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the word protecting means?
> That includes security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do any of our several States have any form of security problem?
Click to expand...

Thanks to the 2nd amendment, they don't and probably never will.

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.


----------



## Eloy

Chuz Life said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That state militias require firearms to be kept in an armory is proof that they are well-regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does not meet "the right of the people to *keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" now does it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does meet the requirement for the home guard to be well-regulated as was the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as long as it only meets half of the Second Amendment that is all that matters to you right? I was in the only Airborne Infantry National Guard unit in the United States and while we may have been well regulated we were not free to keep and bear our arms so the peoples right as a whole were most definitely infringed upon. Try addressing the whole of the Second Amendment as it was written by the founders. It was written so that the common citizen could have a firearm at hand and be rallied a a "minutes notice" to defend the people. If you bothered to read how and why the "militias" were formed by the founding fathers but that is not your purpose now is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Second Amendment and I believe it was intended for states' militias, not an individual right.
> Remember that the states saw the federal government as a threat on liberty similar to the English monarchy was seen then. It was meant to guarantee the safety of states to bear arms and to defend themselves should the federal government become an autocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the Constitution for the state of Indiana.
> 
> ARTICLE 12. Militia
> 
> Section 1. Composition
> 
> Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of ALL persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia MAY be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
Click to expand...

It looks like Indiana does not have a well-regulated militia.


----------



## Chuz Life

Eloy said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not meet "the right of the people to *keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" now does it!
> 
> 
> 
> It does meet the requirement for the home guard to be well-regulated as was the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as long as it only meets half of the Second Amendment that is all that matters to you right? I was in the only Airborne Infantry National Guard unit in the United States and while we may have been well regulated we were not free to keep and bear our arms so the peoples right as a whole were most definitely infringed upon. Try addressing the whole of the Second Amendment as it was written by the founders. It was written so that the common citizen could have a firearm at hand and be rallied a a "minutes notice" to defend the people. If you bothered to read how and why the "militias" were formed by the founding fathers but that is not your purpose now is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Second Amendment and I believe it was intended for states' militias, not an individual right.
> Remember that the states saw the federal government as a threat on liberty similar to the English monarchy was seen then. It was meant to guarantee the safety of states to bear arms and to defend themselves should the federal government become an autocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the Constitution for the state of Indiana.
> 
> ARTICLE 12. Militia
> 
> Section 1. Composition
> 
> Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of ALL persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia MAY be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It looks like Indiana does not have a well-regulated militia.
Click to expand...

That depends on which definition of "well regulated" you are using. The framers used it one way to stress the need for the militia to be adequately armed and trained and the left uses the definitions that mean more laws and restrictions. 

Either way, Indiana can be said to be "less regulated" but so what if it is?

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.


----------



## danielpalos

Chuz Life said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
> The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  It is about, what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the word protecting means?
> That includes security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do any of our several States have any form of security problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks to the 2nd amendment, they don't and probably never will.
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
Click to expand...

So, we have our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, merely for right wing fantasy?


----------



## luosT_tcR

Well, Trump has no interest in gun confiscation, i guess wee need to wait for the next president.


----------



## miketx

luosT_tcR said:


> Well, Trump has no interest in gun confiscation, i guess wee need to wait for the next president.


Come get them.


----------



## Wyld Kard

luosT_tcR said:


> Well, Trump has no interest in gun confiscation, i guess wee need to wait for the next president.



And if any future president really wanted to begin a civil war in this country, pushing for gun confiscation will most certainly do it.


----------



## JBond

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.



How very totalitarian of you. Pathetic.


----------



## JimmyC

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.


I will not fall into your preposterous trap and entertain an argument. God bless.


----------



## danielpalos

Muster the militia until we have, no security problems!


----------



## Cellblock2429

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.


/----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
*Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers*
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
> *Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers*
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
Click to expand...

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.  
Order over Anarchy, every time!


----------



## Cecilie1200

JimmyC said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> I will not fall into your preposterous trap and entertain an argument. God bless.
Click to expand...


So you went to all this trouble to post that you're not going to post?  I don't recall anyone asking you to, or even being aware that you existed, so I'm lost as to why you wasted the time.


----------



## JimmyC

JimmyC said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> I will not fall into your preposterous trap and entertain an argument. God bless.
Click to expand...

Because arguing with disrespectful bigots who threaten and dismiss others rights is an exercise in futility. Listen respectfully and try to understand and ye will receive a discussion!


----------



## Cecilie1200

JimmyC said:


> JimmyC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> I will not fall into your preposterous trap and entertain an argument. God bless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because arguing with disrespectful bigots who threaten and dismiss others rights is an exercise in futility. Listen respectfully and try to understand and ye will receive a discussion!
Click to expand...


Listen respectfully to you taking time to tell us all how you're too good to talk to us and won't be posting?

I'm having trouble understanding 1) what I'm even supposed to respect about you, 2) why you think I WANT a discussion with you, and 3) my original question of why you're wasting time posting about how you aren't going to post in the first place.

But it's an idle curiosity at best, so if you need to toddle off and get busy not-posting at us, I'll understand.


----------



## JimmyC

Cecilie1200 said:


> JimmyC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimmyC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> I will not fall into your preposterous trap and entertain an argument. God bless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because arguing with disrespectful bigots who threaten and dismiss others rights is an exercise in futility. Listen respectfully and try to understand and ye will receive a discussion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen respectfully to you taking time to tell us all how you're too good to talk to us and won't be posting?
> 
> I'm having trouble understanding 1) what I'm even supposed to respect about you, 2) why you think I WANT a discussion with you, and 3) my original question of why you're wasting time posting about how you aren't going to post in the first place.
> 
> But it's an idle curiosity at best, so if you need to toddle off and get busy not-posting at us, I'll understand.
Click to expand...

I started the thread!


----------



## Cecilie1200

JimmyC said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimmyC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimmyC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> I will not fall into your preposterous trap and entertain an argument. God bless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because arguing with disrespectful bigots who threaten and dismiss others rights is an exercise in futility. Listen respectfully and try to understand and ye will receive a discussion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen respectfully to you taking time to tell us all how you're too good to talk to us and won't be posting?
> 
> I'm having trouble understanding 1) what I'm even supposed to respect about you, 2) why you think I WANT a discussion with you, and 3) my original question of why you're wasting time posting about how you aren't going to post in the first place.
> 
> But it's an idle curiosity at best, so if you need to toddle off and get busy not-posting at us, I'll understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I started the thread!
Click to expand...


That's nice, but it's still ludicrous to post to announce that you're not going to post.


----------



## JimmyC

Cecilie1200 said:


> JimmyC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimmyC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimmyC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> I will not fall into your preposterous trap and entertain an argument. God bless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because arguing with disrespectful bigots who threaten and dismiss others rights is an exercise in futility. Listen respectfully and try to understand and ye will receive a discussion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen respectfully to you taking time to tell us all how you're too good to talk to us and won't be posting?
> 
> I'm having trouble understanding 1) what I'm even supposed to respect about you, 2) why you think I WANT a discussion with you, and 3) my original question of why you're wasting time posting about how you aren't going to post in the first place.
> 
> But it's an idle curiosity at best, so if you need to toddle off and get busy not-posting at us, I'll understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I started the thread!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nice, but it's still ludicrous to post to announce that you're not going to post.
Click to expand...


Obviously your right! I digress, your majesty. (With all due respect, of course.)*    :-(*


----------



## regent

Has the message board members finally agreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment?


----------



## JimmyC

regent said:


> Has the message board members finally agreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment?


I believe so. All the socialist instigators have gone quiet. Over and out...


----------



## Humorme

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.



Do you try to be satirical or is this the way you see the world?


----------



## Manonthestreet




----------



## danielpalos

the legislative Intent is in the first clause; no amount of judicial activism, can change that, fundamental legal fact.


----------



## Humorme

Manonthestreet said:


>






Not much more to debate about it.


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Second Amendment, muster the militia until crime drops.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
> *Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers*
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
Click to expand...


Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment, muster the militia until crime drops.



The militia is mustered to protect the nation, not to fight crime.  The US Military is not used to fight crime either.

Oh, and, other then a few years that were hiccups, violent crime rates have been dropping for decades.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
> *Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers*
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
Click to expand...

simple judicial activism.  the People is plural, not singular or individual.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment, muster the militia until crime drops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is mustered to protect the nation, not to fight crime.  The US Military is not used to fight crime either.
> 
> Oh, and, other then a few years that were hiccups, violent crime rates have been dropping for decades.
Click to expand...

The security of our free States seems to require it.  No crime should happen when gun lovers have to muster and present arms.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
> *Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers*
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple judicial activism.  the People is plural, not singular or individual.
Click to expand...


Yes, because the 2nd amendment is talking about a right for the citizens.  There are a lot of them.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment, muster the militia until crime drops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is mustered to protect the nation, not to fight crime.  The US Military is not used to fight crime either.
> 
> Oh, and, other then a few years that were hiccups, violent crime rates have been dropping for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The security of our free States seems to require it.  No crime should happen when gun lovers have to muster and present arms.
Click to expand...


And if the 2nd amendment had said anything about law enforcement, you might have a point.   It doesn't and you don't.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
> *Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers*
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple judicial activism.  the People is plural, not singular or individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the 2nd amendment is talking about a right for the citizens.  There are a lot of them.
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary, not the whole of the People.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment, muster the militia until crime drops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is mustered to protect the nation, not to fight crime.  The US Military is not used to fight crime either.
> 
> Oh, and, other then a few years that were hiccups, violent crime rates have been dropping for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The security of our free States seems to require it.  No crime should happen when gun lovers have to muster and present arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if the 2nd amendment had said anything about law enforcement, you might have a point.   It doesn't and you don't.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.  The militia are specifically authorized the police power.


----------



## EGR one

regent said:


> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.



I have always been troubled by people who are willing to allow nine lawyers to determine the future of our Republic.  Especially when most of the ills of this country have been either initiated of abetted by those nine lawyers.  

The concept that the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what is, or is not constitutional, was simply adopted by the court, and never challenged by the other two branches or the states.  It is not in the constitution.

Since the United States Constitution is basically a contract between the states and the federal government, it should be arbitrated by a neutral panel make up the states and the federal government.  Not simply a one sided deal where the federal government alone decides what the contract says.


----------



## EGR one

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
> *Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers*
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple judicial activism.  the People is plural, not singular or individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the 2nd amendment is talking about a right for the citizens.  There are a lot of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary, not the whole of the People.
Click to expand...


The militia was the whole of the people.  At the time all male, now not so much.


----------



## EGR one

frigidweirdo said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.  A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights.   *That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BECAUSE  TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
Click to expand...


Only if the government can justify the restriction through a compelling need.  And, only if the restriction is the least intrusive way to meet that compelling need.  Currently, there is no compelling need to further restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


----------



## EGR one

there4eyeM said:


> There is a difference between 1776 and 2017.
> There is a difference between 2 rounds per minute and 600 rounds per minute.
> There is a difference in terms whenever humans decide so.
> There is an inalienable right to think.



You should attempt to take advantage of that inalienable right to think.  Words have meanings, and the only reason to alter the meaning of words is to mislead and obfuscate the message the words convey.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

“True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment…”

…is the sole purview of the Supreme Court.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EGR one said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always been troubled by people who are willing to allow nine lawyers to determine the future of our Republic.  Especially when most of the ills of this country have been either initiated of abetted by those nine lawyers.
> 
> The concept that the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what is, or is not constitutional, was simply adopted by the court, and never challenged by the other two branches or the states.  It is not in the constitution.
> 
> Since the United States Constitution is basically a contract between the states and the federal government, it should be arbitrated by a neutral panel make up the states and the federal government.  Not simply a one sided deal where the federal government alone decides what the contract says.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

It was the original understanding and intent of the Founding Generation that the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – would have the authority to determine what the Constitution means, where those rulings would be the supreme law of the land, as codified in Article VI of the Constitution.


----------



## miketx

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.


Try it bitch.


----------



## frigidweirdo

EGR one said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.  A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights.   *That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BECAUSE  TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if the government can justify the restriction through a compelling need.  And, only if the restriction is the least intrusive way to meet that compelling need.  Currently, there is no compelling need to further restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...


Well, you can't get SAM missiles, or nuclear weapons etc. 

There are compelling reasons why these are banned.

But with the number of school shootings and murders every year, there does appear to be a compelling reason to restrict firearm ownership and access.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EGR one said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.  A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights.   *That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BECAUSE  TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if the government can justify the restriction through a compelling need.  And, only if the restriction is the least intrusive way to meet that compelling need.  Currently, there is no compelling need to further restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Actually not.

Acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts determine otherwise (_US v. Morrison _(2000)).

Consequently, further regulatory measures such as banning bump-fire stocks, universal background checks, and ‘red flag’ laws are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner further restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, until such measures are invalidated by the Supreme Court.


----------



## fncceo

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.



Word vomit ...


----------



## fncceo

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, you can't get SAM missiles, or nuclear weapons etc.



Says you ...






Come by my house on the 4th.


----------



## danielpalos

EGR one said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple judicial activism.  the People is plural, not singular or individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the 2nd amendment is talking about a right for the citizens.  There are a lot of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary, not the whole of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia was the whole of the people.  At the time all male, now not so much.
Click to expand...

The People are the militia under the common law for the common defense.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
> *Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers*
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Marion Morrison

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.




Go fuck yourself, Communist assbag. Come on my property and see what happens.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
> *Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers*
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple judicial activism.  the People is plural, not singular or individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the 2nd amendment is talking about a right for the citizens.  There are a lot of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary, not the whole of the People.
Click to expand...


No, that is incorrect.   The 2nd says that a militia is necessary.   But it does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".   They specifically said "people".   It is a right of the the people.  Not a collective right, but a right of the people, ie citizens.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment, muster the militia until crime drops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is mustered to protect the nation, not to fight crime.  The US Military is not used to fight crime either.
> 
> Oh, and, other then a few years that were hiccups, violent crime rates have been dropping for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The security of our free States seems to require it.  No crime should happen when gun lovers have to muster and present arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if the 2nd amendment had said anything about law enforcement, you might have a point.   It doesn't and you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  The militia are specifically authorized the police power.
Click to expand...


Really?   Where do you get that?  Got a link?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> 
> 
> simple judicial activism.  the People is plural, not singular or individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the 2nd amendment is talking about a right for the citizens.  There are a lot of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary, not the whole of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia was the whole of the people.  At the time all male, now not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia under the common law for the common defense.
Click to expand...


The people are free citizens.  The militia is those free citizens stepping up to defend their country when needed.


----------



## Marion Morrison

daniel just needs a decent washy washy.


----------



## there4eyeM

Life is change, and language and thinking change naturally with time. Those unable to accept change will go the way of other species that were unable.


----------



## Cellblock2429

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple judicial activism.  the People is plural, not singular or individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the 2nd amendment is talking about a right for the citizens.  There are a lot of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary, not the whole of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is incorrect.   The 2nd says that a militia is necessary.   But it does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".   They specifically said "people".   It is a right of the the people.  Not a collective right, but a right of the people, ie citizens.
Click to expand...

/——-/ Liberals look at the Constitution and see things that aren’t there and ignore things that are there according to their agenda.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
> *Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers*
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
> *Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers*
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
Click to expand...


Both militia and people are specifically enumerated.  That is true.  And the separate terms were used for specific reasons.

Plural?  Yes.   Collective?  No.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
> *Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers*
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
Click to expand...


That's a totally meaningless post.


----------



## hunarcy

Eloy said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
Click to expand...


If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?


----------



## Humorme

hunarcy said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?
Click to expand...


How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?  

1st Amendment -   Right of the People
3rd Amendment  - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment -  No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "_accused"_
7th Amendment -  Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

*ALL* of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people.   Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia.  You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

*The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!
*
The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be *unalienable* by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
> *Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers*
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both militia and people are specifically enumerated.  That is true.  And the separate terms were used for specific reasons.
> 
> Plural?  Yes.   Collective?  No.
Click to expand...

plural means not singular, if we have to quibble.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I take the word of our Founding Fathers over a despicable, power hungry Communist like you any day:
> *Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers*
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?
> 
> 1st Amendment -   Right of the People
> 3rd Amendment  - consent of the Owner
> 4th Amendment - Right of the People
> 5th Amendment -  No Person
> 6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "_accused"_
> 7th Amendment -  Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
> 8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
> 9th Amendment ends with by the people
> 10th Amendment ends with to the people
> 
> *ALL* of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people.   Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia.  You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.
> 
> *The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!
> *
> The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be *unalienable* by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
Click to expand...

/----/ It seems your only rebuttal to these well thought out points with references is name calling.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?
> 
> 1st Amendment -   Right of the People
> 3rd Amendment  - consent of the Owner
> 4th Amendment - Right of the People
> 5th Amendment -  No Person
> 6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "_accused"_
> 7th Amendment -  Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
> 8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
> 9th Amendment ends with by the people
> 10th Amendment ends with to the people
> 
> *ALL* of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people.   Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia.  You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.
> 
> *The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!
> *
> The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be *unalienable* by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.
Click to expand...

/-----/  So James Madison was only kidding when he included *“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  *He was really talking about the State.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
Click to expand...



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

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

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


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?
> 
> 1st Amendment -   Right of the People
> 3rd Amendment  - consent of the Owner
> 4th Amendment - Right of the People
> 5th Amendment -  No Person
> 6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "_accused"_
> 7th Amendment -  Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
> 8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
> 9th Amendment ends with by the people
> 10th Amendment ends with to the people
> 
> *ALL* of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people.   Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia.  You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.
> 
> *The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!
> *
> The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be *unalienable* by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both militia and people are specifically enumerated.  That is true.  And the separate terms were used for specific reasons.
> 
> Plural?  Yes.   Collective?  No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plural means not singular, if we have to quibble.
Click to expand...


I have never argued that it meant singular.    But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does.  The right is for the citizens of the nation.  There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> Order over Anarchy, every time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
Click to expand...


I can't speak to Humorme's intent, but your claim that the right is a collective one has no basis in fact.  That makes your post meaningless in a very real sense.


----------



## hunarcy

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?
> 
> 1st Amendment -   Right of the People
> 3rd Amendment  - consent of the Owner
> 4th Amendment - Right of the People
> 5th Amendment -  No Person
> 6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "_accused"_
> 7th Amendment -  Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
> 8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
> 9th Amendment ends with by the people
> 10th Amendment ends with to the people
> 
> *ALL* of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people.   Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia.  You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.
> 
> *The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!
> *
> The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be *unalienable* by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-----/  So James Madison was only kidding when he included *“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  *He was really talking about the State.
Click to expand...


You are now arguing with a timesuck troll who will continue to say irrational and incorrect things even when the truth has been proven.  Trolls like that ignore facts like "The People" refers to individuals instead of the State.  His content is so inane that I don't even bother to read it.


----------



## The Irish Ram

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.



Not only do I have a right to own them, I have the right to aim them.

Let's ask President Jefferson to clarify it for us:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

He signed it into law.  If anybody knows what it means, he should.

Now, look up "infringement" to understand "do not infringe" upon this right. Then stop doing it.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ It seems your only rebuttal to these well thought out points with references is name calling.
> View attachment 184431
Click to expand...

dude; I know how to use a dictionary.  natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?
> 
> 1st Amendment -   Right of the People
> 3rd Amendment  - consent of the Owner
> 4th Amendment - Right of the People
> 5th Amendment -  No Person
> 6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "_accused"_
> 7th Amendment -  Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
> 8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
> 9th Amendment ends with by the people
> 10th Amendment ends with to the people
> 
> *ALL* of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people.   Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia.  You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.
> 
> *The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!
> *
> The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be *unalienable* by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-----/  So James Madison was only kidding when he included *“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  *He was really talking about the State.
Click to expand...

lol.  special pleading is what the right wing does best.  The security of a free State, is what our Second Amendment is about.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back to that standard canard again?  No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance.  When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.
> 
> You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning.  So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.
> 
> I can't help but ask, however, what do *you* get out of maintaining that ignorance?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?
> 
> 1st Amendment -   Right of the People
> 3rd Amendment  - consent of the Owner
> 4th Amendment - Right of the People
> 5th Amendment -  No Person
> 6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "_accused"_
> 7th Amendment -  Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
> 8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
> 9th Amendment ends with by the people
> 10th Amendment ends with to the people
> 
> *ALL* of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people.   Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia.  You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.
> 
> *The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!
> *
> The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be *unalienable* by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.
Click to expand...

natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

We have a Tenth Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still on the natural rights?    State constitutions are required to follow, or at least not violate, the US Constitution.   That is a simple fact of the way our republic works.   Your claims about "natural rights" have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.   Unless you can get the SCOTUS to reverse its ruling in DC v. Heller, or you can get a constitutional amendment, the 2nd is an individual right.    And no state constitution can change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both militia and people are specifically enumerated.  That is true.  And the separate terms were used for specific reasons.
> 
> Plural?  Yes.   Collective?  No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plural means not singular, if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never argued that it meant singular.    But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does.  The right is for the citizens of the nation.  There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.
Click to expand...

it must also be collective, if applied to the militia.  Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ It seems your only rebuttal to these well thought out points with references is name calling.
> View attachment 184431
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; I know how to use a dictionary.  natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


So?  The state constitutions, natural rights and all, do not override the US Constitution.  Bringing up that same point doesn't apply to this thread any more than it did the last.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

All this about the 2nd amendment.  We need to look at history when it was written.  I wrote up something.

Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both militia and people are specifically enumerated.  That is true.  And the separate terms were used for specific reasons.
> 
> Plural?  Yes.   Collective?  No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plural means not singular, if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never argued that it meant singular.    But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does.  The right is for the citizens of the nation.  There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must also be collective, if applied to the militia.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms.  That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part.   It is an individual right not a collective one.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?
> 
> 1st Amendment -   Right of the People
> 3rd Amendment  - consent of the Owner
> 4th Amendment - Right of the People
> 5th Amendment -  No Person
> 6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "_accused"_
> 7th Amendment -  Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
> 8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
> 9th Amendment ends with by the people
> 10th Amendment ends with to the people
> 
> *ALL* of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people.   Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia.  You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.
> 
> *The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!
> *
> The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be *unalienable* by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-----/  So James Madison was only kidding when he included *“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  *He was really talking about the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  special pleading is what the right wing does best.  The security of a free State, is what our Second Amendment is about.
Click to expand...


