CDZ 2nd amendmant and arms

[danielpalos]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

Because it doesn't mean this.

The 2A is there to protect the militia from the federal govt.

Individuals are allowed weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons (keep arms)
Individuals are allowed to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons (bear arms)

Or better said, the feds can't prevent individuals, before due process, from being able to have arms. They can prevent certain types of arms, just as long as individuals can get militia type weaponry.

"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]

"The Dick Act included $2 million for National Guard units to modernize equipment, and permitted states to use federal funds to pay for National Guard summer training encampments. The National Guard in each state was also required to carry out a uniform schedule of weekend or weeknight drills and annual summer training camps. In addition, the War Department agreed to fund the attendance of Guard officers at Army schools, and active Army officers would serve as inspectors and instructors of National Guard units. The War Department also agreed to organize joint Army-National Guard exercises and training encampments"

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Taken within the context of Art. I, sec 8, clause 15 & 16 the Reserve Militia, not being funded or trained, is simply all men between 18 and 45 eligible to be drafted:

" The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, also known as the Burke-Wadsworth Act, Pub.L. 76–783, 54 Stat.885, enacted September 16, 1940,[1]was the first peacetime conscription in United States history. This Selective Service Act required that men between the ages of 21 and 35 register with local draft boards. Later, when the U.S. entered World War II, all men aged 18 to 45 were made subject to military service, and all men aged 18 to 65 were required to register"

Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Infer what you want, but these acts seem clear, which is why Scalia made such an effort to baffle with bullshit in Heller. Did he lie by omission?

What's your point here exactly?

That the militia is organized by a State or the Union, not private Persons.

Militia: a body of citizens organized for military service.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State. It is even "codified" in our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

I would like to take this time and opportunity to thank those on the Right for recusing themselves from any serious argumentation due to their lack of clue, Cause, and Standing as a result.

 

[Josf]

"That the militia is organized by a State or the Union, not private Persons."

The curious problem here is solved by the example known as America. Unruly, ungovernable, former Colonists, all existing as private people, created a federation on their own, and they did so out of necessity for their mutual defense. So how does someone ever manage to believe the lie that a State or Union, so called, is in any way an authority over a private person?

The State or the Union, in the American example, is created to serve every single private person. Every single private person is afforded the use of the State or the Union (federation) as their voluntary choice to invest into their individual defense, and when more than one volunteer volunteers there is in cooperation a mutual defense, and when enough people volunteer there is an irresistible deterrence against harm done to individuals by any enemies foreign or domestic.

It has been the false argument for as long as false arguments have existed whereby a false religion, or a false state, or a false (involuntary) union, is above the individual (private) person, but that false argument was put down for good in the American example. Voluntary union, or federation, is perpetual, as long as private people volunteer to employ it.

Why are false private persons still managing to collectivize false belief in this false hierarchy where a legal fiction of extremely dubious construction manages to gain any power whatsoever, as if private persons have an interest in constructing clothes made of nothing, to be placed upon their naked emperor, their naked despot, their naked tyrant, or their naked crime boss, whose money is also made out of nothing but lies?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It has been told to you a thousand times, read the fucking federalist papers the founders own words. Then check out the Supreme Courts ruling in Heller. The RIGHT to own firearms to keep and bear them is PERSONAL individual right, with no requirement to belong to or be eligible to belong to a militia. An English professor of some renown parsed the Amendment a well and stated that the operating clause is the part that gives the right to the people and that the militia part is just one of what could be NUMEROUS reasons to own firearms.

Dude, with Appeals to Ignorance like that; I know All I need is a Fasces of Power to have y'all follow me to hell and back; if, we make it back.

In other words you do not do facts and just make your shit up wholesale, thanks for clearing that up.

In other words, I Only resort to our supreme law of the land in my arguments because I am not lazy, like the Right.

The supreme law says that the 2nd is an individual right not associated with any requirement to belong to a militia.

No, it doesn't. It says Only well regulated Militias of the People (who Are the militia) may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union.

Look you loon the Court was clear it is an individual right not connected to belonging to a militia.

 

[danielpalos]

"That the militia is organized by a State or the Union, not private Persons."

The curious problem here is solved by the example known as America. Unruly, ungovernable, former Colonists, all existing as private people, created a federation on their own, and they did so out of necessity for their mutual defense. So how does someone ever manage to believe the lie that a State or Union, so called, is in any way an authority over a private person?

The State or the Union, in the American example, is created to serve every single private person. Every single private person is afforded the use of the State or the Union (federation) as their voluntary choice to invest into their individual defense, and when more than one volunteer volunteers there is in cooperation a mutual defense, and when enough people volunteer there is an irresistible deterrence against harm done to individuals by any enemies foreign or domestic.