No it is not.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ It seems your only rebuttal to these well thought out points with references is name calling.
> View attachment 184431
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; I know how to use a dictionary.  natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  The state constitutions, natural rights and all, do not override the US Constitution.  Bringing up that same point doesn't apply to this thread any more than it did the last.
Click to expand...

like what, for example?  natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> All this about the 2nd amendment.  We need to look at history when it was written.  I wrote up something.
> 
> Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is


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


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both militia and people are specifically enumerated.  That is true.  And the separate terms were used for specific reasons.
> 
> Plural?  Yes.   Collective?  No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plural means not singular, if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never argued that it meant singular.    But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does.  The right is for the citizens of the nation.  There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must also be collective, if applied to the militia.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms.  That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part.   It is an individual right not a collective one.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?
> 
> 1st Amendment -   Right of the People
> 3rd Amendment  - consent of the Owner
> 4th Amendment - Right of the People
> 5th Amendment -  No Person
> 6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "_accused"_
> 7th Amendment -  Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
> 8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
> 9th Amendment ends with by the people
> 10th Amendment ends with to the people
> 
> *ALL* of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people.   Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia.  You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.
> 
> *The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!
> *
> The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be *unalienable* by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-----/  So James Madison was only kidding when he included *“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  *He was really talking about the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  special pleading is what the right wing does best.  The security of a free State, is what our Second Amendment is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.  It says so, in the first clause.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  Only the right wing, likes to blame less fortunate illegals, in Public Venues.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

SassyIrishLass said:


> 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.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both militia and people are specifically enumerated.  That is true.  And the separate terms were used for specific reasons.
> 
> Plural?  Yes.   Collective?  No.
> 
> 
> 
> plural means not singular, if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never argued that it meant singular.    But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does.  The right is for the citizens of the nation.  There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must also be collective, if applied to the militia.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms.  That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part.   It is an individual right not a collective one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> plural means not singular, if we have to quibble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never argued that it meant singular.    But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does.  The right is for the citizens of the nation.  There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must also be collective, if applied to the militia.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms.  That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part.   It is an individual right not a collective one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plural?  Yes.   Not collective.   There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.
Click to expand...

convicts are People, too?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never argued that it meant singular.    But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does.  The right is for the citizens of the nation.  There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.
> 
> 
> 
> it must also be collective, if applied to the militia.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms.  That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part.   It is an individual right not a collective one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plural?  Yes.   Not collective.   There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> convicts are People, too?
Click to expand...


I never said there could be no regulations for individuals.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?
> 
> 1st Amendment -   Right of the People
> 3rd Amendment  - consent of the Owner
> 4th Amendment - Right of the People
> 5th Amendment -  No Person
> 6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "_accused"_
> 7th Amendment -  Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
> 8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
> 9th Amendment ends with by the people
> 10th Amendment ends with to the people
> 
> *ALL* of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people.   Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia.  You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.
> 
> *The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!
> *
> The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be *unalienable* by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-----/  So James Madison was only kidding when he included *“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  *He was really talking about the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  special pleading is what the right wing does best.  The security of a free State, is what our Second Amendment is about.
Click to expand...


You're wrong as usual


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back to that standard canard again?  No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance.  When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.
> 
> You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning.  So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.
> 
> I can't help but ask, however, what do *you* get out of maintaining that ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.
Click to expand...


Totally wasted words regarding your ignorance.  You should read more and pontificate less about things you don't have a clue about.

Individual Rights... The Right of the people.


----------



## hunarcy

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both militia and people are specifically enumerated.  That is true.  And the separate terms were used for specific reasons.
> 
> Plural?  Yes.   Collective?  No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plural means not singular, if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never argued that it meant singular.    But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does.  The right is for the citizens of the nation.  There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must also be collective, if applied to the militia.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms.  That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part.   It is an individual right not a collective one.
Click to expand...




Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?
> 
> 1st Amendment -   Right of the People
> 3rd Amendment  - consent of the Owner
> 4th Amendment - Right of the People
> 5th Amendment -  No Person
> 6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "_accused"_
> 7th Amendment -  Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
> 8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
> 9th Amendment ends with by the people
> 10th Amendment ends with to the people
> 
> *ALL* of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people.   Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia.  You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.
> 
> *The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!
> *
> The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be *unalienable* by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-----/  So James Madison was only kidding when he included *“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  *He was really talking about the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  special pleading is what the right wing does best.  The security of a free State, is what our Second Amendment is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong as usual
Click to expand...


Trolls like that one are wrong on purpose.  He just wants to waste your time.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?
> 
> 1st Amendment -   Right of the People
> 3rd Amendment  - consent of the Owner
> 4th Amendment - Right of the People
> 5th Amendment -  No Person
> 6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "_accused"_
> 7th Amendment -  Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
> 8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
> 9th Amendment ends with by the people
> 10th Amendment ends with to the people
> 
> *ALL* of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people.   Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia.  You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.
> 
> *The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!
> *
> The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be *unalienable* by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.
Click to expand...


STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back to that standard canard again?  No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance.  When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.
> 
> You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning.  So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.
> 
> I can't help but ask, however, what do *you* get out of maintaining that ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.
Click to expand...


You're still wrong and you should read the applicable court rulings and the dicta to explain it to you.


----------



## Humorme

NotfooledbyW said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


When Donald Chump became president, he said we our Court would begin interpreting the law, not legislating from the bench.

Under the original interpretation, the AR 15 is THE most protected of firearms.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never argued that it meant singular.    But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does.  The right is for the citizens of the nation.  There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.
> 
> 
> 
> it must also be collective, if applied to the militia.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms.  That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part.   It is an individual right not a collective one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plural?  Yes.   Not collective.   There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> convicts are People, too?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it must also be collective, if applied to the militia.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms.  That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part.   It is an individual right not a collective one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plural?  Yes.   Not collective.   There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> convicts are People, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  It's a separate discussion, but one I'd love to debate with you.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## SassyIrishLass

NotfooledbyW said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Meh, shut up Foo you're an annoying ass


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this about the 2nd amendment.  We need to look at history when it was written.  I wrote up something.
> 
> Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...

/-----/ which is pinned on "*“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  
the people - not the state
the people - not the state
the people - not the state
the people - not the state
the people - not the state
the people - not the state*


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this about the 2nd amendment.  We need to look at history when it was written.  I wrote up something.
> 
> Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...

/----/ The 2nd Amendment is just one part of the entire bill.
*THE BILL OF RIGHTS *
*Amendment I*
*Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

*Amendment II*
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.*

*Amendment III*
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, *without the consent of the owner, *nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

*Amendment IV*
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,* shall not be violated, *and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

*Amendment V*
*No person shall be held to answer* for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; *nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy* of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

*Amendment VI*
In all criminal prosecutions, *the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial*, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

*Amendment VII*
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, *the right of trial by jury shall be preserved*, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

*Amendment VIII*
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, *nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.*

*Amendment IX*
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, *shall not be construed to deny or disparage *others retained by the people.

*Amendment X*
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,* or to the people.*


----------



## Skull Pilot

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.


Technically we have the right to keep and bear arms

Own and carry


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

frigidweirdo said:


> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.  A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights.   *That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BECAUSE  TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.
> 
> The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if the government can justify the restriction through a compelling need.  And, only if the restriction is the least intrusive way to meet that compelling need.  Currently, there is no compelling need to further restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you can't get SAM missiles, or nuclear weapons etc.
> 
> There are compelling reasons why these are banned.
> 
> But with the number of school shootings and murders every year, there does appear to be a compelling reason to restrict firearm ownership and access.
Click to expand...

In some jurisdictions they are – in others, not.

And of course the residents of the respective states are at liberty to seek through the political process a ban on AR 15s.

In states with a ban, residents have sought through the judicial process to have those measures invalidated, such as New York and Maryland – to date those efforts have failed in the lower courts and with the Supreme Court refusing to hear those cases.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Technically we have the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Own and carry
Click to expand...


The problem is, you keep going on about our "Fore Fathers".  If we go with their intent, the 2nd amendment was written to insure that their small group would stay in power.  They even went as far as to confiscate weapons from people that didn't meet the narrow definition of what made up a Citizen.  They had a very narrow definition of what a Free Man was back then.  Does that mean you have the right to confiscate my guns?

Actually, you do have the right to own firearms governed by your State.  Your State can limit the type like some do.  They can also allow you to carry it.  But they can also prevent you from carrying it outside of your home like most States do unless you have a permit.  The Feds have no say in that matter according to the SCOTUS.  It only goes to show that the 2nd amendment really needs to be modernized since we DO have a standing Army and most states do not have an Organized Militia of any kind.  The chances of a violent revolution is almost nil unlike in the 1790s.  Actually, it was almost nil then as well but our founding fathers were more than a little paranoid after doing it themselves to Britain.  Plus, the definition of a Citizen has greatly changed so the last part is also not quite right as well.

Your Holy Grail ain't so Holy anymore.  But, then again, it never was.


----------



## Humorme

Daryl Hunt said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms.  That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part.   It is an individual right not a collective one.
> 
> 
> 
> it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plural?  Yes.   Not collective.   There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> convicts are People, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  It's a separate discussion, but one I'd love to debate with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under the Militia Act of 1792 Convicts are NOT Free Men therefore cannot be Citizens and cannot own, purchase nor possess firearms of any kind.  And neither can anyone that isn't White, Male, Land Owners, or does not swear allegiance to the current Government of the Day.  In otherwords, only about 8% of the population at any given time would be able to purchase, possess or own firearms of any kind if we used the same laws that our found fathers used.
> 
> Just a bit of information.  The United States impounded weapons of the people that refused to swear allegiance to the newly formed United States even if they didn't fight or openly support the British during the conflict.  And there were more people in the colonies that supported the British than the Revolutionaries.  The French stated that there really wasn't that much of a difference between the Americans than the British only that the Americans were easier to get along with.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it must also be collective, if applied to the militia.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms.  That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part.   It is an individual right not a collective one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plural?  Yes.   Not collective.   There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> convicts are People, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said there could be no regulations for individuals.
Click to expand...

legal status is just a social form of socialism; the security of a free State, requires more security.

Well regulated militia militia being Necessary to the security of a free State,

we will get our Army Group in reserve, no excuses.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?
> 
> 1st Amendment -   Right of the People
> 3rd Amendment  - consent of the Owner
> 4th Amendment - Right of the People
> 5th Amendment -  No Person
> 6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "_accused"_
> 7th Amendment -  Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
> 8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
> 9th Amendment ends with by the people
> 10th Amendment ends with to the people
> 
> *ALL* of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people.   Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia.  You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.
> 
> *The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!
> *
> The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be *unalienable* by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-----/  So James Madison was only kidding when he included *“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  *He was really talking about the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  special pleading is what the right wing does best.  The security of a free State, is what our Second Amendment is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong as usual
Click to expand...

i can't be wrong; it says so in the first clause.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back to that standard canard again?  No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance.  When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.
> 
> You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning.  So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.
> 
> I can't help but ask, however, what do *you* get out of maintaining that ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally wasted words regarding your ignorance.  You should read more and pontificate less about things you don't have a clue about.
> 
> Individual Rights... The Right of the people.
Click to expand...

Militia are People too!


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?
> 
> 1st Amendment -   Right of the People
> 3rd Amendment  - consent of the Owner
> 4th Amendment - Right of the People
> 5th Amendment -  No Person
> 6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "_accused"_
> 7th Amendment -  Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
> 8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
> 9th Amendment ends with by the people
> 10th Amendment ends with to the people
> 
> *ALL* of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people.   Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia.  You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.
> 
> *The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!
> *
> The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be *unalienable* by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?
> 
> 1st Amendment -   Right of the People
> 3rd Amendment  - consent of the Owner
> 4th Amendment - Right of the People
> 5th Amendment -  No Person
> 6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "_accused"_
> 7th Amendment -  Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
> 8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
> 9th Amendment ends with by the people
> 10th Amendment ends with to the people
> 
> *ALL* of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people.   Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia.  You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.
> 
> *The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!
> *
> The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be *unalienable* by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-----/  So James Madison was only kidding when he included *“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  *He was really talking about the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  special pleading is what the right wing does best.  The security of a free State, is what our Second Amendment is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong as usual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i can't be wrong; it says so in the first clause.
Click to expand...


You simply can't read nor accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
> 
> 
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back to that standard canard again?  No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance.  When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.
> 
> You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning.  So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.
> 
> I can't help but ask, however, what do *you* get out of maintaining that ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally wasted words regarding your ignorance.  You should read more and pontificate less about things you don't have a clue about.
> 
> Individual Rights... The Right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Militia are People too!
Click to expand...


And your point?  You don't have one.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back to that standard canard again?  No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance.  When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.
> 
> You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning.  So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.
> 
> I can't help but ask, however, what do *you* get out of maintaining that ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still wrong and you should read the applicable court rulings and the dicta to explain it to you.
Click to expand...

judicial forms of activism.  they have nothing but fallacy. 

bring them on here!  an open book test.  Only the "dumb ones" should fall for it!


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?
> 
> 1st Amendment -   Right of the People
> 3rd Amendment  - consent of the Owner
> 4th Amendment - Right of the People
> 5th Amendment -  No Person
> 6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "_accused"_
> 7th Amendment -  Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
> 8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
> 9th Amendment ends with by the people
> 10th Amendment ends with to the people
> 
> *ALL* of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people.   Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia.  You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.
> 
> *The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!
> *
> The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be *unalienable* by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
> 
> 
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back to that standard canard again?  No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance.  When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.
> 
> You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning.  So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.
> 
> I can't help but ask, however, what do *you* get out of maintaining that ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still wrong and you should read the applicable court rulings and the dicta to explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> judicial forms of activism.  they have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> bring them on here!  an open book test.  Only the "dumb ones" should fall for it!
Click to expand...


Danny, I do not believe in judicial activism.  That is why I quoted the *FIRST* United States Supreme Court rulings on each point.  After that, I agree, you're dealing with judicial activism if they don't uphold their own precedents.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am not going to babysit you today.  Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.
> 
> You are not winning anything by arguing.  Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread.  If you do that you will see you are WRONG.
Click to expand...

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


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
*— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.
> 
> 
> 
> natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am not going to babysit you today.  Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.
> 
> You are not winning anything by arguing.  Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread.  If you do that you will see you are WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
Click to expand...


Do you have any point?  You just like attention?


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am not going to babysit you today.  Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.
> 
> You are not winning anything by arguing.  Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread.  If you do that you will see you are WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any point?  You just like attention?
Click to expand...

Your simple surrender will be fine, gentlemen.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am not going to babysit you today.  Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.
> 
> You are not winning anything by arguing.  Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread.  If you do that you will see you are WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any point?  You just like attention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple surrender will be fine, gentlemen.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I am not going to babysit you today.  Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.
> 
> You are not winning anything by arguing.  Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread.  If you do that you will see you are WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any point?  You just like attention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your simple surrender will be fine, gentlemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are hilarious.  You don't have any point, so you post absolute *BULLSHIT* until you think we're sick of the same nonsensical posts and then tell us tht you will accept our surrender.  LMFAO.
> 
> Dude, for real.  The United States Supreme Court has *RULED *you have an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS PURSUANT TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.
> 
> 
> 
> natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am not going to babysit you today.  Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.
> 
> You are not winning anything by arguing.  Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread.  If you do that you will see you are WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
Click to expand...


Still posting that lame talking point?


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


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Humorme said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plural?  Yes.   Not collective.   There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> convicts are People, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  It's a separate discussion, but one I'd love to debate with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under the Militia Act of 1792 Convicts are NOT Free Men therefore cannot be Citizens and cannot own, purchase nor possess firearms of any kind.  And neither can anyone that isn't White, Male, Land Owners, or does not swear allegiance to the current Government of the Day.  In otherwords, only about 8% of the population at any given time would be able to purchase, possess or own firearms of any kind if we used the same laws that our found fathers used.
> 
> Just a bit of information.  The United States impounded weapons of the people that refused to swear allegiance to the newly formed United States even if they didn't fight or openly support the British during the conflict.  And there were more people in the colonies that supported the British than the Revolutionaries.  The French stated that there really wasn't that much of a difference between the Americans than the British only that the Americans were easier to get along with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A few episodes of watching Death Valley Days (episodes of how the west was won - actual historical accounts) will clear this up for you.  A guy would serve his time and a year later become sheriff.  Convicts are people that are IN prison.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am not going to babysit you today.  Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.
> 
> You are not winning anything by arguing.  Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread.  If you do that you will see you are WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still posting that lame talking point?
> 
> 
> Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists.  God given, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute Rights *are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS.  *The terminology is all synonymous!
> 
> "_The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is *natural, inherent, and unalienable*. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
> 
> It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution_."
> 
> Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
> 
> That is the *earliest *United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
> 
> The *Right of the people* (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed.  That was the the* intent* of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments.    Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that  "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."
> 
> The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of *unalienable* means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government.  Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - *NOT* the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back to that standard canard again?  No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance.  When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.
> 
> You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning.  So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.
> 
> I can't help but ask, however, what do *you* get out of maintaining that ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.
Click to expand...


" the second clause."

Is where you show YOUR ignorance


----------



## Hugo Furst

Daryl Hunt said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am not going to babysit you today.  Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.
> 
> You are not winning anything by arguing.  Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread.  If you do that you will see you are WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still posting that lame talking point?
> 
> 
> Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Federals don't have to right to neither give nor take any rights.  it's the State that has that right.
Click to expand...


State law overrules the BIll of Rights?

since when?


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.
> 
> 
> 
> natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am not going to babysit you today.  Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.
> 
> You are not winning anything by arguing.  Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread.  If you do that you will see you are WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
Click to expand...

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



enjoy


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am not going to babysit you today.  Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.
> 
> You are not winning anything by arguing.  Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread.  If you do that you will see you are WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still posting that lame talking point?
> 
> 
> Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia
Click to expand...


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


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back to that standard canard again?  No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance.  When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.
> 
> You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning.  So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.
> 
> I can't help but ask, however, what do *you* get out of maintaining that ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " the second clause."
> 
> Is where you show YOUR ignorance
Click to expand...

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


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I am not going to babysit you today.  Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.
> 
> You are not winning anything by arguing.  Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread.  If you do that you will see you are WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still posting that lame talking point?
> 
> 
> Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Federals don't have to right to neither give nor take any rights.  it's the State that has that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State law overrules the BIll of Rights?
> 
> since when?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am not going to babysit you today.  Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.
> 
> You are not winning anything by arguing.  Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread.  If you do that you will see you are WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a professor of law at UCLAs take on the second.
> 
> 
> 
> enjoy
Click to expand...

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


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a totally meaningless post.
> 
> 
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back to that standard canard again?  No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance.  When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.
> 
> You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning.  So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.
> 
> I can't help but ask, however, what do *you* get out of maintaining that ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " the second clause."
> 
> Is where you show YOUR ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the People is plural and collective, every time this issue comes up.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to that standard canard again?  No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance.  When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.
> 
> You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning.  So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.
> 
> I can't help but ask, however, what do *you* get out of maintaining that ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " the second clause."
> 
> Is where you show YOUR ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the People is plural and collective, every time this issue comes up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, still not a collective right.   Just like the other amendments are not collective rights.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am not going to babysit you today.  Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.
> 
> You are not winning anything by arguing.  Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread.  If you do that you will see you are WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still posting that lame talking point?
> 
> 
> Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "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_
Click to expand...


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


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to that standard canard again?  No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance.  When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.
> 
> You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning.  So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.
> 
> I can't help but ask, however, what do *you* get out of maintaining that ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " the second clause."
> 
> Is where you show YOUR ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the People is plural and collective, every time this issue comes up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, still not a collective right.   Just like the other amendments are not collective rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is.  all of our amendments are codified, collective rights of our Body Politic as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I am not going to babysit you today.  Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.
> 
> You are not winning anything by arguing.  Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread.  If you do that you will see you are WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still posting that lame talking point?
> 
> 
> Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "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_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " the second clause."
> 
> Is where you show YOUR ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the People is plural and collective, every time this issue comes up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, still not a collective right.   Just like the other amendments are not collective rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is.  all of our amendments are codified, collective rights of our Body Politic as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights.   That is why they were written.
> 
> James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.
Click to expand...

No, they are not.  All of them specifically enumerate the term, _People_, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I am not going to babysit you today.  Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.
> 
> You are not winning anything by arguing.  Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread.  If you do that you will see you are WRONG.
> 
> 
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still posting that lame talking point?
> 
> 
> Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "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_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked by what?  y'all have nothing but fallacy.
Click to expand...



by the speeches of many others at that time stating the opposite of what your pet, unknown, speechmaker stated.

Here they are again:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

Zachariah Johnson.

Samuel Adams

George Washington

Thomas Paine


People that are still remembered, unlike your spokesman, in this day and age.


----------



## Humorme

Daryl Hunt said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plural?  Yes.   Not collective.   There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> convicts are People, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  It's a separate discussion, but one I'd love to debate with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under the Militia Act of 1792 Convicts are NOT Free Men therefore cannot be Citizens and cannot own, purchase nor possess firearms of any kind.  And neither can anyone that isn't White, Male, Land Owners, or does not swear allegiance to the current Government of the Day.  In otherwords, only about 8% of the population at any given time would be able to purchase, possess or own firearms of any kind if we used the same laws that our found fathers used.
> 
> Just a bit of information.  The United States impounded weapons of the people that refused to swear allegiance to the newly formed United States even if they didn't fight or openly support the British during the conflict.  And there were more people in the colonies that supported the British than the Revolutionaries.  The French stated that there really wasn't that much of a difference between the Americans than the British only that the Americans were easier to get along with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A few episodes of watching Death Valley Days (episodes of how the west was won - actual historical accounts) will clear this up for you.  A guy would serve his time and a year later become sheriff.  Convicts are people that are IN prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> During the Colonial times, things were different.  The definition of what was a Citizen was different than 100 years later.  And it's was different 100 years later today.  State laws do change.
Click to expand...


According to *Webster's 1828 Dictionary* (the *first *dictionary ever published in the United States)  defines immigration as:

*IMMIGRA'TION*, _noun_ _The passing or removing into a country for the purpose of* permanent residence*_. 

My current issue of *Black's Law Dictionary* defines immigration as:

The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of *permanent residence*. 

Nobody can show you a federal statute NOR an Amendment that prohibited states from hosting non-citizens in their state... not even since the ratification of the Constitution. 

Non-citizens are *not* a part of the immigration scheme that leads to permanent citizenship.  The federal government is not under any obligation to make anyone a United States citizen just because a state lets them in as guest.  Neither can the feds tell a state who they may and may not do business with.

This subject cannot be that complicated to understand.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still posting that lame talking point?
> 
> 
> Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "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_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked by what?  y'all have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> by the speeches of many others at that time stating the opposite of what your pet, unknown, speechmaker stated.
> 
> Here they are again:
> 
> The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
> 
> Zachariah Johnson.
> 
> Samuel Adams
> 
> George Washington
> 
> Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> People that are still remembered, unlike your spokesman, in this day and age.
Click to expand...

all of them support my contention and not yours.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still posting that lame talking point?
> 
> 
> Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked by what?  y'all have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> by the speeches of many others at that time stating the opposite of what your pet, unknown, speechmaker stated.
> 
> Here they are again:
> 
> The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
> 
> Zachariah Johnson.
> 
> Samuel Adams
> 
> George Washington
> 
> Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> People that are still remembered, unlike your spokesman, in this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of them support my contention and not yours.
Click to expand...



and the troll admits he can't read.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked by what?  y'all have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> by the speeches of many others at that time stating the opposite of what your pet, unknown, speechmaker stated.
> 
> Here they are again:
> 
> The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
> 
> Zachariah Johnson.
> 
> Samuel Adams
> 
> George Washington
> 
> Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> People that are still remembered, unlike your spokesman, in this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of them support my contention and not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and the troll admits he can't read.
Click to expand...

i am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I am not going to babysit you today.  Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.
> 
> You are not winning anything by arguing.  Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread.  If you do that you will see you are WRONG.
> 
> 
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still posting that lame talking point?
> 
> 
> Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "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_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked by what?  y'all have nothing but fallacy.
Click to expand...


Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dears, our federal Constitution is the "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense; it really really is, common sense for Anyone in our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still posting that lame talking point?
> 
> 
> Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "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_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked by what?  y'all have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.
Click to expand...

like what?

"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 whole people are plural, not singular.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.
> 
> 
> 
> debunked by what?  y'all have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> by the speeches of many others at that time stating the opposite of what your pet, unknown, speechmaker stated.
> 
> Here they are again:
> 
> The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
> 
> Zachariah Johnson.
> 
> Samuel Adams
> 
> George Washington
> 
> Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> People that are still remembered, unlike your spokesman, in this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of them support my contention and not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and the troll admits he can't read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance.
Click to expand...


I have to agree...

your ignorance isn't very appealing.

You, for some silly reason, believe the Second doesn't give the right to keep and bear arms to the People.

I even posted a link to a professor of law expounding on that, from UCLA no less.

(Bet you didn't even watch it)

I've posted a link to other dignitaries of the time, dignitaries far better known than the one you keep posting.

Did you even read them?

You couldn't have.

you just stated they agree with YOUR views.

(they don't)

you're a one trick pony, trying to be a rodeo.

every time you post the same old debunked taking points, you dig yourself a little deeper.

Give it up.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still posting that lame talking point?
> 
> 
> Still ignoring the fact that the Right was given to the People, not the Militia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked by what?  y'all have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> like what?
> 
> "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 whole people are plural, not singular.
Click to expand...


Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again.  You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.

IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> " the second clause."
> 
> Is where you show YOUR ignorance
> 
> 
> 
> the People is plural and collective, every time this issue comes up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, still not a collective right.   Just like the other amendments are not collective rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is.  all of our amendments are codified, collective rights of our Body Politic as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights.   That is why they were written.
> 
> James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they are not.  All of them specifically enumerate the term, _People_, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> debunked by what?  y'all have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by the speeches of many others at that time stating the opposite of what your pet, unknown, speechmaker stated.
> 
> Here they are again:
> 
> The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
> 
> Zachariah Johnson.
> 
> Samuel Adams
> 
> George Washington
> 
> Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> People that are still remembered, unlike your spokesman, in this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of them support my contention and not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and the troll admits he can't read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to agree...
> 
> your ignorance isn't very appealing.
> 
> You, for some silly reason, believe the Second doesn't give the right to keep and bear arms to the People.
> 
> I even posted a link to a professor of law expounding on that, from UCLA no less.
> 
> (Bet you didn't even watch it)
> 
> I've posted a link to other dignitaries of the time, dignitaries far better known than the one you keep posting.
> 
> Did you even read them?
> 
> You couldn't have.
> 
> you just stated they agree with YOUR views.
> 
> (they don't)
> 
> you're a one trick pony, trying to be a rodeo.
> 
> every time you post the same old debunked taking points, you dig yourself a little deeper.
> 
> Give it up.
Click to expand...

lol.  I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> debunked by what?  y'all have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> like what?
> 
> "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 whole people are plural, not singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again.  You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.
> 
> IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.
Click to expand...

Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.

Let's keep it simpler.

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

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the People is plural and collective, every time this issue comes up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, still not a collective right.   Just like the other amendments are not collective rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is.  all of our amendments are codified, collective rights of our Body Politic as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights.   That is why they were written.
> 
> James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they are not.  All of them specifically enumerate the term, _People_, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> by the speeches of many others at that time stating the opposite of what your pet, unknown, speechmaker stated.
> 
> Here they are again:
> 
> The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
> 
> Zachariah Johnson.
> 
> Samuel Adams
> 
> George Washington
> 
> Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> People that are still remembered, unlike your spokesman, in this day and age.
> 
> 
> 
> all of them support my contention and not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and the troll admits he can't read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to agree...
> 
> your ignorance isn't very appealing.
> 
> You, for some silly reason, believe the Second doesn't give the right to keep and bear arms to the People.
> 
> I even posted a link to a professor of law expounding on that, from UCLA no less.
> 
> (Bet you didn't even watch it)
> 
> I've posted a link to other dignitaries of the time, dignitaries far better known than the one you keep posting.
> 
> Did you even read them?
> 
> You couldn't have.
> 
> you just stated they agree with YOUR views.
> 
> (they don't)
> 
> you're a one trick pony, trying to be a rodeo.
> 
> every time you post the same old debunked taking points, you dig yourself a little deeper.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


no, your appeal to ignorance is to the second part...

where it clearly states: The right of the people.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.
> 
> 
> 
> debunked by what?  y'all have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> like what?
> 
> "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 whole people are plural, not singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again.  You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.
> 
> IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Let's keep it simpler.
> 
> *George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?



Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?

Is it because they disagree with your opinion?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all of them support my contention and not yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the troll admits he can't read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to agree...
> 
> your ignorance isn't very appealing.
> 
> You, for some silly reason, believe the Second doesn't give the right to keep and bear arms to the People.
> 
> I even posted a link to a professor of law expounding on that, from UCLA no less.
> 
> (Bet you didn't even watch it)
> 
> I've posted a link to other dignitaries of the time, dignitaries far better known than the one you keep posting.
> 
> Did you even read them?
> 
> You couldn't have.
> 
> you just stated they agree with YOUR views.
> 
> (they don't)
> 
> you're a one trick pony, trying to be a rodeo.
> 
> every time you post the same old debunked taking points, you dig yourself a little deeper.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, your appeal to ignorance is to the second part...
> 
> where it clearly states: The right of the people.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia; why appeal to ignorance of that legal fact in our Republic?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> debunked by what?  y'all have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> like what?
> 
> "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 whole people are plural, not singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again.  You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.
> 
> IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Let's keep it simpler.
> 
> *George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?
> 
> Is it because they disagree with your opinion?
Click to expand...

The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> and he answers by repeating the same lame, debunked, talking point.
> 
> 
> 
> debunked by what?  y'all have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> like what?
> 
> "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 whole people are plural, not singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again.  You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.
> 
> IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Let's keep it simpler.
> 
> *George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
Click to expand...


You certainly have cornered the market on diversion.  

When I wrote the Militia of Georgia Handbook in 1998, I quoted very thing in the manual along with the context, etc.  

BTW, have you ever belonged to a civilian militia, danielpalos?


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.
> 
> 
> 
> like what?
> 
> "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 whole people are plural, not singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again.  You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.
> 
> IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Let's keep it simpler.
> 
> *George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?
> 
> Is it because they disagree with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.
Click to expand...


And I repeat, have you ever been *IN* a civilian militia?

Do you know what the ultimate purpose of the unorganized militia (in federal law) is for?


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the troll admits he can't read.
> 
> 
> 
> i am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to agree...
> 
> your ignorance isn't very appealing.
> 
> You, for some silly reason, believe the Second doesn't give the right to keep and bear arms to the People.
> 
> I even posted a link to a professor of law expounding on that, from UCLA no less.
> 
> (Bet you didn't even watch it)
> 
> I've posted a link to other dignitaries of the time, dignitaries far better known than the one you keep posting.
> 
> Did you even read them?
> 
> You couldn't have.
> 
> you just stated they agree with YOUR views.
> 
> (they don't)
> 
> you're a one trick pony, trying to be a rodeo.
> 
> every time you post the same old debunked taking points, you dig yourself a little deeper.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, your appeal to ignorance is to the second part...
> 
> where it clearly states: The right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; why appeal to ignorance of that legal fact in our Republic?
Click to expand...


Were women part of the militia?

Males under the age of 16?, over the age of 45?

NO.

the militia was only for males, between the ages of 16-45.

The people were men and women, of ALL ages.

and the reason the PEOPLE were given the right, not the militia


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> debunked by what?  y'all have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> like what?
> 
> "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 whole people are plural, not singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again.  You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.
> 
> IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Let's keep it simpler.
> 
> *George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly have cornered the market on diversion.
> 
> When I wrote the Militia of Georgia Handbook in 1998, I quoted very thing in the manual along with the context, etc.
> 
> BTW, have you ever belonged to a civilian militia, danielpalos?
Click to expand...

Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?

How about answering the question instead of projecting.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, still not a collective right.   Just like the other amendments are not collective rights.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it is.  all of our amendments are codified, collective rights of our Body Politic as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights.   That is why they were written.
> 
> James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they are not.  All of them specifically enumerate the term, _People_, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.
Click to expand...





danielpalos said:


> not merely telling stories.



you seem to be telling stories...


Worthy of Mother Goose


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fallacies were debunked by the quotes of the current laws.
> 
> 
> 
> like what?
> 
> "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 whole people are plural, not singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again.  You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.
> 
> IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Let's keep it simpler.
> 
> *George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?
> 
> Is it because they disagree with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.
Click to expand...



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


----------



## eagle1462010

Bridge from combat................

We have detected a troll at 285 degrees..


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the troll admits he can't read.
> 
> 
> 
> i am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to agree...
> 
> your ignorance isn't very appealing.
> 
> You, for some silly reason, believe the Second doesn't give the right to keep and bear arms to the People.
> 
> I even posted a link to a professor of law expounding on that, from UCLA no less.
> 
> (Bet you didn't even watch it)
> 
> I've posted a link to other dignitaries of the time, dignitaries far better known than the one you keep posting.
> 
> Did you even read them?
> 
> You couldn't have.
> 
> you just stated they agree with YOUR views.
> 
> (they don't)
> 
> you're a one trick pony, trying to be a rodeo.
> 
> every time you post the same old debunked taking points, you dig yourself a little deeper.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, your appeal to ignorance is to the second part...
> 
> where it clearly states: The right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; why appeal to ignorance of that legal fact in our Republic?
Click to expand...


This is another of those nonsensical posts whereby there is some cryptic message that only danielpalos gets.


----------



## Humorme

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree...
> 
> your ignorance isn't very appealing.
> 
> You, for some silly reason, believe the Second doesn't give the right to keep and bear arms to the People.
> 
> I even posted a link to a professor of law expounding on that, from UCLA no less.
> 
> (Bet you didn't even watch it)
> 
> I've posted a link to other dignitaries of the time, dignitaries far better known than the one you keep posting.
> 
> Did you even read them?
> 
> You couldn't have.
> 
> you just stated they agree with YOUR views.
> 
> (they don't)
> 
> you're a one trick pony, trying to be a rodeo.
> 
> every time you post the same old debunked taking points, you dig yourself a little deeper.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, your appeal to ignorance is to the second part...
> 
> where it clearly states: The right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; why appeal to ignorance of that legal fact in our Republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were women part of the militia?
> 
> Males under the age of 16?, over the age of 45?
> 
> NO.
> 
> the militia was only for males, between the ages of 16-45.
> 
> The people were men and women, of ALL ages.
> 
> and the reason the PEOPLE were given the right, not the militia
Click to expand...


What I'm about to tell you refutes *every *argument that danielpalos makes.  He claims you get your rights from state constitutions, etc.  That is absolute B.S. and he knows it. 

Most intelligent people know that the Constitution only guarantees our Rights, *NOT* grants them.  But, let's go further. How did the FIRST STATE COURT RULING *INTERPRET THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS*?

The case was in 1846 in Georgia.  Here is what the Court had to say:

"_*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


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it is.  all of our amendments are codified, collective rights of our Body Politic as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights.   That is why they were written.
> 
> James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they are not.  All of them specifically enumerate the term, _People_, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to be telling stories...
> 
> 
> Worthy of Mother Goose
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights.   That is why they were written.
> 
> James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.  All of them specifically enumerate the term, _People_, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to be telling stories...
> 
> 
> Worthy of Mother Goose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
Click to expand...



more tales


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> like what?
> 
> "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 whole people are plural, not singular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again.  You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.
> 
> IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Let's keep it simpler.
> 
> *George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?
> 
> Is it because they disagree with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the People consist of far more than those eligible to join a militia
Click to expand...

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


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree...
> 
> your ignorance isn't very appealing.
> 
> You, for some silly reason, believe the Second doesn't give the right to keep and bear arms to the People.
> 
> I even posted a link to a professor of law expounding on that, from UCLA no less.
> 
> (Bet you didn't even watch it)
> 
> I've posted a link to other dignitaries of the time, dignitaries far better known than the one you keep posting.
> 
> Did you even read them?
> 
> You couldn't have.
> 
> you just stated they agree with YOUR views.
> 
> (they don't)
> 
> you're a one trick pony, trying to be a rodeo.
> 
> every time you post the same old debunked taking points, you dig yourself a little deeper.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, your appeal to ignorance is to the second part...
> 
> where it clearly states: The right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; why appeal to ignorance of that legal fact in our Republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is another of those nonsensical posts whereby there is some cryptic message that only danielpalos gets.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree...
> 
> your ignorance isn't very appealing.
> 
> You, for some silly reason, believe the Second doesn't give the right to keep and bear arms to the People.
> 
> I even posted a link to a professor of law expounding on that, from UCLA no less.
> 
> (Bet you didn't even watch it)
> 
> I've posted a link to other dignitaries of the time, dignitaries far better known than the one you keep posting.
> 
> Did you even read them?
> 
> You couldn't have.
> 
> you just stated they agree with YOUR views.
> 
> (they don't)
> 
> you're a one trick pony, trying to be a rodeo.
> 
> every time you post the same old debunked taking points, you dig yourself a little deeper.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, your appeal to ignorance is to the second part...
> 
> where it clearly states: The right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; why appeal to ignorance of that legal fact in our Republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were women part of the militia?
> 
> Males under the age of 16?, over the age of 45?
> 
> NO.
> 
> the militia was only for males, between the ages of 16-45.
> 
> The people were men and women, of ALL ages.
> 
> and the reason the PEOPLE were given the right, not the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm about to tell you refutes *every *argument that danielpalos makes.  He claims you get your rights from state constitutions, etc.  That is absolute B.S. and he knows it.
> 
> Most intelligent people know that the Constitution only guarantees our Rights, *NOT* grants them.  But, let's go further. How did the FIRST STATE COURT RULING *INTERPRET THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS*?
> 
> The case was in 1846 in Georgia.  Here is what the Court had to say:
> 
> "_*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
Click to expand...

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


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.  All of them specifically enumerate the term, _People_, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to be telling stories...
> 
> 
> Worthy of Mother Goose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more tales
Click to expand...

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_


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree...
> 
> your ignorance isn't very appealing.
> 
> You, for some silly reason, believe the Second doesn't give the right to keep and bear arms to the People.
> 
> I even posted a link to a professor of law expounding on that, from UCLA no less.
> 
> (Bet you didn't even watch it)
> 
> I've posted a link to other dignitaries of the time, dignitaries far better known than the one you keep posting.
> 
> Did you even read them?
> 
> You couldn't have.
> 
> you just stated they agree with YOUR views.
> 
> (they don't)
> 
> you're a one trick pony, trying to be a rodeo.
> 
> every time you post the same old debunked taking points, you dig yourself a little deeper.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  I am not the one who has to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, your appeal to ignorance is to the second part...
> 
> where it clearly states: The right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; why appeal to ignorance of that legal fact in our Republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were women part of the militia?
> 
> Males under the age of 16?, over the age of 45?
> 
> NO.
> 
> the militia was only for males, between the ages of 16-45.
> 
> The people were men and women, of ALL ages.
> 
> and the reason the PEOPLE were given the right, not the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm about to tell you refutes *every *argument that danielpalos makes.  He claims you get your rights from state constitutions, etc.  That is absolute B.S. and he knows it.
> 
> Most intelligent people know that the Constitution only guarantees our Rights, *NOT* grants them.  But, let's go further. How did the FIRST STATE COURT RULING *INTERPRET THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS*?
> 
> The case was in 1846 in Georgia.  Here is what the Court had to say:
> 
> "_*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
Click to expand...




> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.



simple judicial activism.  it should have remanded it to the State to prescribe the manner in which Arms may be borne.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again.  You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.
> 
> IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.
> 
> 
> 
> Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Let's keep it simpler.
> 
> *George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?
> 
> Is it because they disagree with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the People consist of far more than those eligible to join a militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
Click to expand...



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.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to be telling stories...
> 
> 
> Worthy of Mother Goose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more tales
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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_
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


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




nope

Not then, not now


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Let's keep it simpler.
> 
> *George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?
> 
> Is it because they disagree with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the People consist of far more than those eligible to join a militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to be telling stories...
> 
> 
> Worthy of Mother Goose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more tales
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the whole people, except for a few public officials
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> Not then, not now
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?
> 
> Is it because they disagree with your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the People consist of far more than those eligible to join a militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


I'm aware of that, jack...

was he talking to himself?

No one else discussing it?

No one had counterpoints?


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more tales
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the whole people, except for a few public officials
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> Not then, not now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.
Click to expand...



no age limits?

no gender limits?

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


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, still not a collective right.   Just like the other amendments are not collective rights.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it is.  all of our amendments are codified, collective rights of our Body Politic as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights.   That is why they were written.
> 
> James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they are not.  All of them specifically enumerate the term, _People_, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> like what?
> 
> "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 whole people are plural, not singular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again.  You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.
> 
> IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Let's keep it simpler.
> 
> *George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?
> 
> Is it because they disagree with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I repeat, have you ever been *IN* a civilian militia?
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate purpose of the unorganized militia (in federal law) is for?
Click to expand...


Good luck.  Dannyboy rarely, if ever, answers questions.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights.   That is why they were written.
> 
> James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.  All of them specifically enumerate the term, _People_, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to be telling stories...
> 
> 
> Worthy of Mother Goose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
Click to expand...


"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*.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again.  You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.
> 
> IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.
> 
> 
> 
> Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Let's keep it simpler.
> 
> *George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?
> 
> Is it because they disagree with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the People consist of far more than those eligible to join a militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


The Bill of Rights specifically lists rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.   Neither states nor state constitutions can override the US Constitution.   That has been shown and proven to you.  And you have not offered one iota of proof or evidence that state constitutions can override or overrule the US Constitution.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire posting career has been to repeat the same crap over and over and over again.  You've responded to my posts more than 25 times today alone.
> 
> IF / when you make any sensible point that has not been debunked, someone is sure to let you know.
> 
> 
> 
> Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Let's keep it simpler.
> 
> *George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?
> 
> Is it because they disagree with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I repeat, have you ever been *IN* a civilian militia?
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate purpose of the unorganized militia (in federal law) is for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck.  Dannyboy rarely, if ever, answers questions.
Click to expand...


He's trying to tell you what a "_real militiaman would do_" and he's obviously never been in a militia.  I have had relatives that served in civilian militias going back to the War of Independence and I, myself, have spent over three decades in them.  

Unless he / she has come relevant experience, I'd say those deflections and fantasies danielpalos has are about to go up in smoke.


----------



## Humorme

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more tales
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the whole people, except for a few public officials
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> Not then, not now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no age limits?
> 
> no gender limits?
> 
> you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?
Click to expand...


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.  
_
_


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Diversion is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Let's keep it simpler.
> 
> *George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe George Mason is irrelevant to Any understanding of what was meant by the People are the Militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe these people are irrelevant to the meaning of the Second?
> 
> Is it because they disagree with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I repeat, have you ever been *IN* a civilian militia?
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate purpose of the unorganized militia (in federal law) is for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck.  Dannyboy rarely, if ever, answers questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's trying to tell you what a "_real militiaman would do_" and he's obviously never been in a militia.  I have had relatives that served in civilian militias going back to the War of Independence and I, myself, have spent over three decades in them.
> 
> Unless he / she has come relevant experience, I'd say those deflections and fantasies danielpalos has are about to go up in smoke.
Click to expand...


Little Danny doesn't rely on facts.   In fact, other that the one quote he keeps harping on, he has offered pretty much nothing but his own ideas.  Which only show he has not read much about the subject.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People who are well regulated militia, do not whine about gun control laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the People consist of far more than those eligible to join a militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm aware of that, jack...
> 
> was he talking to himself?
> 
> No one else discussing it?
> 
> No one had counterpoints?
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more tales
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the whole people, except for a few public officials
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> Not then, not now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no age limits?
> 
> no gender limits?
> 
> you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?
Click to expand...

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?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it is.  all of our amendments are codified, collective rights of our Body Politic as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights.   That is why they were written.
> 
> James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they are not.  All of them specifically enumerate the term, _People_, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.

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


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.  All of them specifically enumerate the term, _People_, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to be telling stories...
> 
> 
> Worthy of Mother Goose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "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*.
Click to expand...

the militia and the people are plural.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> more tales
> 
> 
> 
> 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_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the whole people, except for a few public officials
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> Not then, not now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no age limits?
> 
> no gender limits?
> 
> you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> more tales
> 
> 
> 
> 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_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the whole people, except for a few public officials
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> Not then, not now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no age limits?
> 
> no gender limits?
> 
> you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia.



no

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


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are specifically individual rights.   That is why they were written.
> 
> James Madison wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights specifically in answer to the calls for protection of the rights of the individual citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.  All of them specifically enumerate the term, _People_, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.
> 
> all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to be telling stories...
> 
> 
> Worthy of Mother Goose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "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*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the militia and the people are plural.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the whole people, except for a few public officials
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> Not then, not now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no age limits?
> 
> no gender limits?
> 
> you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the whole people, except for a few public officials
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> Not then, not now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no age limits?
> 
> no gender limits?
> 
> you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no
> 
> only able bodied men between the ages of 16-45 were allowed in the militia
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.  All of them specifically enumerate the term, _People_, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.
> 
> all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural.   Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not merely telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to be telling stories...
> 
> 
> Worthy of Mother Goose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "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*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the militia and the people are plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> Not then, not now
> 
> 
> 
> yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no age limits?
> 
> no gender limits?
> 
> you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

judicial activism.  only the "dumb ones" fall for it.


----------



## Darkwind

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "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*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the militia and the people are plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the militia and the people are plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



You're still talking out  your ass.

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


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're still talking out  your ass.
> 
> show me a link describing the actual makeup of a militia in that era.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're still talking out  your ass.
> 
> show me a link describing the actual makeup of a militia in that era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Still dodging the question.

try again...

with facts


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're still talking out  your ass.
> 
> show me a link describing the actual makeup of a militia in that era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still dodging the question.
> 
> try again...
> 
> with facts
Click to expand...

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

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm aware of that, jack...
> 
> was he talking to himself?
> 
> No one else discussing it?
> 
> No one had counterpoints?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the whole people, except for a few public officials
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> Not then, not now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no age limits?
> 
> no gender limits?
> 
> you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.
> 
> all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural.   Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> collective requires plural.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


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

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm aware of that, jack...
> 
> was he talking to himself?
> 
> No one else discussing it?
> 
> No one had counterpoints?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> Not then, not now
> 
> 
> 
> yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no age limits?
> 
> no gender limits?
> 
> you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.
> 
> all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural.   Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> collective requires plural.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

writs of error can correct any legal fallacies.  

want to try to get more serious?


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where are you from?  you seem to be clueless and Causeless as to our federal form of Government.
Click to expand...


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

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural.   Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> collective requires plural.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> writs of error can correct any legal fallacies.
> 
> want to try to get more serious?
Click to expand...


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

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where are you from?  you seem to be clueless and Causeless as to our federal form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

dear, natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.  

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


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> collective requires plural.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> writs of error can correct any legal fallacies.
> 
> want to try to get more serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where are you from?  you seem to be clueless and Causeless as to our federal form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Our Second Amendment has terms that are plural, not singular.
Click to expand...


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

NotfooledbyW said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> Not then, not now
> 
> 
> 
> yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no age limits?
> 
> no gender limits?
> 
> you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no
> 
> only able bodied men between the ages of 16-45 were allowed in the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Source of that quote?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.
> 
> all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural.   Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> collective requires plural.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective.   That is wrong.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> Not then, not now
> 
> 
> 
> yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no age limits?
> 
> no gender limits?
> 
> you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no
> 
> only able bodied men between the ages of 16-45 were allowed in the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



part?

what's the rest of it?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "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*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the militia and the people are plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


The people are the ones who will become the militia, as they had done for 2 years of war with England.  And then the militia went back to being citizens who owned guns.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where are you from?  you seem to be clueless and Causeless as to our federal form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Our Second Amendment has terms that are plural, not singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.
> 
> all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural.   Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> collective requires plural.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective.   That is wrong.
Click to expand...

look in Any dictionary.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> judicial activism.  only the "dumb ones" fall for it.
Click to expand...


Really?   Even if it were judicial activism (and it is not), only a fool would stand against it.   Look at Roy Moore's stand against the "judicial activism" that made same sex marriage legal in all 50 states.  Roy lost his job.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no
> 
> only able bodied men between the ages of 16-45 were allowed in the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> part?
> 
> what's the rest of it?
Click to expand...

why appeal to ignorance?  it is part of a State Constitution.  it is irrelevant.  you simply have nothing but diversion.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the militia and the people are plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people are the ones who will become the militia, as they had done for 2 years of war with England.  And then the militia went back to being citizens who owned guns.
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia are Necessary.  The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.  Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.

any other questions?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural.   Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> collective requires plural.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective.   That is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look in Any dictionary.
Click to expand...


The word is always plural.  It is not always collective.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're still talking out  your ass.
> 
> show me a link describing the actual makeup of a militia in that era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Then that passage *only* applies to persons in New York.   

And if New York wrote something in their constitution that defied or went against the US Constitution, it was be unlawful and be removed.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural.   Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> collective requires plural.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> writs of error can correct any legal fallacies.
> 
> want to try to get more serious?
Click to expand...


A writ of error is a superior court directing a lower court to send a copy of the legal records so the superior court can review it and see if there were any errors.  If there were errors, the superior court will correct them.   I don't see how that applies to you being asked if you have ever been in a militia (a legitimate question), and forming an opinion based on your refusal to answer.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people are the ones who will become the militia, as they had done for 2 years of war with England.  And then the militia went back to being citizens who owned guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are Necessary.  The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.  Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> any other questions?
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.



the unorganized militia, just like the regular militia, has age limits enforced, and would deny 'the people' from owning firearms.



danielpalos said:


> any other questions?



do your meals consist of bird seed, or crackers?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Our Second Amendment has terms that are plural, not singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
Click to expand...


We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Our Second Amendment has terms that are plural, not singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
Click to expand...


I have no idea to appeal to you other that than to tell you that you are wrong so that other posters know not to rely on your ignorance.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Our Second Amendment has terms that are plural, not singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
Click to expand...



Since daniella is always asking why appeal to ignorance, I thought it meant HER ignorance.  I mean, have you ever witnessed anyone that determined to be wrong on* EVERY *aspect of this issue?

Even the unattributed quotes that apply still infer that a person has an individual Right to keep and bear Arms.

This stuff is more like a chore than a discussion and if I were a mod, I'd be telling daniella to either make a point or move on and discuss something else.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> collective requires plural.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective.   That is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look in Any dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word is always plural.  It is not always collective.
Click to expand...

should we rely on the context of the first clause?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're still talking out  your ass.
> 
> show me a link describing the actual makeup of a militia in that era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then that passage *only* applies to persons in New York.
> 
> And if New York wrote something in their constitution that defied or went against the US Constitution, it was be unlawful and be removed.
Click to expand...

That is the common law as debated at the Convention when debating Ratification of our Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> collective requires plural.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> writs of error can correct any legal fallacies.
> 
> want to try to get more serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A writ of error is a superior court directing a lower court to send a copy of the legal records so the superior court can review it and see if there were any errors.  If there were errors, the superior court will correct them.   I don't see how that applies to you being asked if you have ever been in a militia (a legitimate question), and forming an opinion based on your refusal to answer.
Click to expand...

simple judicial error. 

the people and the militia being plural is more correct than even, a Supreme Court (of law), can claim; Any dictionary of our language, confirms this.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people are the ones who will become the militia, as they had done for 2 years of war with England.  And then the militia went back to being citizens who owned guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are Necessary.  The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.  Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the unorganized militia, just like the regular militia, has age limits enforced, and would deny 'the people' from owning firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do your meals consist of bird seed, or crackers?
Click to expand...

you are merely indulging a fallacy of composition; natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective.   That is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look in Any dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word is always plural.  It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> should we rely on the context of the first clause?



only idiots would only read half of an amendment, and base their arguments on that


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Our Second Amendment has terms that are plural, not singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> collective requires plural.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective.   That is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look in Any dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word is always plural.  It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only idiots would only read half of an amendment, and base their arguments on that
Click to expand...

projecting much?

this is what we are quibbling:

The word is always plural. It is not always collective.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
Click to expand...



"*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution*, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The right of the people to keep and bear arms IS delegated by the Second Amendment


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective.   That is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> look in Any dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word is always plural.  It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only idiots would only read half of an amendment, and base their arguments on that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> projecting much?
> 
> this is what we are quibbling:
> 
> The word is always plural. It is not always collective.
Click to expand...



no
you're spitting out birdseed and cracker crumbs


the rest of us are debating


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective.   That is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look in Any dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word is always plural.  It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
Click to expand...


The important part is in the second clause.  And it does not leave room for quibbling.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're still talking out  your ass.
> 
> show me a link describing the actual makeup of a militia in that era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then that passage *only* applies to persons in New York.
> 
> And if New York wrote something in their constitution that defied or went against the US Constitution, it was be unlawful and be removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the common law as debated at the Convention when debating Ratification of our Constitution.
Click to expand...


I am sure there were several changes made during the process.  But what was ratified is what counts.  And the US Constitution is the law of the land.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
Click to expand...


The 10th amendment simply says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".    Except the right to keep and bear arms are specified in the 2nd amendment.  So that power is not left to the states.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective.   That is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> look in Any dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word is always plural.  It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only idiots would only read half of an amendment, and base their arguments on that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> projecting much?
> 
> this is what we are quibbling:
> 
> The word is always plural. It is not always collective.
Click to expand...


And on what do you base your insistence that the word is collective in the 2nd amendment?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution*, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms IS delegated by the Second Amendment
Click to expand...

This is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment:

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.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> collective requires plural.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective.   That is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look in Any dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word is always plural.  It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The important part is in the second clause.  And it does not leave room for quibbling.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.  The People and Militia are plural; you have to make up a story about it being singular.  I believe a dictionary more than the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then that passage *only* applies to persons in New York.
> 
> And if New York wrote something in their constitution that defied or went against the US Constitution, it was be unlawful and be removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the common law as debated at the Convention when debating Ratification of our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure there were several changes made during the process.  But what was ratified is what counts.  And the US Constitution is the law of the land.
Click to expand...

That understanding is in our Second Amendment regarding the People.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 10th amendment simply says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".    Except the right to keep and bear arms are specified in the 2nd amendment.  So that power is not left to the states.
Click to expand...

This is a States' right, secured by both, our Second Amendment and our Tenth Amendment:

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.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution*, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms IS delegated by the Second Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> look in Any dictionary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word is always plural.  It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only idiots would only read half of an amendment, and base their arguments on that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> projecting much?
> 
> this is what we are quibbling:
> 
> The word is always plural. It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And on what do you base your insistence that the word is collective in the 2nd amendment?
Click to expand...

nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  What do You believe we have been arguing for several pages now.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution*, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms IS delegated by the Second Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

nothing but fallacy instead of valid argument from the right wing, every time.  birds of a feather?


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then that passage *only* applies to persons in New York.
> 
> And if New York wrote something in their constitution that defied or went against the US Constitution, it was be unlawful and be removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the common law as debated at the Convention when debating Ratification of our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure there were several changes made during the process.  But what was ratified is what counts.  And the US Constitution is the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That understanding is in our Second Amendment regarding the People.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> That understanding is in our Second Amendment regarding the People.



yes, it is....


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms"


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution*, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms IS delegated by the Second Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but fallacy instead of valid argument from the right wing, every time.  birds of a feather?
Click to expand...


you're ignoring valid argument, and squawking like a parrot





that gif is what  we're putting up with when you post.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then that passage *only* applies to persons in New York.
> 
> And if New York wrote something in their constitution that defied or went against the US Constitution, it was be unlawful and be removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the common law as debated at the Convention when debating Ratification of our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure there were several changes made during the process.  But what was ratified is what counts.  And the US Constitution is the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That understanding is in our Second Amendment regarding the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That understanding is in our Second Amendment regarding the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, it is....
> 
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms"
Click to expand...

The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution*, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms IS delegated by the Second Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but fallacy instead of valid argument from the right wing, every time.  birds of a feather?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're ignoring valid argument, and squawking like a parrot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that gif is what  we're putting up with when you post.
Click to expand...

Why are there some Persons being denied and disparaged in their allegedly federal, individual right, to keep and bear Arms.  That issue should never come up.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then that passage *only* applies to persons in New York.
> 
> And if New York wrote something in their constitution that defied or went against the US Constitution, it was be unlawful and be removed.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the common law as debated at the Convention when debating Ratification of our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure there were several changes made during the process.  But what was ratified is what counts.  And the US Constitution is the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That understanding is in our Second Amendment regarding the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That understanding is in our Second Amendment regarding the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, it is....
> 
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.



Neither is the first clause.


despite your claims the entire amendment is about the militia


----------



## froggy

(2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective.   That is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> look in Any dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word is always plural.  It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The important part is in the second clause.  And it does not leave room for quibbling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  The People and Militia are plural; you have to make up a story about it being singular.  I believe a dictionary more than the right wing.
Click to expand...


I never said "people" or "militia" was singular.  I said "the right" was singular.  It is specifically talking about a single right.  They used the word "people" because that is who is guaranteed the right.  Please don't try and make up what I said.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daniel, you keep making a few claims without providing any evidence or proof.  Just your words and your imagination.

Before we continue, please provide evidence of the following claims you have made:
The state constitutions can override the US Constitution.
The word "people" is collective in the 2nd amendment, but not in the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.
State courts can overrule federal courts.

One link or ruling that shows any of those to be true and I will continue the discussion.   Your "nobody takes the rightwing seriously" nonsense is laughable.  The people you are debating with have provided links and proof of our claims.  You have offered nothing but spurious claims.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective.   That is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look in Any dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word is always plural.  It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
Click to expand...


We should rely on the rulings from the United States Supreme Court.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people are the ones who will become the militia, as they had done for 2 years of war with England.  And then the militia went back to being citizens who owned guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are Necessary.  The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.  Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the unorganized militia, just like the regular militia, has age limits enforced, and would deny 'the people' from owning firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do your meals consist of bird seed, or crackers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are merely indulging a fallacy of composition; natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
Click to expand...


STATE CONSTITUTIONS DO NOT CREATE NOR GRANT RIGHTS


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
Click to expand...


Do you have a point?


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective.   That is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> look in Any dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word is always plural.  It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only idiots would only read half of an amendment, and base their arguments on that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> projecting much?
> 
> this is what we are quibbling:
> 
> The word is always plural. It is not always collective.
Click to expand...


You are wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the common law as debated at the Convention when debating Ratification of our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure there were several changes made during the process.  But what was ratified is what counts.  And the US Constitution is the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That understanding is in our Second Amendment regarding the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That understanding is in our Second Amendment regarding the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, it is....
> 
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the first clause.
> 
> 
> despite your claims the entire amendment is about the militia
Click to expand...

The first clause declares which portion of the militia of the People, is Necessary.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 people are the ones who will become the militia, as they had done for 2 years of war with England.  And then the militia went back to being citizens who owned guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are Necessary.  The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.  Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the unorganized militia, just like the regular militia, has age limits enforced, and would deny 'the people' from owning firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do your meals consist of bird seed, or crackers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are merely indulging a fallacy of composition; natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STATE CONSTITUTIONS DO NOT CREATE NOR GRANT RIGHTS
Click to expand...

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point?
Click to expand...

It means, our Second Amendment must be about what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> look in Any dictionary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word is always plural.  It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only idiots would only read half of an amendment, and base their arguments on that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> projecting much?
> 
> this is what we are quibbling:
> 
> The word is always plural. It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
Click to expand...

lol.  why should Anyone take the right wing seriously about even morals and even for the greater glory of our immortal souls.

any dictionary proves me right.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people are the ones who will become the militia, as they had done for 2 years of war with England.  And then the militia went back to being citizens who owned guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are Necessary.  The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.  Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the unorganized militia, just like the regular militia, has age limits enforced, and would deny 'the people' from owning firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do your meals consist of bird seed, or crackers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are merely indulging a fallacy of composition; natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STATE CONSTITUTIONS DO NOT CREATE NOR GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.
Click to expand...


No they are not and they told you so.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means, our Second Amendment must be about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


It means that Congress is not supposed to infringe the individual Right to keep and bear Arms in order to secure the security of a free State.  You're back to advocating the position of Adolph again.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure there were several changes made during the process.  But what was ratified is what counts.  And the US Constitution is the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> That understanding is in our Second Amendment regarding the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That understanding is in our Second Amendment regarding the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, it is....
> 
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the first clause.
> 
> 
> despite your claims the entire amendment is about the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause declares which portion of the militia of the People, is Necessary.
Click to expand...

and the second clause defines who the Right is for


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word is always plural.  It is not always collective.
> 
> 
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only idiots would only read half of an amendment, and base their arguments on that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> projecting much?
> 
> this is what we are quibbling:
> 
> The word is always plural. It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  why should Anyone take the right wing seriously about even morals and even for the greater glory of our immortal souls.
> 
> any dictionary proves me right.
Click to expand...


Every one of those dictionaries I've quoted have proven you wrong.  And I'm citing the most authoritative ones available.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means, our Second Amendment must be about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


NO, it defines who has the right to keep and bear arms


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word is always plural.  It is not always collective.
> 
> 
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only idiots would only read half of an amendment, and base their arguments on that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> projecting much?
> 
> this is what we are quibbling:
> 
> The word is always plural. It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  why should Anyone take the right wing seriously about even morals and even for the greater glory of our immortal souls.
> 
> any dictionary proves me right.
Click to expand...


Why should anyone take you seriously?

You haven't come close to making a point


----------



## Humorme

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only idiots would only read half of an amendment, and base their arguments on that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> projecting much?
> 
> this is what we are quibbling:
> 
> The word is always plural. It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  why should Anyone take the right wing seriously about even morals and even for the greater glory of our immortal souls.
> 
> any dictionary proves me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should anyone take you seriously?
> 
> You haven't come close to making a point
Click to expand...


I agree.  Those meaningless and I do mean meaningless bumper sticker slogans haven't changed anything in some 370 replies in this thread.  If this lady had a point, she should make it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people are the ones who will become the militia, as they had done for 2 years of war with England.  And then the militia went back to being citizens who owned guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are Necessary.  The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.  Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the unorganized militia, just like the regular militia, has age limits enforced, and would deny 'the people' from owning firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do your meals consist of bird seed, or crackers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are merely indulging a fallacy of composition; natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STATE CONSTITUTIONS DO NOT CREATE NOR GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.
Click to expand...


Since state constitutions are secondary to the US Constitution, this insistence that "natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions" has no bearing on the topic.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means, our Second Amendment must be about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


And, according to the 2nd amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are Necessary.  The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.  Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> any other questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the unorganized militia, just like the regular militia, has age limits enforced, and would deny 'the people' from owning firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do your meals consist of bird seed, or crackers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are merely indulging a fallacy of composition; natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STATE CONSTITUTIONS DO NOT CREATE NOR GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are not and they told you so.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are, every Constitution tells me so.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means, our Second Amendment must be about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means that Congress is not supposed to infringe the individual Right to keep and bear Arms in order to secure the security of a free State.  You're back to advocating the position of Adolph again.
Click to expand...

Congress has the power to call the militia of the United States, and regulate them well.

Want to, try again?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That understanding is in our Second Amendment regarding the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That understanding is in our Second Amendment regarding the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, it is....
> 
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the first clause.
> 
> 
> despite your claims the entire amendment is about the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause declares which portion of the militia of the People, is Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the second clause defines who the Right is for
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia of the Whole and Entire People; Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## jon_berzerk

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.




founding father George says you are wrong


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only idiots would only read half of an amendment, and base their arguments on that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> projecting much?
> 
> this is what we are quibbling:
> 
> The word is always plural. It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  why should Anyone take the right wing seriously about even morals and even for the greater glory of our immortal souls.
> 
> any dictionary proves me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every one of those dictionaries I've quoted have proven you wrong.  And I'm citing the most authoritative ones available.
Click to expand...

dude; you have nothing but fallacy.  that is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

I cited Merriam-Webster.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means, our Second Amendment must be about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, it defines who has the right to keep and bear arms
Click to expand...

it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are Necessary.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> should we rely on the context of the first clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only idiots would only read half of an amendment, and base their arguments on that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> projecting much?
> 
> this is what we are quibbling:
> 
> The word is always plural. It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  why should Anyone take the right wing seriously about even morals and even for the greater glory of our immortal souls.
> 
> any dictionary proves me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should anyone take you seriously?
> 
> You haven't come close to making a point
Click to expand...

A dictionary proves me right; and it proves the whole and entire, right wing, Wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are Necessary.  The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.  Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> any other questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the unorganized militia, just like the regular militia, has age limits enforced, and would deny 'the people' from owning firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do your meals consist of bird seed, or crackers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are merely indulging a fallacy of composition; natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STATE CONSTITUTIONS DO NOT CREATE NOR GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since state constitutions are secondary to the US Constitution, this insistence that "natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions" has no bearing on the topic.
Click to expand...

there are no natural rights in our federal Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.  why appeal to ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means, our Second Amendment must be about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, according to the 2nd amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

no, it isn't.  Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> the unorganized militia, just like the regular militia, has age limits enforced, and would deny 'the people' from owning firearms.
> 
> do your meals consist of bird seed, or crackers?
> 
> 
> 
> you are merely indulging a fallacy of composition; natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STATE CONSTITUTIONS DO NOT CREATE NOR GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are not and they told you so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are, every Constitution tells me so.
Click to expand...


You must be confusing your documents.  Are you a North Korean?


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means, our Second Amendment must be about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means that Congress is not supposed to infringe the individual Right to keep and bear Arms in order to secure the security of a free State.  You're back to advocating the position of Adolph again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the power to call the militia of the United States, and regulate them well.
> 
> Want to, try again?
Click to expand...


WTH?  Did you just drop some acid?  What I wrote don't have squat to do with that ridiculous reply.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> only idiots would only read half of an amendment, and base their arguments on that
> 
> 
> 
> projecting much?
> 
> this is what we are quibbling:
> 
> The word is always plural. It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  why should Anyone take the right wing seriously about even morals and even for the greater glory of our immortal souls.
> 
> any dictionary proves me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every one of those dictionaries I've quoted have proven you wrong.  And I'm citing the most authoritative ones available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; you have nothing but fallacy.  that is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> I cited Merriam-Webster.
Click to expand...


Nobody takes you seriously because anything you don't like is right wing fallacy.  It is fallacy for anyone to believe you are even wanting a serious discussion.

Face it. you're bored and just need babysitting *OR* you are suffering from a delusion that if you keep people responding to absolute nonsense, they won't take the time to write their congrescritters.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> the unorganized militia, just like the regular militia, has age limits enforced, and would deny 'the people' from owning firearms.
> 
> do your meals consist of bird seed, or crackers?
> 
> 
> 
> you are merely indulging a fallacy of composition; natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STATE CONSTITUTIONS DO NOT CREATE NOR GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since state constitutions are secondary to the US Constitution, this insistence that "natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions" has no bearing on the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no natural rights in our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...


The Bill of Rights is a guarantee of your natural rights.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not appealing to ignorance, you are.  You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land.   It is not.   It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means, our Second Amendment must be about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, according to the 2nd amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.  Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.
Click to expand...


Wrong yet again daniella.  Do you specialize in being wrong?


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> only idiots would only read half of an amendment, and base their arguments on that
> 
> 
> 
> projecting much?
> 
> this is what we are quibbling:
> 
> The word is always plural. It is not always collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  why should Anyone take the right wing seriously about even morals and even for the greater glory of our immortal souls.
> 
> any dictionary proves me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should anyone take you seriously?
> 
> You haven't come close to making a point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A dictionary proves me right; and it proves the whole and entire, right wing, Wrong.
Click to expand...


Yeah, daniella, you are right and the whole world is wrong (sarcasm intended)  

Your cryptic posts and strawman arguments make you a legend in your own mind.  

In reality the United States Supreme Court has ruled 180 degrees opposite of what you post...  except for the strawman stuff you seem to pull out of your ass when you really get the beat down.  Maybe if you make those nonsensical posts, you think it detracts from the posts where you get proven wrong.

For example:

Tell us about your experiences inside a civilian militia....   You sure got than one wrong, didn't you?

Nah, even when you're proven wrong, you come back to remind us of your infallibility.  You're a legend in your own mind.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are merely indulging a fallacy of composition; natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STATE CONSTITUTIONS DO NOT CREATE NOR GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are not and they told you so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are, every Constitution tells me so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be confusing your documents.  Are you a North Korean?
Click to expand...

Should we insist on bearing True Witness to our own Constitutions, before we give foreign States, "heck" for not being as Faithful?


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> projecting much?
> 
> this is what we are quibbling:
> 
> The word is always plural. It is not always collective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  why should Anyone take the right wing seriously about even morals and even for the greater glory of our immortal souls.
> 
> any dictionary proves me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every one of those dictionaries I've quoted have proven you wrong.  And I'm citing the most authoritative ones available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; you have nothing but fallacy.  that is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> I cited Merriam-Webster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody takes you seriously because anything you don't like is right wing fallacy.  It is fallacy for anyone to believe you are even wanting a serious discussion.
> 
> Face it. you're bored and just need babysitting *OR* you are suffering from a delusion that if you keep people responding to absolute nonsense, they won't take the time to write their congrescritters.
Click to expand...

Socialism, the militia, the people; all plural.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are merely indulging a fallacy of composition; natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STATE CONSTITUTIONS DO NOT CREATE NOR GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since state constitutions are secondary to the US Constitution, this insistence that "natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions" has no bearing on the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no natural rights in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a guarantee of your natural rights.
Click to expand...

What happened to Dred Scott and what is happening to transgender, potential "army group personnel"?


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the law of the land of the State of New York.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  The legislature is Obligated to ensure a well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means, our Second Amendment must be about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, according to the 2nd amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.  Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again daniella.  Do you specialize in being wrong?
Click to expand...

I am not a damsel in distress; the Person with the most fallacies, loses, "the bet".


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> projecting much?
> 
> this is what we are quibbling:
> 
> The word is always plural. It is not always collective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  why should Anyone take the right wing seriously about even morals and even for the greater glory of our immortal souls.
> 
> any dictionary proves me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should anyone take you seriously?
> 
> You haven't come close to making a point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A dictionary proves me right; and it proves the whole and entire, right wing, Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, daniella, you are right and the whole world is wrong (sarcasm intended)
> 
> Your cryptic posts and strawman arguments make you a legend in your own mind.
> 
> In reality the United States Supreme Court has ruled 180 degrees opposite of what you post...  except for the strawman stuff you seem to pull out of your ass when you really get the beat down.  Maybe if you make those nonsensical posts, you think it detracts from the posts where you get proven wrong.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Tell us about your experiences inside a civilian militia....   You sure got than one wrong, didn't you?
> 
> Nah, even when you're proven wrong, you come back to remind us of your infallibility.  You're a legend in your own mind.
Click to expand...

plural - x does not equal singular, in this equation.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> STATE CONSTITUTIONS DO NOT CREATE NOR GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are not and they told you so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are, every Constitution tells me so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be confusing your documents.  Are you a North Korean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we insist on bearing True Witness to our own Constitutions, before we give foreign States, "heck" for not being as Faithful?
Click to expand...


Are you sober?  Reread that and try again.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  why should Anyone take the right wing seriously about even morals and even for the greater glory of our immortal souls.
> 
> any dictionary proves me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every one of those dictionaries I've quoted have proven you wrong.  And I'm citing the most authoritative ones available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; you have nothing but fallacy.  that is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> I cited Merriam-Webster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody takes you seriously because anything you don't like is right wing fallacy.  It is fallacy for anyone to believe you are even wanting a serious discussion.
> 
> Face it. you're bored and just need babysitting *OR* you are suffering from a delusion that if you keep people responding to absolute nonsense, they won't take the time to write their congrescritters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism, the militia, the people; all plural.
Click to expand...


Are you now claiming to be socialist?


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  why should Anyone take the right wing seriously about even morals and even for the greater glory of our immortal souls.
> 
> any dictionary proves me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should anyone take you seriously?
> 
> You haven't come close to making a point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A dictionary proves me right; and it proves the whole and entire, right wing, Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, daniella, you are right and the whole world is wrong (sarcasm intended)
> 
> Your cryptic posts and strawman arguments make you a legend in your own mind.
> 
> In reality the United States Supreme Court has ruled 180 degrees opposite of what you post...  except for the strawman stuff you seem to pull out of your ass when you really get the beat down.  Maybe if you make those nonsensical posts, you think it detracts from the posts where you get proven wrong.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Tell us about your experiences inside a civilian militia....   You sure got than one wrong, didn't you?
> 
> Nah, even when you're proven wrong, you come back to remind us of your infallibility.  You're a legend in your own mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plural - x does not equal singular, in this equation.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with anything?  The Supreme Court says you have an individual Right.  If you don't like that, why don't you tell them instead of keep repeating the same errors over and over?

I don't give a shit one way or another.  I have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms... and if that fails, I rely on the Word of God... You?


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not and they told you so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are, every Constitution tells me so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be confusing your documents.  Are you a North Korean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we insist on bearing True Witness to our own Constitutions, before we give foreign States, "heck" for not being as Faithful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sober?  Reread that and try again.
Click to expand...

Nobody takes the right wing seriously, whenever they don't have to.

Hey pot, kettle, checking in.  

I wanted to start, "harassing the red States" for being so, Repugnant to their own Constitutions.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not and they told you so.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are, every Constitution tells me so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be confusing your documents.  Are you a North Korean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we insist on bearing True Witness to our own Constitutions, before we give foreign States, "heck" for not being as Faithful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sober?  Reread that and try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously, whenever they don't have to.
> 
> Hey pot, kettle, checking in.
> 
> I wanted to start, "harassing the red States" for being so, Repugnant to their own Constitutions.
Click to expand...


So you primary thing is to call people you disagree with right wing and you are here to harass people.  Nice to know.  

So, are you going to tell me about your experience in the militia or you going to throw the towel in and admit you were wrong?  A non response is a forfeiture and you will have admitted that you don't know squat about the militia.  Then we can move on.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it is....
> 
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms"
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the first clause.
> 
> 
> despite your claims the entire amendment is about the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause declares which portion of the militia of the People, is Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the second clause defines who the Right is for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia of the Whole and Entire People; Only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


you fail, as usual, to understand that a large part of the people were not allowed to belong to a militia.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> STATE CONSTITUTIONS DO NOT CREATE NOR GRANT RIGHTS
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since state constitutions are secondary to the US Constitution, this insistence that "natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions" has no bearing on the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no natural rights in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a guarantee of your natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What happened to Dred Scott and what is happening to transgender, potential "army group personnel"?
Click to expand...


Are you transgender?


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> It means, our Second Amendment must be about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, according to the 2nd amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.  Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again daniella.  Do you specialize in being wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a damsel in distress; the Person with the most fallacies, loses, "the bet".
Click to expand...


You would owe money than you are going to make in this lifetime.

Have you ever read the Preamble to the Constitution?


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are, every Constitution tells me so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be confusing your documents.  Are you a North Korean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we insist on bearing True Witness to our own Constitutions, before we give foreign States, "heck" for not being as Faithful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sober?  Reread that and try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously, whenever they don't have to.
> 
> Hey pot, kettle, checking in.
> 
> I wanted to start, "harassing the red States" for being so, Repugnant to their own Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you primary thing is to call people you disagree with right wing and you are here to harass people.  Nice to know.
> 
> So, are you going to tell me about your experience in the militia or you going to throw the towel in and admit you were wrong?  A non response is a forfeiture and you will have admitted that you don't know squat about the militia.  Then we can move on.
Click to expand...

We have laws.  The people are the militia, well regulated or unorganized.  That is the experience I have, with the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the first clause.
> 
> 
> despite your claims the entire amendment is about the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause declares which portion of the militia of the People, is Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the second clause defines who the Right is for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia of the Whole and Entire People; Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you fail, as usual, to understand that a large part of the people were not allowed to belong to a militia.
Click to expand...

socialism requires social morals for free, not expensive and capital, civil wars.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since state constitutions are secondary to the US Constitution, this insistence that "natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions" has no bearing on the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no natural rights in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a guarantee of your natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What happened to Dred Scott and what is happening to transgender, potential "army group personnel"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you transgender?
Click to expand...

nope; for truth in advertising purposes. 

the right wing has nothing but fallacy; why should we take right wing foreign policy seriously, with their regime of Tax Cut Economics and "starve the beast" mentality?


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means, our Second Amendment must be about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, according to the 2nd amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.  Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again daniella.  Do you specialize in being wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a damsel in distress; the Person with the most fallacies, loses, "the bet".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would owe money than you are going to make in this lifetime.
> 
> Have you ever read the Preamble to the Constitution?
Click to expand...

The preamble is our "mission statement" in life, for the militia of the United States.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be confusing your documents.  Are you a North Korean?
> 
> 
> 
> Should we insist on bearing True Witness to our own Constitutions, before we give foreign States, "heck" for not being as Faithful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sober?  Reread that and try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously, whenever they don't have to.
> 
> Hey pot, kettle, checking in.
> 
> I wanted to start, "harassing the red States" for being so, Repugnant to their own Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you primary thing is to call people you disagree with right wing and you are here to harass people.  Nice to know.
> 
> So, are you going to tell me about your experience in the militia or you going to throw the towel in and admit you were wrong?  A non response is a forfeiture and you will have admitted that you don't know squat about the militia.  Then we can move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have laws.  The people are the militia, well regulated or unorganized.  That is the experience I have, with the militia.
Click to expand...


In other words, you've never been *IN* a militia.  I know two former U.S. Navy SEALs and have watched SEAL Team on tv.  I won't pretend to understand what they think or exactly how the laws regulate them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cecilie1200, post: 19589172 





Cecilie1200 said:


> And where, exactly, do you find that AR-15s are not protected under the 2nd Amendment?



If I tell you will you accept it? If it comes from Supreme Court Justice Scalia will you accept it? SA rights protections are limited. Do you agree with that?


Cecilie1200, post: 19589172 





Cecilie1200 said:


> Except that they're no more similar to "weapons of war" than any other gun is.



That is false. Rapid fire and high velacity are necessary in combat when an enemy is trying to kill you. 

Deer don't usually shoot back, in fact probably never.


----------



## Hugo Furst

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cecilie1200, post: 19589172
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where, exactly, do you find that AR-15s are not protected under the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I tell you will you accept it? If it comes from Supreme Court Justice Scalia will you accept it? SA rights protections are limited. Do you agree with that?
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200, post: 19589172
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they're no more similar to "weapons of war" than any other gun is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is false. Rapid fire and high velacity are necessary in combat when an enemy is trying to kill you.
> 
> Deer don't usually shoot back, in fact probably never.
Click to expand...




NotfooledbyW said:


> Rapid fire and high velacity are necessary in combat when an enemy is trying to kill you.



like most Berretas, Glocks, and other handguns?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cecilie1200 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...



Maryland banned  the AR15

"The 4th Circuit held that Maryland’s ban on military-style assault rifles is constitutional regardless of the standard of scrutiny because the Second Amendment does not give civilians a right to own such weapons."

Second Amendment does not apply to assault weapons: en banc 4th...


"The majority focused instead on Justice Scalia’s concession that governments may prohibit “weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like.” The semi-automatic weapons banned under Maryland’s law were adapted from M-16s and other automatic rifles developed for military use, according to the 4th Circuit. That fact, the court said, put them within the category of weapons the Heller opinion excepted from Second Amendment protection."


----------



## NotfooledbyW

A musket from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today.CreditTop, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .


----------



## Cecilie1200

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cecilie1200, post: 19589172
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where, exactly, do you find that AR-15s are not protected under the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I tell you will you accept it? If it comes from Supreme Court Justice Scalia will you accept it? SA rights protections are limited. Do you agree with that?
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200, post: 19589172
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they're no more similar to "weapons of war" than any other gun is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is false. Rapid fire and high velacity are necessary in combat when an enemy is trying to kill you.
> 
> Deer don't usually shoot back, in fact probably never.
Click to expand...


They're not especially rapid-fire OR high velocity compared to any number of other guns.  What the ability of game animals to shoot back has to do with anything is beyond me.  Thanks for playing, and demonstrating that you know nothing of the subject you're pronouncing upon.


----------



## Cecilie1200

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland banned  the AR15
> 
> "The 4th Circuit held that Maryland’s ban on military-style assault rifles is constitutional regardless of the standard of scrutiny because the Second Amendment does not give civilians a right to own such weapons."
> 
> Second Amendment does not apply to assault weapons: en banc 4th...
> 
> 
> "The majority focused instead on Justice Scalia’s concession that governments may prohibit “weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like.” The semi-automatic weapons banned under Maryland’s law were adapted from M-16s and other automatic rifles developed for military use, according to the 4th Circuit. That fact, the court said, put them within the category of weapons the Heller opinion excepted from Second Amendment protection."
Click to expand...


I don't give a rat's ass what Maryland had to say on the subject.  Nor do I think "adapted from" means a damned thing, except that they AREN'T military weapons.  This is borne out by the fact that they aren't actually used by the military.  Duhhh.

And for the record, I don't have a huge amount of interest in the Supreme Court, which also gave us such gems as _Dredd Scott_, "separate but equal", and "emanations from the penumbra".


----------



## Hugo Furst

NotfooledbyW said:


> A musket from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today.CreditTop, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .




What's your point?

the First gives freedom of the press.

Priniting press when the Constitution was written











Revolutionary newspaper.






Current newspaper







things change.

LIve with it


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cecilie1200, post: 19598342 





Cecilie1200 said:


> They're not especially rapid-fire OR high velocity compared to any number of other guns.



I see you are not addressing a specific firearms comparison.

Do you believe a Revolutionary War era  musket has the same rapid fire capability and bullet velocity as an AR15?


Do you think a bolt action three cartridge XPR HUNTER is no different than an AR15? Can you fire dozens of rounds at the same pace in both rifles?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

WillHaftawaite said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A musket from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today.CreditTop, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> the First gives freedom of the press.
> 
> Priniting press when the Constitution was written
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revolutionary newspaper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current newspaper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> things change.
> 
> LIve with it
Click to expand...


Do you seriously think you are capable of using logic and reason? 

Let me know when a printing press is used to commit mass murder.


----------



## WinterBorn

NotfooledbyW said:


> A musket from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today.CreditTop, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .



This comparison is laughable.

Yes, the rifle on the top was what was held by civilians when the 2nd amendment was written.  It was also the standard rifle of the best equipped army in the world.  And it could be fired as fast as the best militaries of the time.

The lower rifle may look like the one carried by the best equipped army, but it is significantly slower to fire.


----------



## WinterBorn

NotfooledbyW said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A musket from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today.CreditTop, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> the First gives freedom of the press.
> 
> Priniting press when the Constitution was written
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revolutionary newspaper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current newspaper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> things change.
> 
> LIve with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think you are capable of using logic and reason?
> 
> Let me know when a printing press is used to commit mass murder.
Click to expand...


Do you not think millions have been killed by propaganda created in a printing press?


----------



## Hugo Furst

NotfooledbyW said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A musket from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today.CreditTop, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> the First gives freedom of the press.
> 
> Priniting press when the Constitution was written
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revolutionary newspaper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current newspaper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> things change.
> 
> LIve with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think you are capable of using logic and reason?
> 
> Let me know when a printing press is used to commit mass murder.
Click to expand...

logic and reason?

your kind?

hopefully, I will NEVER use your style 'logic and reason'.

that 'the second only authorized muskets' bullshit is as lame as 3 legged horse.


2nd doesn't say anything about muskets, it says 'arms'.

in your feeble logic, firearms would only consist of single shot rifles and handguns.

you want to take firearms back 300 years, but keep all the other advancements that suit you.

you should join the nearest Flat Earth Society.


----------



## Hugo Furst

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cecilie1200, post: 19598342
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not especially rapid-fire OR high velocity compared to any number of other guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you are not addressing a specific firearms comparison.
> 
> Do you believe a Revolutionary War era  musket has the same rapid fire capability and bullet velocity as an AR15?
Click to expand...


Does that matter?


----------



## Cecilie1200

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cecilie1200, post: 19598342
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not especially rapid-fire OR high velocity compared to any number of other guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you are not addressing a specific firearms comparison.
> 
> Do you believe a Revolutionary War era  musket has the same rapid fire capability and bullet velocity as an AR15?
Click to expand...


A better question is, "Do I care?"  Or how about, "What the hell does that have to do with anything?"


----------



## Cecilie1200

WinterBorn said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A musket from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today.CreditTop, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> the First gives freedom of the press.
> 
> Priniting press when the Constitution was written
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revolutionary newspaper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current newspaper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> things change.
> 
> LIve with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think you are capable of using logic and reason?
> 
> Let me know when a printing press is used to commit mass murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not think millions have been killed by propaganda created in a printing press?
Click to expand...


Excellent point.  Information - and disinformation - are far more dangerous than any weapon.  "The pen is mightier than the sword", and all that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cecilie1200 said:


> A better question is, "Do I care?" Or how about, "What the hell does that have to do with anything?



Now you don't care after telling me assault rifles are not especially rapid-fire or high velocity compared to any number of other guns.

You must realize what a stupid statement that was. 


Can you fire a bolt action XPR HUNTER at the same rapid fire pace as an AR15? 

Popular handguns don't match the bullet velocity of the AR15. Why did you insist they were about the same?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

WinterBorn, post: 19598622 





WinterBorn said:


> Do you not think millions have been killed by propaganda created in a printing press?



Can you name a mass murder where the free press as an institution has been held responsible? I didn't don't know CNN has its own military and police force. 

Think people. 

Propaganda cannot kill a single soul. 

A propagandist with superiority in followers and firearms can kill many. Just like a late middle aged man with a fascination in killing humans with assault weapons can rent a room in Vegas and try all his fascinating toys out in real life and death.


----------



## Hugo Furst

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better question is, "Do I care?" Or how about, "What the hell does that have to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you don't care after telling me assault rifles are not especially rapid-fire or high velocity compared to any number of other guns.
> 
> You must realize what a stupid statement that was.
> 
> 
> Can you fire a bolt action XPR HUNTER at the same rapid fire pace as an AR15?
> 
> Popular handguns don't match the bullet velocity of the AR15. Why did you insist they were about the same?
Click to expand...




NotfooledbyW said:


> Can you fire a bolt action XPR HUNTER at the same rapid fire pace as an AR15?



Can a Volkswagen match the speed of a Corvette?

you're comparing apples and oranges


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cecilie1200 said:


> Excellent point. Information - and disinformation - are far more dangerous than any weapon. "The pen is mightier than the sword", and all that.



Then why don't you assault rifle nuts trade your AR15s in for Parkers ball points and take penmanship classes.


----------



## WinterBorn

NotfooledbyW said:


> WinterBorn, post: 19598622
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not think millions have been killed by propaganda created in a printing press?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a mass murder where the free press as an institution has been held responsible? I didn't don't know CNN has its own military and police force.
> 
> Think people.
> 
> Propaganda cannot kill a single soul.
> 
> A propagandist with superiority in followers and firearms can kill many. Just like a late middle aged man with a fascination in killing humans with assault weapons can rent a room in Vegas and try all his fascinating toys out in real life and death.
Click to expand...


I like the way you addressed my point with the caveat "free press as an institution".   Look at what Himmler was able to do with his propaganda.  Germans didn't bat an eye when the Jews were forced into cattlecars.


----------



## Cecilie1200

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better question is, "Do I care?" Or how about, "What the hell does that have to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you don't care after telling me assault rifles are not especially rapid-fire or high velocity compared to any number of other guns.
> 
> You must realize what a stupid statement that was.
> 
> 
> Can you fire a bolt action XPR HUNTER at the same rapid fire pace as an AR15?
> 
> Popular handguns don't match the bullet velocity of the AR15. Why did you insist they were about the same?
Click to expand...


No, I'm sorry, pointing out your ignorance about the AR15 has nothing whatsoever to do with my not caring about Revolutionary muskets, OR their utter irrelevance to the topic.

If you want to fixate on centuries-old antiques, that's your little red wagon.  I'm not obligated to join you.

If you're going to drag me through a comparison of the AR15 and every single possible other gun type, why don't we just cut to the chase, and you tell me where the cut-off is.  EXACTLY what rate of fire constitutes "rapid-fire"?  How did you arrive at that particular benchmark?  And why should law-abiding citizens consider it somehow "morally superior" to have less effective weapons than those against whom they're defending themselves?


----------



## WinterBorn

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point. Information - and disinformation - are far more dangerous than any weapon. "The pen is mightier than the sword", and all that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you assault rifle nuts trade your AR15s in for Parkers ball points and take penmanship classes.
Click to expand...


I don't own an AR (had one but sold it years ago).   I think I will keep my firearms and keep writing via a keyboard.

Why don't you try and get a constitutional amendment to remove the right to keep and bear arms.  You only need the legislatures of 38 states.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

WillHaftawaite, post: 19598925 





WillHaftawaite said:


> Can a Volkswagen match the speed of a Corvette?



Why ask me? Ask Cecile?


----------



## Hugo Furst

NotfooledbyW said:


> WillHaftawaite, post: 19598925
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a Volkswagen match the speed of a Corvette?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why ask me? Ask Cecile?
Click to expand...


Because you're the one making comparisons between firearms.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

emilynghiem said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do we have to wait for conflicts to escalate to the point of threatening to use guns for defense?
> Is that the only choice of equalizer?
> 
> Currently only the big corporations and interests that can afford to lobby and/or have leverage to sue and WIN in federal courts can get their way.
> It's not just guns alone that defend rights, but the fact that the NRA can AFFORD LAWYERS TO SUE -- IN FEDERAL COURT -- IF LINES GET CROSSED.
> 
> The only thing that stopped Obamacare were lawsuits that WON in federal court.
> Who can afford that?
> 
> So we don't have equal defense in this country.
> The feds can get into our pocketbooks and harass using the IRS.
> 
> Taking up guns is not enough to stop the onslaught and oppression of rights.
> Look to the lawyers and lobbies that can afford legal defense.
> 
> The day that the average person can go to a group and get the same defense for a complaint,
> maybe we'll have equality! Thank you luosT_tcR  Keep posting and keep your mind well loaded!
Click to expand...

*Much that you wrote has happened, it was lead to abuse of power and large companys have tied lawsuits up in the courts for years and 20 years just to fend off the justice of law.  They hope you die before it ever comes to court or it become a moot subject.  Swift justice just does not happen.  *


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland banned  the AR15
> 
> "The 4th Circuit held that Maryland’s ban on military-style assault rifles is constitutional regardless of the standard of scrutiny because the Second Amendment does not give civilians a right to own such weapons."
> 
> Second Amendment does not apply to assault weapons: en banc 4th...
> 
> 
> "The majority focused instead on Justice Scalia’s concession that governments may prohibit “weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like.” The semi-automatic weapons banned under Maryland’s law were adapted from M-16s and other automatic rifles developed for military use, according to the 4th Circuit. That fact, the court said, put them within the category of weapons the Heller opinion excepted from Second Amendment protection."
Click to expand...

AR 15s actually aren’t ‘banned’ in Maryland – they’re legal provided they conform to state laws and provisions, such as a magazine limited to 10 rounds.

For some an AR isn’t an AR absent a 30-round magazine.

As for the 4th Circuit’s ruling on Maryland’s FSA, the _Heller _Court provided the lower courts no guidance as to level of judicial review, which it was compelled to do given the issues concerning the District’s handgun regulation.

And as long as appellate courts continue to uphold measures such as the FSA, the Supreme Court is unlikely to agree to review their constitutionality.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

WinterBorn, post: 19598954 





WinterBorn said:


> I like the way you addressed my point with the caveat "free press as an institution". Look at what Himmler was able to do with his propaganda. Germans didn't bat an eye when the Jews were forced into cattlecars.




So you think 'Himmler. was the free press? Ok. Duly noted.


----------



## xyz

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.


Mafia bosses give zero f*cks if their guys get killed trying to kill you. They just send more guys.


----------



## WinterBorn

NotfooledbyW said:


> WinterBorn, post: 19598954
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the way you addressed my point with the caveat "free press as an institution". Look at what Himmler was able to do with his propaganda. Germans didn't bat an eye when the Jews were forced into cattlecars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think 'Himmler. was the free press? Ok. Duly noted.
Click to expand...


I think the press was used to murder millions.  I think the gov't allowed/encouraged such propaganda.

And that was the point of the post.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

WinterBorn, post: 19613326 





WinterBorn said:


> I think the press was used to murder millions. I think the gov't allowed/encouraged such propaganda.


The 'free press'  was used to murder The enemies of the Nazi Party? You have lost your marbles? 

A Printing press cannot be used to murder people the same as an assault rifle can. Unless it's maybe dropped from a helicopter onto people.


That's a fact I know is true. AR15s are designed to kill armed humans. No reason anyone other than trained police and military should have them.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A musket from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today.CreditTop, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> the First gives freedom of the press.
> 
> Priniting press when the Constitution was written
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revolutionary newspaper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current newspaper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> things change.
> 
> LIve with it
Click to expand...

We have a First Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

The true interpretation of our Second Amendment, is that States have a right to their own security.  A well regulated militia can make that happen.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> The true interpretation of our Second Amendment, is that States have a right to their own security.  A well regulated militia can make that happen.





danielpalos said:


> The true interpretation of our Second Amendment, is that States have a right to their own security.


The Second had nothing to do with the States, it has everything to do with the People.



danielpalos said:


> A well regulated militia can make that happen.



amazing they gave the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the People, instead if the Militia, isn't it?


----------



## danielpalos

Why do you believe that?


----------



## WinterBorn

NotfooledbyW said:


> WinterBorn, post: 19613326
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the press was used to murder millions. I think the gov't allowed/encouraged such propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> The 'free press'  was used to murder The enemies of the Nazi Party? You have lost your marbles?
> 
> A Printing press cannot be used to murder people the same as an assault rifle can. Unless it's maybe dropped from a helicopter onto people.
> 
> 
> That's a fact I know is true. AR15s are designed to kill armed humans. No reason anyone other than trained police and military should have them.
Click to expand...


I didn't say a printing press would kill anyone.  But you choose to argue that it won't.

The AR is designed to accurately shoot smallish bullets from a box magazine.  It is the shooter who decides what the target will be.  Whether it will be paper targets, human beings or game animals is completely up to the shooter.

And actually, murders by ARs are relatively rare.  Rifles as whole only account for around 500 murders, whereas guns as a whole account for roughly 9,500 per year.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn, post: 19613326
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the press was used to murder millions. I think the gov't allowed/encouraged such propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> The 'free press'  was used to murder The enemies of the Nazi Party? You have lost your marbles?
> 
> A Printing press cannot be used to murder people the same as an assault rifle can. Unless it's maybe dropped from a helicopter onto people.
> 
> 
> That's a fact I know is true. AR15s are designed to kill armed humans. No reason anyone other than trained police and military should have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say a printing press would kill anyone.  But you choose to argue that it won't.
> 
> The AR is designed to accurately shoot smallish bullets from a box magazine.  It is the shooter who decides what the target will be.  Whether it will be paper targets, human beings or game animals is completely up to the shooter.
> 
> And actually, murders by ARs are relatively rare.  Rifles as whole only account for around 500 murders, whereas guns as a whole account for roughly 9,500 per year.
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia should be AR qualified, as well as qualified in entrenching firebreaks, along with being jump capable.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

WinterBorn, post: 19614211 





WinterBorn said:


> I didn't say a printing press would kill anyone. But you choose to argue that it won't.



That's what this line of discussion was about. The 'free press' has used a 'printing press'  to murder millions. I thought you are defending that rediculous argument. 

What is your point then?


----------



## WinterBorn

NotfooledbyW said:


> WinterBorn, post: 19614211
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say a printing press would kill anyone. But you choose to argue that it won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what this line of discussion was about. The 'free press' has used a 'printing press'  to murder millions. I thought you are defending that rediculous argument.
> 
> What is your point then?
Click to expand...


What I responded to was your post saying: 
"Do you seriously think you are capable of using logic and reason?

Let me know when a printing press is used to commit mass murder."

And Himmler's propaganda fits that quite well.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

WinterBorn, post: 19598622 





WinterBorn said:


> Do you not think millions have been killed by propaganda created in a printing press?



Note: What you are citing below was not directed to you. Is that correct? I am sure that it is.

WinterBorn, post: 19614597 





WinterBorn said:


> What I responded to was your post saying:
> 
> "Do you seriously think you are capable of using logic and reason?
> 
> Let me know when a printing press is used to commit mass murder."
> 
> And Himmler's propaganda fits that quite well.



My point to Willhaftawait was that it is absurd to compare a printing press to an AR15 and Willhaftawait ran away, so I guess you decided to take over.

So you didn't bother to understand what was being discussed.

So I'll try again.

Propaganda can be used to commit mass murder. Nazi propaganda yes. But it is not the 'printing press' that is used to commit mass murder.

It is firearms and other weapons of war. The victims in Nazi Germans could not be forced into cattle cars if they are not threatened by pistols and rifles carried and used by the Nazis.

It is appropriate to compare an AR15 carried by a mass murderer today to jackbooted Nazis prior to and during WWII carrying his firearm.

But to compare an AR15 to a 'printing press' used by Nazis as an similar instrument of death is defiance of logic and reason.

That is where you seem to be. In defiance of logic and reason.

My point was never that murderous propagandists have never used a printing press. They used both firearms and the news presses plus music and movies. But the propagandist needed the firearms to actually kill people.

I hope you get it now.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

WinterBorn, post: 19614211 





WinterBorn said:


> I didn't say a printing press would kill anyone. But you choose to argue that it won't.



You said:

"I think the press was used to murder millions. I think the gov't allowed/encouraged such propaganda."

That is carelessly not true.

Properly said would go something like this:

The press was used for Nazi propaganda which enabled them to use their firearms in order to mass murder millions in its wake.


----------



## Hugo Furst

NotfooledbyW said:


> WinterBorn, post: 19598622
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not think millions have been killed by propaganda created in a printing press?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: What you are citing below was not directed to you. Is that correct? I am sure that it is.
> 
> WinterBorn, post: 19614597
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I responded to was your post saying:
> 
> "Do you seriously think you are capable of using logic and reason?
> 
> Let me know when a printing press is used to commit mass murder."
> 
> And Himmler's propaganda fits that quite well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point to Willhaftawait was that it is absurd to compare a printing press to an AR15 and Willhaftawait ran away, so I guess you decided to take over.
> 
> So you didn't bother to understand what was being discussed.
> 
> So I'll try again.
> 
> Propaganda can be used to commit mass murder. Nazi propaganda yes. But it is not the 'printing press' that is used to commit mass murder.
> 
> It is firearms and other weapons of war. The victims in Nazi Germans could not be forced into cattle cars if they are not threatened by pistols and rifles carried and used by the Nazis.
> 
> It is appropriate to compare an AR15 carried by a mass murderer today to jackbooted Nazis prior to and during WWII carrying his firearm.
> 
> But to compare an AR15 to a 'printing press' used by Nazis as an similar instrument of death is defiance of logic and reason.
> 
> That is where you seem to be. In defiance of logic and reason.
> 
> My point was never that murderous propagandists have never used a printing press. They used both firearms and the news presses plus music and movies. But the propagandist needed the firearms to actually kill people.
> 
> I hope you get it now.
Click to expand...




NotfooledbyW said:


> But the propagandist needed the firearms to actually kill people.


and before firearms, they used swords, and pitchforks, and clubs, etc.

But the press was what convinced them they needed to kill.


----------



## Flash

luosT_tcR said:


> Tru.......... Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.
> 
> .



Is that like the First Amendment not saying anything about sophisticated and modern communication devices for free speech or freedom for religions that were not in existence at the time like say Mormonism? 

The idea that the Second Amendment does not apply to modern weapons is probably the absolute most crazy idea the Moon Bats have.  

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed pretty much speaks for itself.    Not much spin is needed on that and we sure as hell don't need bat shit crazy Liberal assholes telling us what firearms are considered politically correct "arms", do we?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

WillHaftawaite, post: 19616036, WillHaftawaite, post: 19616036,





WillHaftawaite said:


> But the press was what convinced them they needed to kill.



Not a free press. It was done essentially in most cases by an authoritarian type figure who used nationalism, religion, racism etc to stoke fear and blame to gain the power to act on his propaganda. 

It appears you are rooting for an orange faced version of that figure. What's his favorited punching bag? So called fake news. 

And his troopers can't get too far without their arsenal of AR15s.

Look at you now.


----------



## WinterBorn

NotfooledbyW said:


> WillHaftawaite, post: 19616036, WillHaftawaite, post: 19616036,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the press was what convinced them they needed to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a free press. It was done essentially in most cases by an authoritarian type figure who used nationalism, religion, racism etc to stoke fear and blame to gain the power to act on his propaganda.
> 
> It appears you are rooting for an orange faced version of that figure. What's his favorited punching bag? So called fake news.
> 
> And his troopers can't get too far without their arsenal of AR15s.
> 
> Look at you now.
Click to expand...


So you think the AR15 is the only firearm that is dangerous?    lol  Ok then.


----------



## Hugo Furst

NotfooledbyW said:


> WillHaftawaite, post: 19616036, WillHaftawaite, post: 19616036,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the press was what convinced them they needed to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a free press. It was done essentially in most cases by an authoritarian type figure who used nationalism, religion, racism etc to stoke fear and blame to gain the power to act on his propaganda.
> 
> It appears you are rooting for an orange faced version of that figure. What's his favorited punching bag? So called fake news.
> 
> And his troopers can't get too far without their arsenal of AR15s.
> 
> Look at you now.
Click to expand...




NotfooledbyW said:


> Not a free press. It was done essentially in most cases by an authoritarian type figure who used nationalism, religion, racism etc to stoke fear and blame to gain the power to act on his propaganda.



a 'free' press?

a 'free' press does as much to incite violence as any ran by a tyrant.

Name ONE newspaper or news station that ISN'T biased to the point of inciting their readers/watchers to their point of view?

The Left blames Fox, the Right blames MSNBC, at times, BOTH blame CNN.

and ALL promote their own version of propaganda.


----------



## danielpalos

The true interpretation of our Second Amendment is that well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> The true interpretation of our Second Amendment is that well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.




Where does the 2nd mention state or union?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true interpretation of our Second Amendment is that well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the 2nd mention state or union?
Click to expand...

Where it implies, to not take the right wing too seriously, if they appeal to ignorance of it.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true interpretation of our Second Amendment is that well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the 2nd mention state or union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where it implies, to not take the right wing too seriously, if they appeal to ignorance of it.
Click to expand...



still making up shit?

link it.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true interpretation of our Second Amendment is that well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the 2nd mention state or union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where it implies, to not take the right wing too seriously, if they appeal to ignorance of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> still making up shit?
> 
> link it.
Click to expand...

No, I actually know how to read.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true interpretation of our Second Amendment is that well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the 2nd mention state or union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where it implies, to not take the right wing too seriously, if they appeal to ignorance of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> still making up shit?
> 
> link it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I actually know how to read.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed.
Click to expand...


Your interpretation.

NOT what it says


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true interpretation of our Second Amendment is that well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the 2nd mention state or union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where it implies, to not take the right wing too seriously, if they appeal to ignorance of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> still making up shit?
> 
> link it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I actually know how to read.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your interpretation.
> 
> NOT what it says
Click to expand...

it is current practice in our Republic.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the 2nd mention state or union?
> 
> 
> 
> Where it implies, to not take the right wing too seriously, if they appeal to ignorance of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> still making up shit?
> 
> link it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I actually know how to read.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your interpretation.
> 
> NOT what it says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is current practice in our Republic.
Click to expand...


No.

the current practice is to allow ALL citizens, with a few legal exceptions, the right to keep and bear arms.

not just males between the ages of 16-45


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where it implies, to not take the right wing too seriously, if they appeal to ignorance of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> still making up shit?
> 
> link it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I actually know how to read.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your interpretation.
> 
> NOT what it says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is current practice in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> the current practice is to allow ALL citizens, with a few legal exceptions, the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> not just males between the ages of 16-45
Click to expand...

this is the current practice I am referring to:



> (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.



Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and are exempt from paragraph (2), when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> still making up shit?
> 
> link it.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I actually know how to read.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your interpretation.
> 
> NOT what it says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is current practice in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> the current practice is to allow ALL citizens, with a few legal exceptions, the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> not just males between the ages of 16-45
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the current practice I am referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and are exempt from paragraph (2), when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...



Obviously, you go out of your way to be silly.

"Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and are exempt from paragraph (2), when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

no one is disputing that 'well regulated militia' don't have a right to keep and bear arms.


YOU are disputing that the PEOPLE have that same right.

As written in the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I actually know how to read.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your interpretation.
> 
> NOT what it says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is current practice in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> the current practice is to allow ALL citizens, with a few legal exceptions, the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> not just males between the ages of 16-45
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the current practice I am referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and are exempt from paragraph (2), when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you go out of your way to be silly.
> 
> "Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and are exempt from paragraph (2), when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."
> 
> no one is disputing that 'well regulated militia' don't have a right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> YOU are disputing that the PEOPLE have that same right.
> 
> As written in the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

However did you get that idea from me?  I am a federalist.  I already know natural and Individual rights are found in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your interpretation.
> 
> NOT what it says
> 
> 
> 
> it is current practice in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> the current practice is to allow ALL citizens, with a few legal exceptions, the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> not just males between the ages of 16-45
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the current practice I am referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and are exempt from paragraph (2), when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you go out of your way to be silly.
> 
> "Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and are exempt from paragraph (2), when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."
> 
> no one is disputing that 'well regulated militia' don't have a right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> YOU are disputing that the PEOPLE have that same right.
> 
> As written in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you get that idea from me?  I am a federalist.  I already know natural and Individual rights are found in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
Click to expand...


because you keep referring to Militias, State Constitutions, etc...

instead of the 2nd Amendment?

A State Constitution covers ONE state.

the 2nd covers the country


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is current practice in our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> the current practice is to allow ALL citizens, with a few legal exceptions, the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> not just males between the ages of 16-45
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the current practice I am referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and are exempt from paragraph (2), when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you go out of your way to be silly.
> 
> "Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and are exempt from paragraph (2), when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."
> 
> no one is disputing that 'well regulated militia' don't have a right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> YOU are disputing that the PEOPLE have that same right.
> 
> As written in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you get that idea from me?  I am a federalist.  I already know natural and Individual rights are found in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because you keep referring to Militias, State Constitutions, etc...
> 
> instead of the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> A State Constitution covers ONE state.
> 
> the 2nd covers the country
Click to expand...

apples and oranges.  

Due Process covers it, not our Second Amendment.

What State are you from?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> The true interpretation of our Second Amendment is that well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.



Except that is not what is written.   They founding fathers intentionally used the word "militia" in the first clause and "people" in the second clause.

Because that is what they meant.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true interpretation of our Second Amendment is that well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is not what is written.   They founding fathers intentionally used the word "militia" in the first clause and "people" in the second clause.
> 
> Because that is what they meant.
Click to expand...

The People are the militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true interpretation of our Second Amendment is that well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is not what is written.   They founding fathers intentionally used the word "militia" in the first clause and "people" in the second clause.
> 
> Because that is what they meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
Click to expand...


The people will become the militia when they are needed.  Just as they had done in the war that they had just finished fighting when they wrote the US Constitution.    Do a little research.  Look up "Citizen Soldier" or perhaps "Minutemen".

BTW, the term "Minuteman" means more than just your sexual abilities, Daniel.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true interpretation of our Second Amendment is that well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is not what is written.   They founding fathers intentionally used the word "militia" in the first clause and "people" in the second clause.
> 
> Because that is what they meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people will become the militia when they are needed.  Just as they had done in the war that they had just finished fighting when they wrote the US Constitution.    Do a little research.  Look up "Citizen Soldier" or perhaps "Minutemen".
> 
> BTW, the term "Minuteman" means more than just your sexual abilities, Daniel.
Click to expand...

that is simply, appealing to ignorance of what the militia is.



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


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true interpretation of our Second Amendment is that well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is not what is written.   They founding fathers intentionally used the word "militia" in the first clause and "people" in the second clause.
> 
> Because that is what they meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people will become the militia when they are needed.  Just as they had done in the war that they had just finished fighting when they wrote the US Constitution.    Do a little research.  Look up "Citizen Soldier" or perhaps "Minutemen".
> 
> BTW, the term "Minuteman" means more than just your sexual abilities, Daniel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is simply, appealing to ignorance of what the militia is.
Click to expand...


No, that is looking at the context in which the 2nd was written.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> the current practice is to allow ALL citizens, with a few legal exceptions, the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> not just males between the ages of 16-45
> 
> 
> 
> this is the current practice I am referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and are exempt from paragraph (2), when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you go out of your way to be silly.
> 
> "Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and are exempt from paragraph (2), when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."
> 
> no one is disputing that 'well regulated militia' don't have a right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> YOU are disputing that the PEOPLE have that same right.
> 
> As written in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you get that idea from me?  I am a federalist.  I already know natural and Individual rights are found in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because you keep referring to Militias, State Constitutions, etc...
> 
> instead of the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> A State Constitution covers ONE state.
> 
> the 2nd covers the country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> apples and oranges.
> 
> Due Process covers it, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> What State are you from?
Click to expand...


Due Process does not cover anything specifically named in the US Constitution.  State laws and constitutions cannot, despite your claims, overrule the US Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true interpretation of our Second Amendment is that well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is not what is written.   They founding fathers intentionally used the word "militia" in the first clause and "people" in the second clause.
> 
> Because that is what they meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people will become the militia when they are needed.  Just as they had done in the war that they had just finished fighting when they wrote the US Constitution.    Do a little research.  Look up "Citizen Soldier" or perhaps "Minutemen".
> 
> BTW, the term "Minuteman" means more than just your sexual abilities, Daniel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is simply, appealing to ignorance of what the militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is looking at the context in which the 2nd was written.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is the current practice I am referring to:
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and are exempt from paragraph (2), when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you go out of your way to be silly.
> 
> "Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and are exempt from paragraph (2), when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."
> 
> no one is disputing that 'well regulated militia' don't have a right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> YOU are disputing that the PEOPLE have that same right.
> 
> As written in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you get that idea from me?  I am a federalist.  I already know natural and Individual rights are found in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because you keep referring to Militias, State Constitutions, etc...
> 
> instead of the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> A State Constitution covers ONE state.
> 
> the 2nd covers the country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> apples and oranges.
> 
> Due Process covers it, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> What State are you from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Due Process does not cover anything specifically named in the US Constitution.  State laws and constitutions cannot, despite your claims, overrule the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

dude; nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.



> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is not what is written.   They founding fathers intentionally used the word "militia" in the first clause and "people" in the second clause.
> 
> Because that is what they meant.
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people will become the militia when they are needed.  Just as they had done in the war that they had just finished fighting when they wrote the US Constitution.    Do a little research.  Look up "Citizen Soldier" or perhaps "Minutemen".
> 
> BTW, the term "Minuteman" means more than just your sexual abilities, Daniel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is simply, appealing to ignorance of what the militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is looking at the context in which the 2nd was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
Click to expand...


And so the "people's" right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Except for a few public officials.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you go out of your way to be silly.
> 
> "Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and are exempt from paragraph (2), when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."
> 
> no one is disputing that 'well regulated militia' don't have a right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> YOU are disputing that the PEOPLE have that same right.
> 
> As written in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> However did you get that idea from me?  I am a federalist.  I already know natural and Individual rights are found in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because you keep referring to Militias, State Constitutions, etc...
> 
> instead of the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> A State Constitution covers ONE state.
> 
> the 2nd covers the country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> apples and oranges.
> 
> Due Process covers it, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> What State are you from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Due Process does not cover anything specifically named in the US Constitution.  State laws and constitutions cannot, despite your claims, overrule the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Quoting the US Constitution to show that states and state constitutions can overrule the US Constitution?   lol    That is a special kind of pleading to ignorance.

But it is funny that you accept the US Constitution to be the law of the land when you want it to be.

Yes, there is a requirement for due process when you are accused of a crime.   And if you are convicted of a felony or of domestic abuse, your right to keep & bear arms is lost.   But there is no due process which removes the right to keep and bear arms for the population as a whole.   No state court or state constitution can remove that right from the population as a whole.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is not what is written.   They founding fathers intentionally used the word "militia" in the first clause and "people" in the second clause.
> 
> Because that is what they meant.
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people will become the militia when they are needed.  Just as they had done in the war that they had just finished fighting when they wrote the US Constitution.    Do a little research.  Look up "Citizen Soldier" or perhaps "Minutemen".
> 
> BTW, the term "Minuteman" means more than just your sexual abilities, Daniel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is simply, appealing to ignorance of what the militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is looking at the context in which the 2nd was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
Click to expand...


Still quoting someone no one has ever heard of?








Bud, you need a new schtick


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you go out of your way to be silly.
> 
> "Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and are exempt from paragraph (2), when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."
> 
> no one is disputing that 'well regulated militia' don't have a right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> YOU are disputing that the PEOPLE have that same right.
> 
> As written in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> However did you get that idea from me?  I am a federalist.  I already know natural and Individual rights are found in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because you keep referring to Militias, State Constitutions, etc...
> 
> instead of the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> A State Constitution covers ONE state.
> 
> the 2nd covers the country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> apples and oranges.
> 
> Due Process covers it, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> What State are you from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Due Process does not cover anything specifically named in the US Constitution.  State laws and constitutions cannot, despite your claims, overrule the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


dude...

no one takes YOU seriously


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people will become the militia when they are needed.  Just as they had done in the war that they had just finished fighting when they wrote the US Constitution.    Do a little research.  Look up "Citizen Soldier" or perhaps "Minutemen".
> 
> BTW, the term "Minuteman" means more than just your sexual abilities, Daniel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is simply, appealing to ignorance of what the militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is looking at the context in which the 2nd was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the "people's" right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Except for a few public officials.
Click to expand...

this is why i don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  the People are the militia.  well regulated militia of the People, are declared Necessary.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> However did you get that idea from me?  I am a federalist.  I already know natural and Individual rights are found in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because you keep referring to Militias, State Constitutions, etc...
> 
> instead of the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> A State Constitution covers ONE state.
> 
> the 2nd covers the country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> apples and oranges.
> 
> Due Process covers it, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> What State are you from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Due Process does not cover anything specifically named in the US Constitution.  State laws and constitutions cannot, despite your claims, overrule the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting the US Constitution to show that states and state constitutions can overrule the US Constitution?   lol    That is a special kind of pleading to ignorance.
> 
> But it is funny that you accept the US Constitution to be the law of the land when you want it to be.
> 
> Yes, there is a requirement for due process when you are accused of a crime.   And if you are convicted of a felony or of domestic abuse, your right to keep & bear arms is lost.   But there is no due process which removes the right to keep and bear arms for the population as a whole.   No state court or state constitution can remove that right from the population as a whole.
Click to expand...

Due Process is what our federal Constitution covers.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people will become the militia when they are needed.  Just as they had done in the war that they had just finished fighting when they wrote the US Constitution.    Do a little research.  Look up "Citizen Soldier" or perhaps "Minutemen".
> 
> BTW, the term "Minuteman" means more than just your sexual abilities, Daniel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is simply, appealing to ignorance of what the militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is looking at the context in which the 2nd was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still quoting someone no one has ever heard of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bud, you need a new schtick
Click to expand...

only the right wing appeals to that much ignorance, and complain when we call it Spam.

"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

Is the understanding of the composition of the Militia at the Convention on the Ratification of our Constitution.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people will become the militia when they are needed.  Just as they had done in the war that they had just finished fighting when they wrote the US Constitution.    Do a little research.  Look up "Citizen Soldier" or perhaps "Minutemen".
> 
> BTW, the term "Minuteman" means more than just your sexual abilities, Daniel.
> 
> 
> 
> that is simply, appealing to ignorance of what the militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is looking at the context in which the 2nd was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the "people's" right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Except for a few public officials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why i don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  the People are the militia.  well regulated militia of the People, are declared Necessary.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> the People are the militia.



only males, 16-45.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people will become the militia when they are needed.  Just as they had done in the war that they had just finished fighting when they wrote the US Constitution.    Do a little research.  Look up "Citizen Soldier" or perhaps "Minutemen".
> 
> BTW, the term "Minuteman" means more than just your sexual abilities, Daniel.
> 
> 
> 
> that is simply, appealing to ignorance of what the militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is looking at the context in which the 2nd was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still quoting someone no one has ever heard of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bud, you need a new schtick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing appeals to that much ignorance, and complain when we call it Spam.
> 
> "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
> 
> Is the understanding of the composition of the Militia at the Convention on the Ratification of our Constitution.
Click to expand...


Still the same old, tired, quote.

Which obviously was ignored at the time, considering what the 2nd actually says.

Find a new crutch


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is simply, appealing to ignorance of what the militia is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is looking at the context in which the 2nd was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the "people's" right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Except for a few public officials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why i don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  the People are the militia.  well regulated militia of the People, are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the People are the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only males, 16-45.
Click to expand...

Ok.  Let's argue your point of view.  From that point of view, Only males in the sixteen to forty-five year old age range may be eligible to become well regulated; according to Statute, but not the common law.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is looking at the context in which the 2nd was written.
> 
> 
> 
> "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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the "people's" right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Except for a few public officials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why i don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  the People are the militia.  well regulated militia of the People, are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the People are the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only males, 16-45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Let's argue your point of view.  From that point of view, Only males in the sixteen to forty-five year old age range may be eligible to become well regulated; according to Statute, but not the common law.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> but not the common law.



Common law?

you mean,,,,"the PEOPLE" that were given the RIGHT under the Second Amendment?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so the "people's" right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Except for a few public officials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why i don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  the People are the militia.  well regulated militia of the People, are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the People are the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only males, 16-45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Let's argue your point of view.  From that point of view, Only males in the sixteen to forty-five year old age range may be eligible to become well regulated; according to Statute, but not the common law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> but not the common law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common law?
> 
> you mean,,,,"the PEOPLE" that were given the RIGHT under the Second Amendment?
Click to expand...

You claim the statutory militia is the one and Only, true militia.  

What if, the federal government needs all of Your statutory age range militia?


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so the "people's" right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Except for a few public officials.
> 
> 
> 
> this is why i don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  the People are the militia.  well regulated militia of the People, are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the People are the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only males, 16-45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Let's argue your point of view.  From that point of view, Only males in the sixteen to forty-five year old age range may be eligible to become well regulated; according to Statute, but not the common law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> but not the common law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common law?
> 
> you mean,,,,"the PEOPLE" that were given the RIGHT under the Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim the statutory militia is the one and Only, true militia.
> 
> What if, the federal government needs all of Your statutory age range militia?
Click to expand...


All of it would be all people eligible to be in the militia, ie, just about everyone.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so the "people's" right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Except for a few public officials.
> 
> 
> 
> this is why i don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  the People are the militia.  well regulated militia of the People, are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the People are the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only males, 16-45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Let's argue your point of view.  From that point of view, Only males in the sixteen to forty-five year old age range may be eligible to become well regulated; according to Statute, but not the common law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> but not the common law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common law?
> 
> you mean,,,,"the PEOPLE" that were given the RIGHT under the Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim the statutory militia is the one and Only, true militia.
> 
> What if, the federal government needs all of Your statutory age range militia?
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> You claim the statutory militia is the one and Only, true militia.




Look up the requirements to belong to a militia, for once.

Organized, OR unorganized, the requirements are the same.

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia

16-45 in that era.

NO women
NO men under 16, or over 45.
NO one disabled.

That leaves out a large number of people the Second included, by giving the Right to the people


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people will become the militia when they are needed.  Just as they had done in the war that they had just finished fighting when they wrote the US Constitution.    Do a little research.  Look up "Citizen Soldier" or perhaps "Minutemen".
> 
> BTW, the term "Minuteman" means more than just your sexual abilities, Daniel.
> 
> 
> 
> that is simply, appealing to ignorance of what the militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is looking at the context in which the 2nd was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the "people's" right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Except for a few public officials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why i don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  the People are the militia.  well regulated militia of the People, are declared Necessary.
Click to expand...


And if you look at the militia of the time the US Constitution's writing, they were citizens who were called to arms when needed.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> because you keep referring to Militias, State Constitutions, etc...
> 
> instead of the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> A State Constitution covers ONE state.
> 
> the 2nd covers the country
> 
> 
> 
> apples and oranges.
> 
> Due Process covers it, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> What State are you from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Due Process does not cover anything specifically named in the US Constitution.  State laws and constitutions cannot, despite your claims, overrule the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting the US Constitution to show that states and state constitutions can overrule the US Constitution?   lol    That is a special kind of pleading to ignorance.
> 
> But it is funny that you accept the US Constitution to be the law of the land when you want it to be.
> 
> Yes, there is a requirement for due process when you are accused of a crime.   And if you are convicted of a felony or of domestic abuse, your right to keep & bear arms is lost.   But there is no due process which removes the right to keep and bear arms for the population as a whole.   No state court or state constitution can remove that right from the population as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Due Process is what our federal Constitution covers.
Click to expand...


Indeed it does.  But, short of a constitutional amendment, there is no due process which overrules the 2nd amendment for the overall population.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people will become the militia when they are needed.  Just as they had done in the war that they had just finished fighting when they wrote the US Constitution.    Do a little research.  Look up "Citizen Soldier" or perhaps "Minutemen".
> 
> BTW, the term "Minuteman" means more than just your sexual abilities, Daniel.
> 
> 
> 
> that is simply, appealing to ignorance of what the militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is looking at the context in which the 2nd was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still quoting someone no one has ever heard of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bud, you need a new schtick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing appeals to that much ignorance, and complain when we call it Spam.
> 
> "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
> 
> Is the understanding of the composition of the Militia at the Convention on the Ratification of our Constitution.
Click to expand...


Is it?  Or is it one man's opinion at the time.   Was it ratified into the constitution?  Was it voted into law?  Or is it just a footnote in history.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is looking at the context in which the 2nd was written.
> 
> 
> 
> "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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the "people's" right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Except for a few public officials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why i don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  the People are the militia.  well regulated militia of the People, are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the People are the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only males, 16-45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Let's argue your point of view.  From that point of view, Only males in the sixteen to forty-five year old age range may be eligible to become well regulated; according to Statute, but not the common law.
Click to expand...


And if you look at the way the militia was used, it was citizens that kept arms and could be called up to defend the nation in time of war.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is why i don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  the People are the militia.  well regulated militia of the People, are declared Necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the People are the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only males, 16-45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Let's argue your point of view.  From that point of view, Only males in the sixteen to forty-five year old age range may be eligible to become well regulated; according to Statute, but not the common law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> but not the common law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common law?
> 
> you mean,,,,"the PEOPLE" that were given the RIGHT under the Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim the statutory militia is the one and Only, true militia.
> 
> What if, the federal government needs all of Your statutory age range militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim the statutory militia is the one and Only, true militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look up the requirements to belong to a militia, for once.
> 
> Organized, OR unorganized, the requirements are the same.
> 
> Militia (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> 16-45 in that era.
> 
> NO women
> NO men under 16, or over 45.
> NO one disabled.
> 
> That leaves out a large number of people the Second included, by giving the Right to the people
Click to expand...

The general government of the whole and entire Union, has "first pick".  States have the remainder.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is simply, appealing to ignorance of what the militia is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is looking at the context in which the 2nd was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the "people's" right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Except for a few public officials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why i don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  the People are the militia.  well regulated militia of the People, are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you look at the militia of the time the US Constitution's writing, they were citizens who were called to arms when needed.
Click to expand...

like i said; Nobody on the left should take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers.  Don't be illegal to federal law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> apples and oranges.
> 
> Due Process covers it, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> What State are you from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Due Process does not cover anything specifically named in the US Constitution.  State laws and constitutions cannot, despite your claims, overrule the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting the US Constitution to show that states and state constitutions can overrule the US Constitution?   lol    That is a special kind of pleading to ignorance.
> 
> But it is funny that you accept the US Constitution to be the law of the land when you want it to be.
> 
> Yes, there is a requirement for due process when you are accused of a crime.   And if you are convicted of a felony or of domestic abuse, your right to keep & bear arms is lost.   But there is no due process which removes the right to keep and bear arms for the population as a whole.   No state court or state constitution can remove that right from the population as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Due Process is what our federal Constitution covers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.  But, short of a constitutional amendment, there is no due process which overrules the 2nd amendment for the overall population.
Click to expand...

lol.  it says well regulated militia of the overall population is Necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due Process does not cover anything specifically named in the US Constitution.  State laws and constitutions cannot, despite your claims, overrule the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting the US Constitution to show that states and state constitutions can overrule the US Constitution?   lol    That is a special kind of pleading to ignorance.
> 
> But it is funny that you accept the US Constitution to be the law of the land when you want it to be.
> 
> Yes, there is a requirement for due process when you are accused of a crime.   And if you are convicted of a felony or of domestic abuse, your right to keep & bear arms is lost.   But there is no due process which removes the right to keep and bear arms for the population as a whole.   No state court or state constitution can remove that right from the population as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Due Process is what our federal Constitution covers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.  But, short of a constitutional amendment, there is no due process which overrules the 2nd amendment for the overall population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it says well regulated militia of the overall population is Necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


It also says the right of the people.

(not just the militia)

"when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

where do you get all these extra words from?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is looking at the context in which the 2nd was written.
> 
> 
> 
> "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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the "people's" right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Except for a few public officials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why i don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  the People are the militia.  well regulated militia of the People, are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you look at the militia of the time the US Constitution's writing, they were citizens who were called to arms when needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> like i said; Nobody on the left should take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers.  Don't be illegal to federal law.
Click to expand...


When was 10USC246 written?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due Process does not cover anything specifically named in the US Constitution.  State laws and constitutions cannot, despite your claims, overrule the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting the US Constitution to show that states and state constitutions can overrule the US Constitution?   lol    That is a special kind of pleading to ignorance.
> 
> But it is funny that you accept the US Constitution to be the law of the land when you want it to be.
> 
> Yes, there is a requirement for due process when you are accused of a crime.   And if you are convicted of a felony or of domestic abuse, your right to keep & bear arms is lost.   But there is no due process which removes the right to keep and bear arms for the population as a whole.   No state court or state constitution can remove that right from the population as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Due Process is what our federal Constitution covers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.  But, short of a constitutional amendment, there is no due process which overrules the 2nd amendment for the overall population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it says well regulated militia of the overall population is Necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


That is most certainly NOT what it says.   Please show me where "...when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union" appears in the 2nd amendment.  It doesn't.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude; nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting the US Constitution to show that states and state constitutions can overrule the US Constitution?   lol    That is a special kind of pleading to ignorance.
> 
> But it is funny that you accept the US Constitution to be the law of the land when you want it to be.
> 
> Yes, there is a requirement for due process when you are accused of a crime.   And if you are convicted of a felony or of domestic abuse, your right to keep & bear arms is lost.   But there is no due process which removes the right to keep and bear arms for the population as a whole.   No state court or state constitution can remove that right from the population as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Due Process is what our federal Constitution covers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.  But, short of a constitutional amendment, there is no due process which overrules the 2nd amendment for the overall population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it says well regulated militia of the overall population is Necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also says the right of the people.
> 
> (not just the militia)
> 
> "when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."
> 
> where do you get all these extra words from?
Click to expand...

Only if you appeal to ignorance of this ratified legal fact, under the common law:

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


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude; nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting the US Constitution to show that states and state constitutions can overrule the US Constitution?   lol    That is a special kind of pleading to ignorance.
> 
> But it is funny that you accept the US Constitution to be the law of the land when you want it to be.
> 
> Yes, there is a requirement for due process when you are accused of a crime.   And if you are convicted of a felony or of domestic abuse, your right to keep & bear arms is lost.   But there is no due process which removes the right to keep and bear arms for the population as a whole.   No state court or state constitution can remove that right from the population as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Due Process is what our federal Constitution covers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.  But, short of a constitutional amendment, there is no due process which overrules the 2nd amendment for the overall population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it says well regulated militia of the overall population is Necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is most certainly NOT what it says.   Please show me where "...when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union" appears in the 2nd amendment.  It doesn't.
Click to expand...

Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment, specifically.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting the US Constitution to show that states and state constitutions can overrule the US Constitution?   lol    That is a special kind of pleading to ignorance.
> 
> But it is funny that you accept the US Constitution to be the law of the land when you want it to be.
> 
> Yes, there is a requirement for due process when you are accused of a crime.   And if you are convicted of a felony or of domestic abuse, your right to keep & bear arms is lost.   But there is no due process which removes the right to keep and bear arms for the population as a whole.   No state court or state constitution can remove that right from the population as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> Due Process is what our federal Constitution covers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.  But, short of a constitutional amendment, there is no due process which overrules the 2nd amendment for the overall population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it says well regulated militia of the overall population is Necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also says the right of the people.
> 
> (not just the militia)
> 
> "when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."
> 
> where do you get all these extra words from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of this ratified legal fact, under the common law:
> 
> "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_
Click to expand...


Good parrot.

shame that thought didn't end up in the 2nd.

instead, they gave the right to the people, not the militia

now, do you have a quote that actually ended up affecting the 2nd?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due Process is what our federal Constitution covers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.  But, short of a constitutional amendment, there is no due process which overrules the 2nd amendment for the overall population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it says well regulated militia of the overall population is Necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also says the right of the people.
> 
> (not just the militia)
> 
> "when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."
> 
> where do you get all these extra words from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of this ratified legal fact, under the common law:
> 
> "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_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good parrot.
> 
> shame that thought didn't end up in the 2nd.
> 
> instead, they gave the right to the people, not the militia
> 
> now, do you have a quote that actually ended up affecting the 2nd?
Click to expand...

nothing but fallacy?  

Here is what I am referring to:



> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.



Why do you believe the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, does not cover this issue?


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.  But, short of a constitutional amendment, there is no due process which overrules the 2nd amendment for the overall population.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it says well regulated militia of the overall population is Necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also says the right of the people.
> 
> (not just the militia)
> 
> "when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."
> 
> where do you get all these extra words from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of this ratified legal fact, under the common law:
> 
> "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_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good parrot.
> 
> shame that thought didn't end up in the 2nd.
> 
> instead, they gave the right to the people, not the militia
> 
> now, do you have a quote that actually ended up affecting the 2nd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but fallacy?
> 
> Here is what I am referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, does not cover this issue?
Click to expand...


Why are you bouncing off walls?

the discussion is the 2nd Amendment, and the right guaranteed to the people to keep and bear arms.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it says well regulated militia of the overall population is Necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also says the right of the people.
> 
> (not just the militia)
> 
> "when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."
> 
> where do you get all these extra words from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of this ratified legal fact, under the common law:
> 
> "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_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good parrot.
> 
> shame that thought didn't end up in the 2nd.
> 
> instead, they gave the right to the people, not the militia
> 
> now, do you have a quote that actually ended up affecting the 2nd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but fallacy?
> 
> Here is what I am referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, does not cover this issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you bouncing off walls?
> 
> the discussion is the 2nd Amendment, and the right guaranteed to the people to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

The People and the Militia are Both, _plural _and _collective_, not Individual or singular.  

A literal reading of our Constitution supports my contention and specifically not Your contention.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also says the right of the people.
> 
> (not just the militia)
> 
> "when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."
> 
> where do you get all these extra words from?
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of this ratified legal fact, under the common law:
> 
> "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_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good parrot.
> 
> shame that thought didn't end up in the 2nd.
> 
> instead, they gave the right to the people, not the militia
> 
> now, do you have a quote that actually ended up affecting the 2nd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but fallacy?
> 
> Here is what I am referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, does not cover this issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you bouncing off walls?
> 
> the discussion is the 2nd Amendment, and the right guaranteed to the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People and the Militia are Both, _plural _and _collective_, not Individual or singular.
> 
> A literal reading of our Constitution supports my contention and specifically not Your contention.
Click to expand...


By YOUR reading, men over the age of 45, and women of all ages, are exempt from the right to keep and bear arms.

By MY reading, they are not.

Why do you deny women, and men over 45, the right to keep and bear arms?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of this ratified legal fact, under the common law:
> 
> "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_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good parrot.
> 
> shame that thought didn't end up in the 2nd.
> 
> instead, they gave the right to the people, not the militia
> 
> now, do you have a quote that actually ended up affecting the 2nd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but fallacy?
> 
> Here is what I am referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, does not cover this issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you bouncing off walls?
> 
> the discussion is the 2nd Amendment, and the right guaranteed to the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People and the Militia are Both, _plural _and _collective_, not Individual or singular.
> 
> A literal reading of our Constitution supports my contention and specifically not Your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By YOUR reading, men over the age of 45, and women of all ages, are exempt from the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> By MY reading, they are not.
> 
> Why do you deny women, and men over 45, the right to keep and bear arms?
Click to expand...

I don't.  Domestic Tranquility and security of our free States is the concern of everyone in the State.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good parrot.
> 
> shame that thought didn't end up in the 2nd.
> 
> instead, they gave the right to the people, not the militia
> 
> now, do you have a quote that actually ended up affecting the 2nd?
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but fallacy?
> 
> Here is what I am referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, does not cover this issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you bouncing off walls?
> 
> the discussion is the 2nd Amendment, and the right guaranteed to the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People and the Militia are Both, _plural _and _collective_, not Individual or singular.
> 
> A literal reading of our Constitution supports my contention and specifically not Your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By YOUR reading, men over the age of 45, and women of all ages, are exempt from the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> By MY reading, they are not.
> 
> Why do you deny women, and men over 45, the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't.  Domestic Tranquility and security of our free States is the concern of everyone in the State.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> I don't.



You do.

every time you assert only the militia has the right to keep and bear arms


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but fallacy?
> 
> Here is what I am referring to:
> 
> Why do you believe the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, does not cover this issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you bouncing off walls?
> 
> the discussion is the 2nd Amendment, and the right guaranteed to the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People and the Militia are Both, _plural _and _collective_, not Individual or singular.
> 
> A literal reading of our Constitution supports my contention and specifically not Your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By YOUR reading, men over the age of 45, and women of all ages, are exempt from the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> By MY reading, they are not.
> 
> Why do you deny women, and men over 45, the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't.  Domestic Tranquility and security of our free States is the concern of everyone in the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do.
> 
> every time you assert only the militia has the right to keep and bear arms
Click to expand...

I assert no such Thing.  I only bear True Witness to the Actual Terms of our Second Article of Amendment.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary. 

don't like it; stay indoors.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you bouncing off walls?
> 
> the discussion is the 2nd Amendment, and the right guaranteed to the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> The People and the Militia are Both, _plural _and _collective_, not Individual or singular.
> 
> A literal reading of our Constitution supports my contention and specifically not Your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By YOUR reading, men over the age of 45, and women of all ages, are exempt from the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> By MY reading, they are not.
> 
> Why do you deny women, and men over 45, the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't.  Domestic Tranquility and security of our free States is the concern of everyone in the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do.
> 
> every time you assert only the militia has the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assert no such Thing.  I only bear True Witness to the Actual Terms of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.
> 
> don't like it; stay indoors.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> I only bear True Witness to the Actual Terms of our Second Article of Amendment.



True witness?

you malign it with every post.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting the US Constitution to show that states and state constitutions can overrule the US Constitution?   lol    That is a special kind of pleading to ignorance.
> 
> But it is funny that you accept the US Constitution to be the law of the land when you want it to be.
> 
> Yes, there is a requirement for due process when you are accused of a crime.   And if you are convicted of a felony or of domestic abuse, your right to keep & bear arms is lost.   But there is no due process which removes the right to keep and bear arms for the population as a whole.   No state court or state constitution can remove that right from the population as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> Due Process is what our federal Constitution covers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.  But, short of a constitutional amendment, there is no due process which overrules the 2nd amendment for the overall population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it says well regulated militia of the overall population is Necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is most certainly NOT what it says.   Please show me where "...when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union" appears in the 2nd amendment.  It doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment, specifically.
Click to expand...


Unless the "natural and individual rights" have any bearing on the 2nd amendment, your post is completely irrelevant.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also says the right of the people.
> 
> (not just the militia)
> 
> "when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."
> 
> where do you get all these extra words from?
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of this ratified legal fact, under the common law:
> 
> "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_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good parrot.
> 
> shame that thought didn't end up in the 2nd.
> 
> instead, they gave the right to the people, not the militia
> 
> now, do you have a quote that actually ended up affecting the 2nd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but fallacy?
> 
> Here is what I am referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, does not cover this issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you bouncing off walls?
> 
> the discussion is the 2nd Amendment, and the right guaranteed to the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People and the Militia are Both, _plural _and _collective_, not Individual or singular.
> 
> A literal reading of our Constitution supports my contention and specifically not Your contention.
Click to expand...


I asked days ago for you to post any evidence that the 2nd amendment is a collective right.   Not surprisingly, you have not.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People and the Militia are Both, _plural _and _collective_, not Individual or singular.
> 
> A literal reading of our Constitution supports my contention and specifically not Your contention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By YOUR reading, men over the age of 45, and women of all ages, are exempt from the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> By MY reading, they are not.
> 
> Why do you deny women, and men over 45, the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't.  Domestic Tranquility and security of our free States is the concern of everyone in the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do.
> 
> every time you assert only the militia has the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assert no such Thing.  I only bear True Witness to the Actual Terms of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.
> 
> don't like it; stay indoors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only bear True Witness to the Actual Terms of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True witness?
> 
> you malign it with every post.
Click to expand...

dear, you have to have an actual argument to support Your claim, or it is just another right wing appeal to ignorance, like usual.


----------



## Hugo Furst

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of this ratified legal fact, under the common law:
> 
> "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_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good parrot.
> 
> shame that thought didn't end up in the 2nd.
> 
> instead, they gave the right to the people, not the militia
> 
> now, do you have a quote that actually ended up affecting the 2nd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but fallacy?
> 
> Here is what I am referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, does not cover this issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you bouncing off walls?
> 
> the discussion is the 2nd Amendment, and the right guaranteed to the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People and the Militia are Both, _plural _and _collective_, not Individual or singular.
> 
> A literal reading of our Constitution supports my contention and specifically not Your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked days ago for you to post any evidence that the 2nd amendment is a collective right.   Not surprisingly, you have not.
Click to expand...


Face it, WB, dan is a troll.

no sense feeding his ego more than we already have.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due Process is what our federal Constitution covers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.  But, short of a constitutional amendment, there is no due process which overrules the 2nd amendment for the overall population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it says well regulated militia of the overall population is Necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is most certainly NOT what it says.   Please show me where "...when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union" appears in the 2nd amendment.  It doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment, specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless the "natural and individual rights" have any bearing on the 2nd amendment, your post is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting, natural and individual rights have no bearing on the Second Amendment.

both terms, _militia _and the _people _are plural, not singular or individual.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of this ratified legal fact, under the common law:
> 
> "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_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good parrot.
> 
> shame that thought didn't end up in the 2nd.
> 
> instead, they gave the right to the people, not the militia
> 
> now, do you have a quote that actually ended up affecting the 2nd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but fallacy?
> 
> Here is what I am referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, does not cover this issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you bouncing off walls?
> 
> the discussion is the 2nd Amendment, and the right guaranteed to the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People and the Militia are Both, _plural _and _collective_, not Individual or singular.
> 
> A literal reading of our Constitution supports my contention and specifically not Your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked days ago for you to post any evidence that the 2nd amendment is a collective right.   Not surprisingly, you have not.
Click to expand...

dude; what do You specifically believe we have been arguing these past several pages?

The People and the Militia are Both, _plural _and _collective_, not Individual or singular.

A literal reading of our Constitution supports my contention and specifically not Your contention.

look in any dictionary.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> By YOUR reading, men over the age of 45, and women of all ages, are exempt from the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> By MY reading, they are not.
> 
> Why do you deny women, and men over 45, the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  Domestic Tranquility and security of our free States is the concern of everyone in the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do.
> 
> every time you assert only the militia has the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assert no such Thing.  I only bear True Witness to the Actual Terms of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.
> 
> don't like it; stay indoors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only bear True Witness to the Actual Terms of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True witness?
> 
> you malign it with every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you have to have an actual argument to support Your claim, or it is just another right wing appeal to ignorance, like usual.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> dear, you have to have an actual argument to support Your claim,



WB and I have made actual arguments to back up our stance...


you keep parroting the same debunked claptrap and continue to troll.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good parrot.
> 
> shame that thought didn't end up in the 2nd.
> 
> instead, they gave the right to the people, not the militia
> 
> now, do you have a quote that actually ended up affecting the 2nd?
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but fallacy?
> 
> Here is what I am referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, does not cover this issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you bouncing off walls?
> 
> the discussion is the 2nd Amendment, and the right guaranteed to the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People and the Militia are Both, _plural _and _collective_, not Individual or singular.
> 
> A literal reading of our Constitution supports my contention and specifically not Your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked days ago for you to post any evidence that the 2nd amendment is a collective right.   Not surprisingly, you have not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; what do You specifically believe we have been arguing these past several pages?
> 
> The People and the Militia are Both, _plural _and _collective_, not Individual or singular.
> 
> A literal reading of our Constitution supports my contention and specifically not Your contention.
> 
> look in any dictionary.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> A literal reading of our Constitution



doesn't support any of your claims


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  Domestic Tranquility and security of our free States is the concern of everyone in the State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do.
> 
> every time you assert only the militia has the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assert no such Thing.  I only bear True Witness to the Actual Terms of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.
> 
> don't like it; stay indoors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only bear True Witness to the Actual Terms of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True witness?
> 
> you malign it with every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you have to have an actual argument to support Your claim, or it is just another right wing appeal to ignorance, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have to have an actual argument to support Your claim,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WB and I have made actual arguments to back up our stance...
> 
> 
> you keep parroting the same debunked claptrap and continue to troll.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.  But, short of a constitutional amendment, there is no due process which overrules the 2nd amendment for the overall population.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it says well regulated militia of the overall population is Necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is most certainly NOT what it says.   Please show me where "...when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union" appears in the 2nd amendment.  It doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment, specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless the "natural and individual rights" have any bearing on the 2nd amendment, your post is completely irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting, natural and individual rights have no bearing on the Second Amendment.
> 
> both terms, _militia _and the _people _are plural, not singular or individual.
Click to expand...


I have admitted nothing of the kind.  The word "people", as I have said many times, is indeed plural.  The right to keep and bear arms is for the people (more than one person).


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good parrot.
> 
> shame that thought didn't end up in the 2nd.
> 
> instead, they gave the right to the people, not the militia
> 
> now, do you have a quote that actually ended up affecting the 2nd?
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but fallacy?
> 
> Here is what I am referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, does not cover this issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you bouncing off walls?
> 
> the discussion is the 2nd Amendment, and the right guaranteed to the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People and the Militia are Both, _plural _and _collective_, not Individual or singular.
> 
> A literal reading of our Constitution supports my contention and specifically not Your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked days ago for you to post any evidence that the 2nd amendment is a collective right.   Not surprisingly, you have not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; what do You specifically believe we have been arguing these past several pages?
> 
> The People and the Militia are Both, _plural _and _collective_, not Individual or singular.
> 
> A literal reading of our Constitution supports my contention and specifically not Your contention.
> 
> look in any dictionary.
Click to expand...


No, it does not.   Your claim that "people" is both plural AND collective is pure nonsense.   Plural?  Of course.  The right is guaranteed for more than one person.  But there is nothing to back up your claim that it is a collective right.  That is why I asked you for any evidence to backup your claim.  Simply saying it over and over does not change that.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it says well regulated militia of the overall population is Necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is most certainly NOT what it says.   Please show me where "...when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union" appears in the 2nd amendment.  It doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment, specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless the "natural and individual rights" have any bearing on the 2nd amendment, your post is completely irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting, natural and individual rights have no bearing on the Second Amendment.
> 
> both terms, _militia _and the _people _are plural, not singular or individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have admitted nothing of the kind.  The word "people", as I have said many times, is indeed plural.  The right to keep and bear arms is for the people (more than one person).
Click to expand...

as distinct from the whole and entire concept of natural rights.  

A militia is not about natural rights, but about enforcing the laws of the State or the Union.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do.
> 
> every time you assert only the militia has the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> I assert no such Thing.  I only bear True Witness to the Actual Terms of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.
> 
> don't like it; stay indoors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only bear True Witness to the Actual Terms of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True witness?
> 
> you malign it with every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you have to have an actual argument to support Your claim, or it is just another right wing appeal to ignorance, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have to have an actual argument to support Your claim,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WB and I have made actual arguments to back up our stance...
> 
> 
> you keep parroting the same debunked claptrap and continue to troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is most certainly NOT what it says.   Please show me where "...when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union" appears in the 2nd amendment.  It doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment, specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless the "natural and individual rights" have any bearing on the 2nd amendment, your post is completely irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting, natural and individual rights have no bearing on the Second Amendment.
> 
> both terms, _militia _and the _people _are plural, not singular or individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have admitted nothing of the kind.  The word "people", as I have said many times, is indeed plural.  The right to keep and bear arms is for the people (more than one person).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as distinct from the whole and entire concept of natural rights.
> 
> A militia is not about natural rights, but about enforcing the laws of the State or the Union.
Click to expand...


And since they used "militia" in the first clause, and "people" in the second clause, it is obvious they intended for "the people" to have the right to keep and bear arms.  The fact that the word "people" is plural simply means they wrote the 2nd amendment for the population.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is most certainly NOT what it says.   Please show me where "...when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union" appears in the 2nd amendment.  It doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment, specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless the "natural and individual rights" have any bearing on the 2nd amendment, your post is completely irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting, natural and individual rights have no bearing on the Second Amendment.
> 
> both terms, _militia _and the _people _are plural, not singular or individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have admitted nothing of the kind.  The word "people", as I have said many times, is indeed plural.  The right to keep and bear arms is for the people (more than one person).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as distinct from the whole and entire concept of natural rights.
> 
> A militia is not about natural rights, but about enforcing the laws of the State or the Union.
Click to expand...


Do you have a link saying that the militia is about enforcing the laws of the state or union?   The references to "militia" in the US Constitution concern defending the nation from outside attacks.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assert no such Thing.  I only bear True Witness to the Actual Terms of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.
> 
> don't like it; stay indoors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only bear True Witness to the Actual Terms of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True witness?
> 
> you malign it with every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you have to have an actual argument to support Your claim, or it is just another right wing appeal to ignorance, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have to have an actual argument to support Your claim,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WB and I have made actual arguments to back up our stance...
> 
> 
> you keep parroting the same debunked claptrap and continue to troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment, specifically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless the "natural and individual rights" have any bearing on the 2nd amendment, your post is completely irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting, natural and individual rights have no bearing on the Second Amendment.
> 
> both terms, _militia _and the _people _are plural, not singular or individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have admitted nothing of the kind.  The word "people", as I have said many times, is indeed plural.  The right to keep and bear arms is for the people (more than one person).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as distinct from the whole and entire concept of natural rights.
> 
> A militia is not about natural rights, but about enforcing the laws of the State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And since they used "militia" in the first clause, and "people" in the second clause, it is obvious they intended for "the people" to have the right to keep and bear arms.  The fact that the word "people" is plural simply means they wrote the 2nd amendment for the population.
Click to expand...

You are the one who is appealing to ignorance of this legal fact under the common law:

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


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment, specifically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless the "natural and individual rights" have any bearing on the 2nd amendment, your post is completely irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting, natural and individual rights have no bearing on the Second Amendment.
> 
> both terms, _militia _and the _people _are plural, not singular or individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have admitted nothing of the kind.  The word "people", as I have said many times, is indeed plural.  The right to keep and bear arms is for the people (more than one person).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as distinct from the whole and entire concept of natural rights.
> 
> A militia is not about natural rights, but about enforcing the laws of the State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link saying that the militia is about enforcing the laws of the state or union?   The references to "militia" in the US Constitution concern defending the nation from outside attacks.
Click to expand...

dear; this is also why, nobody on the left should Ever take the right wing at their Word; about any Thing serious:



> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;



Only story tellers don't need to be mindful of resorting to fallacy.


----------



## Hugo Furst

dan, you need an avatar.

Try this one...







fits you to a t


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> True witness?
> 
> you malign it with every post.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have to have an actual argument to support Your claim, or it is just another right wing appeal to ignorance, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have to have an actual argument to support Your claim,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WB and I have made actual arguments to back up our stance...
> 
> 
> you keep parroting the same debunked claptrap and continue to troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## FireFly

luosT_tcR said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Hugo Furst

FireFly said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
Click to expand...




FireFly said:


> 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"


----------



## FireFly

WillHaftawaite said:


> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is as far as far too many people get,
> 
> They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"
Click to expand...

You Lie! There are no regulations to CCW in St. Louis, MO yet it has the highest murder rate in the USA & the most police per resident in the USA!


----------



## Hugo Furst

FireFly said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is as far as far too many people get,
> 
> They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Lie! There are no regulations to CCW in St. Louis, MO yet it has the highest murder rate in the USA & the most police per resident in the USA!
Click to expand...


Where did I mention anything about CCW?


----------



## FireFly

WillHaftawaite said:


> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is as far as far too many people get,
> 
> They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Lie! There are no regulations to CCW in St. Louis, MO yet it has the highest murder rate in the USA & the most police per resident in the USA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I mention anything about CCW?
Click to expand...

You Lied claiming we are hung up on the first 3 words "A well regulated" & never get to "the right of the people" which is a total LIE!!!!! We are far to hung up on "people shall not be infringed" & have zero regulation on purchasing, owning, possessing, open or conceal carrying weapons.


----------



## Hugo Furst

FireFly said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is as far as far too many people get,
> 
> They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Lie! There are no regulations to CCW in St. Louis, MO yet it has the highest murder rate in the USA & the most police per resident in the USA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I mention anything about CCW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Lied claiming we are hung up on the first 3 words "A well regulated" & never get to "the right of the people" which is a total LIE!!!!! We are far to hung up on "people shall not be infringed" & have zero regulation on purchasing, owning, possessing, open or conceal carrying weapons.
Click to expand...




FireFly said:


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



Then why didn't you post more of the Second?


----------



## FireFly

*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.*


----------



## WinterBorn

FireFly said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
Click to expand...


Funny, the population and the number of armed citizens keeps growing, but the number of gun related murders has been dropping steadily.

The worst part is that the rarest of the killings get the overwhelming amount of attention.  This push to ban the AR15, after the school shooting in Florida, is a perfect example.


----------



## WinterBorn

FireFly said:


> *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?


----------



## FireFly

WinterBorn said:


> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?
Click to expand...


*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.*


----------



## Hugo Furst

FireFly said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *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.*
Click to expand...



Brady Campaign?

No thanks


----------



## FireFly

WillHaftawaite said:


> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *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.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brady Campaign?
> 
> No thanks
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Hugo Furst

FireFly said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *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.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brady Campaign?
> 
> No thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diss the messenger because you can't refute the facts!!!
Click to expand...


lady...

I dont' go to sources like the NRA, or Brady, because I find their numbers suspicious.

especially crap like this: "* Experts estimate that 1 in 5 guns now sold in America are done so without a Brady background check"*

If you were smart, you won't either.


----------



## WinterBorn

FireFly said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *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.*
Click to expand...


Hmmm

According to the FBI statistics, the total number of murders with weapons per year (gun murders in parenthesis) were as follows:

2010 - 13,164  (8,874)
2011 - 12,795  (8,653)
2012 - 12,888  (8,897)
2013 - 12,253  (8,454)
2014 - 11,961  (8,124)
2015 - 13,455  (9,616)

Why do you suppose the Brady Campaign found between 2630 and 4100 more gun murders than the FBI?

And why oesn't the Brady Campaign list the years for their data?   The FBI only lists 11,961 total murders with weapons of any kind for 2014.  Only 8,124 gun murders.   But the Brady Bunch says it like 12,246 are murdered with guns every year.


----------



## WinterBorn

FireFly said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *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.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brady Campaign?
> 
> No thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diss the messenger because you can't refute the facts!!!
Click to expand...


I refuted the facts.

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8


----------



## FireFly

WinterBorn said:


> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *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.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brady Campaign?
> 
> No thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diss the messenger because you can't refute the facts!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refuted the facts.
> 
> Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## WinterBorn

FireFly said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brady Campaign?
> 
> No thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diss the messenger because you can't refute the facts!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refuted the facts.
> 
> Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


It disputed the accuracy of the Brady Campaign figures.    They show far more murders than the FBI.   Why is that?


----------



## WinterBorn

FireFly said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brady Campaign?
> 
> No thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diss the messenger because you can't refute the facts!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refuted the facts.
> 
> Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


According to the FBI, no year between 2010 and 2015 had 12,246 murders with weapons.   And the highest number of gun murders in that same period, according to the FBI, was 2015.  That year there were 9,616 gun related murders.  The reliable facts I can find about 2016 shows that there were around 11,000 gun murders.   But the FBI has not released that years statistics yet.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> dan, you need an avatar.
> 
> Try this one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fits you to a t


i prefer Den, from the Heavy Metal comics.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have to have an actual argument to support Your claim, or it is just another right wing appeal to ignorance, like usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have to have an actual argument to support Your claim,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WB and I have made actual arguments to back up our stance...
> 
> 
> you keep parroting the same debunked claptrap and continue to troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have to have an actual argument to support Your claim, or it is just another right wing appeal to ignorance, like usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have to have an actual argument to support Your claim,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WB and I have made actual arguments to back up our stance...
> 
> 
> you keep parroting the same debunked claptrap and continue to troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is as far as far too many people get,
> 
> They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"
Click to expand...

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


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> dan, you need an avatar.
> 
> Try this one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fits you to a t
> 
> 
> 
> i prefer Den, from the Heavy Metal comics.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is as far as far too many people get,
> 
> They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
Click to expand...


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."


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> WB and I have made actual arguments to back up our stance...
> 
> 
> you keep parroting the same debunked claptrap and continue to troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> WB and I have made actual arguments to back up our stance...
> 
> 
> you keep parroting the same debunked claptrap and continue to troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is as far as far too many people get,
> 
> They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
Click to expand...


Dear danielpalos CC: ChrisL
Then why are we arguing?
as ChrisL pointed out this in a different post/thread
the "people" are their own "militia."

I think you point out why people are talking past each other.

When "liberals" mean we the people are the govt, they give all the power to "govt" and say "govt is the people."

When "conservatives" mean we the people are the govt, that means the authority belongs to PEOPLE first, not to govt which FOLLOWS AND REFLECTS the consent of the people, not the other way around.

Both sides are arguing that the govt should represent the will (or consent) of the people.

Here you and ChrisL make the same argument
that "militia" MEANS "people."

But somehow saying it the opposite ways:
She is explaining that ALL people are counted as "militia"
You are saying "the people" refers to "GOVT MILITIA"
ie in an official govt role not in the figurative meaning
that the people ARE the AUTHORITY of govt.

You hit the nail on the head, as to why the two sides don't agree. But are coming at this from two different directions.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

luosT_tcR said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Do I detect a touch of sarcasm in this entire thread ?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> dan, you need an avatar.
> 
> Try this one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fits you to a t
> 
> 
> 
> i prefer Den, from the Heavy Metal comics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Woe is me,

I am the victim.

In some alternate reality, i could be Den.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is as far as far too many people get,
> 
> They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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."
Click to expand...

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

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence, besides your own claims, that the 2nd amendment is a collective right?   Being plural does not necessarily mean collective.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> dan, you need an avatar.
> 
> Try this one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fits you to a t
> 
> 
> 
> i prefer Den, from the Heavy Metal comics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Woe is me,
> 
> I am the victim.
> 
> In some alternate reality, i could be Den.
Click to expand...


Sad.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is as far as far too many people get,
> 
> They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence, besides your own claims, that the 2nd amendment is a collective right?   Being plural does not necessarily mean collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does, Especially in the Case of the Militia.  It is a requirement for "concentration of force" purposes.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is as far as far too many people get,
> 
> They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the personal right ("the right of the people") is not collective.  But well done for finally using some reference.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence, besides your own claims, that the 2nd amendment is a collective right?   Being plural does not necessarily mean collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does, Especially in the Case of the Militia.  It is a requirement for "concentration of force" purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More spurious claims with no evidence.   Why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the personal right ("the right of the people") is not collective.  But well done for finally using some reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting "personal rights" are not in our Second Amendment.  They are, however, in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
Click to expand...


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

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence, besides your own claims, that the 2nd amendment is a collective right?   Being plural does not necessarily mean collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does, Especially in the Case of the Militia.  It is a requirement for "concentration of force" purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More spurious claims with no evidence.   Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about "right flank" stuff, either.
Click to expand...


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

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the personal right ("the right of the people") is not collective.  But well done for finally using some reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting "personal rights" are not in our Second Amendment.  They are, however, in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
Click to expand...

The second amendment is strictly about individual rights.

Any argument to the contrary is an immediate failure.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is as far as far too many people get,
> 
> They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

FireFly said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
Click to expand...


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

FireFly said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
Click to expand...


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

FireFly said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *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.*
Click to expand...


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

FireFly said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *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.*
Click to expand...


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

FireFly said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *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.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brady Campaign?
> 
> No thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diss the messenger because you can't refute the facts!!!
Click to expand...


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

FireFly said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brady Campaign?
> 
> No thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diss the messenger because you can't refute the facts!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refuted the facts.
> 
> Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

emilynghiem said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!!!
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## WinterBorn

Cellblock2429 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Trump pays more in taxes in one year than you will earn in a lifetime
Click to expand...


And Trumps taxes are relevant to Penelope's post how?

Oh, and how do you know how much tax Trump pays?


----------



## Cellblock2429

WinterBorn said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Trump pays more in taxes in one year than you will earn in a lifetime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Trumps taxes are relevant to Penelope's post how?
> 
> Oh, and how do you know how much tax Trump pays?
Click to expand...

/——/ Then who does the Trump hater claims pays no taxes? If she didn’t mean Trump then I’ll apologize.


----------



## Penelope

WinterBorn said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Trump pays more in taxes in one year than you will earn in a lifetime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Trumps taxes are relevant to Penelope's post how?
> 
> Oh, and how do you know how much tax Trump pays?
Click to expand...


Probably not much, I infer that in 05 year is the only year he paid taxes and I also infer that he himself sent them to Maddow.

This post is about the second amendment not Trumps taxes which he doesn't pay.


----------



## WinterBorn

Cellblock2429 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Trump pays more in taxes in one year than you will earn in a lifetime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Trumps taxes are relevant to Penelope's post how?
> 
> Oh, and how do you know how much tax Trump pays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Then who does the Trump hater claims pays no taxes? If she didn’t mean Trump then I’ll apologize.
Click to expand...


"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."

It sounds to me like she is talking about Bundy.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Penelope said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Trump pays more in taxes in one year than you will earn in a lifetime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Trumps taxes are relevant to Penelope's post how?
> 
> Oh, and how do you know how much tax Trump pays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably not much, I infer that in 05 year is the only year he paid taxes and I also infer that he himself sent them to Maddow.
> 
> This post is about the second amendment not Trumps taxes which he doesn't pay.
Click to expand...

/----/ Sorry I thought you were talking about Trump. I deleted the post.


----------



## there4eyeM

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No! - Just keep arming the crazies & they will cull the sheeple for you. This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why the first words state:"A well regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is as far as far too many people get,
> 
> They somehow miss, ''The right of the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Yes, law is subject to collective agreement. It is subject to human interpretation. Law, being language, is living and developing all the time. Concepts morph and evolve. Look at the Constitution closely. It starts with, "We, the people...". Those who want to freeze the Constitution in the eighteenth century, who refuse to recognize a living document, inherently intend that the people indicated in those words at that time are the same "people" of today. Quite obviously, that is not the case. The people who wrote and ratified the Constitution were of one, exclusive minority. The voting public, those eligible to have taxation with representation, was small and exclusive.
Today, that voting, represented public is composed of the majority. It is women and other large segments of the population that were outside the group of "people" who made decisions 'back then'. There is no way to seriously claim that 'original intent' can always be applied. It cannot be seriously, honestly maintained that we, today, be slaves to concepts and verbiage from hundreds of years ago. Trying to so rigidly function will only bring about sharp, unwanted and unnecessary over reaction.


----------



## Cellblock2429

there4eyeM said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, law is subject to collective agreement. It is subject to human interpretation. Law, being language, is living and developing all the time. Concepts morph and evolve. Look at the Constitution closely. It starts with, "We, the people...". Those who want to freeze the Constitution in the eighteenth century, who refuse to recognize a living document, inherently intend that the people indicated in those words at that time are the same "people" of today. Quite obviously, that is not the case. The people who wrote and ratified the Constitution were of one, exclusive minority. The voting public, those eligible to have taxation with representation, was small and exclusive.
> Today, that voting, represented public is composed of the majority. It is women and other large segments of the population that were outside the group of "people" who made decisions 'back then'. There is no way to seriously claim that 'original intent' can always be applied. It cannot be seriously, honestly maintained that we, today, be slaves to concepts and verbiage from hundreds of years ago. Trying to so rigidly function will only bring about sharp, unwanted and unnecessary over reaction.
Click to expand...

/----/ *"Those who want to freeze the Constitution in the eighteenth century, " * Careful, democRATs may take that logic to overturn the 13th Amendment and reintroduce slavery.


----------



## WinterBorn

Cellblock2429 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Trump pays more in taxes in one year than you will earn in a lifetime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Trumps taxes are relevant to Penelope's post how?
> 
> Oh, and how do you know how much tax Trump pays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably not much, I infer that in 05 year is the only year he paid taxes and I also infer that he himself sent them to Maddow.
> 
> This post is about the second amendment not Trumps taxes which he doesn't pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Sorry I thought you were talking about Trump. I deleted the post.
Click to expand...


I admire someone who can admit when they were wrong.  Well done.   We need more people who do this.


----------



## froggy

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.


Now that's the funniest thing I've heard since Obamacare


----------



## Cellblock2429

luosT_tcR said:


> 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.


/——/ The First Amendment doesn’t say anything about Libtards using social media to spread their Progressive agenda so STFU. 
TIA


----------



## emilynghiem

Penelope said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Dear Penelope
1. Likewise, the players like Tebow kneeling in prayer were also criticized and namecalled for doing this on the field before cameras/in the media.

No one was against people making statements as individuals.
But as a professional team being PAID to represent a franchise on national TV,
yes, the management has the right to enforce polices on PUBLIC expression
when it's on paid TV as part of their business.

When I work for any other company, they also have the right to bar employees from making public statements "while REPRESENTING THAT COMPANY"

you can protest all you want to as an individual or independent group,
but when in uniform that represents a professional team, that is different.

2. as for Bundy and taking up arms against the govt, to me the real heroes
and role models are the ones who can negotiate and settle conflicts
without the threat of force but enforcing laws through civil obedience not disobedience.

if more people and leaders on left and right united in agreement to enforce
Constitutional laws and principles, maybe we'd see more successful conflict resolution
instead of bullying to dominate one side over another. anyone can start a war,
but it takes a real principled leader to make peace by settling conflicts to satisfy all sides.

that to me is the standard for equal protection of the laws under the Constitution.
Very few people make the cut, or as they say in the Bible, the
gate of righteousness is very narrow and few shall find it. but the
path of destruction is broad and most of the world goes that way.

anyone can argue my side is right and the other group is wrong.

How many people can truly find and enforce a solution that 
represents all sides and all people of all groups equally and inclusively?

but that is what we promise when we say "equal justice under law"and equal
inclusion/representation of all people for govt to truly represent the public interest.


----------



## hjmick

This thread sucked two years ago, and it still sucks today. The OP was wrong then and is still wrong today.

And what the fuck is "laments terms"?


A pox on whomever resurrected this POS thread...


----------



## JBvM

luosT_tcR said:


> True Interpretation.


 Lost me there


----------