It has been the false argument for as long as false arguments have existed whereby a false religion, or a false state, or a false (involuntary) union, is above the individual (private) person, but that false argument was put down for good in the American example. Voluntary union, or federation, is perpetual, as long as private people volunteer to employ it.

Why are false private persons still managing to collectivize false belief in this false hierarchy where a legal fiction of extremely dubious construction manages to gain any power whatsoever, as if private persons have an interest in constructing clothes made of nothing, to be placed upon their naked emperor, their naked despot, their naked tyrant, or their naked crime boss, whose money is also made out of nothing but lies?

How do you account for the law regarding State and federal Militia Acts? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; or so we have been told.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, with Appeals to Ignorance like that; I know All I need is a Fasces of Power to have y'all follow me to hell and back; if, we make it back.

In other words you do not do facts and just make your shit up wholesale, thanks for clearing that up.

In other words, I Only resort to our supreme law of the land in my arguments because I am not lazy, like the Right.

The supreme law says that the 2nd is an individual right not associated with any requirement to belong to a militia.

No, it doesn't. It says Only well regulated Militias of the People (who Are the militia) may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union.

Look you loon the Court was clear it is an individual right not connected to belonging to a militia.

Our supreme law of the land is more supreme than our supreme Court.

 

[Josf]

"How do you account for the law regarding State and federal Militia Acts? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; or so we have been told."

A principle is always at work whenever volunteers share the goal of mutual defense and that principle is called agreement. I cannot, for example, agree that every word spoken authoritatively is a law. A so called German once wrote orders to murder Jews after torture. An individual claiming to be a governor of Utah once wrote an order to kill all Mormons, claiming that said order was the law.

The common denominator shared by all those who share the goal of deception is a ready supply of gullible people.

Why call an Act an Act?

Which Act is worthy of the additional authority imposed within the idea of law?

Here is a very good example of what you may be offering in your viewpoint:
http://ismor.com/cornwallis/cornwallis_2001/CVI_2001_Visco.pdf

Individuals belong within groups because individuals share specific thoughts that drive specific actions: shared interests, shared goals, cooperation among those who agree, and then actions that are willful, and the intention is agreed upon, shared, and cooperative effort is acted out in order to reach for and achieve the mutually agreed upon goals.

Someone, and then some group, orders everyone to arm themselves or suffer punishment for failing to obey the order to arm themselves. That is an example of one of the State Militia Acts.

If you are speaking about the federal acts, then there are two periods in which there are two opposing examples of federation.

Between 1776 and 1789 the original federation existed as a documented fact.

From 1789 until today there has been a change of ownership, a change of character, as the original voluntary federation idea was covered up and replaced by an involuntary National idea hidden behind the false federal label.

Acts imposed upon people by people after 1789 are not the same as Acts imposed upon people by people between 1776 and 1789 under the label of a federal act.

Those who were behind the Bill of Rights, a federal statute (bill which amends the statute known as the constitution of 1787), were against the statute known as the constitution of 1787, those people included George Mason and Patrick Henry; both vocal opponents of the Nationalization (then called Consolidation) of the voluntary federation idea that worked between 1776 and 1787.

"How do you account for the law regarding State and federal Militia Acts?"

Some people in some states were very strict concerning the enforcement of participation in defense against active destruction of people and property currently perpetrated by people called Red Coats between 1776 and the surrender of the British. A good study of this strict enforcement of "friend or foe" involved those who were conscientious objectors of the day, including those who were calling themselves Quakers.

Here is an example of rule of law in 1778, during those troubled times:

RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE 1 U.S. 35 1778 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

If there is a dispute concerning who is the authority in any case, friend or foe, the idea was shared that due process, trial by the whole country, was the palladium of liberty being defended by volunteers who were rebelling against blind obedience to criminal orders without question.

Many defenders effectively defended against claims that everyone must arm themselves and fight the invaders. What happened when a Quaker family faced an angry mob of false patriots demanding conscripts, and then the same Quakers faced an angry mob of Red Coats demanding conscripts? If the Quaker family effectively defended themselves against both angry mobs peacefully, then is that something worth knowing? If the Quaker family lost family members to both angry mobs, failing to defend family members effectively, is that something worth knowing?

Federation was known as a voluntary association. Those who claim the authority to enslave other people confess something worth knowing in my view.

Knowledge is the first defensive weapon, and knowing when arms are needed in defense because failing to be armed will certainly result in torture and murder is a shared idea shared by those who, like George Mason, and like Patrick Henry, were for Amending the faulty Constitution of 1787, because the Constitution of 1787 took away too much power from the people, and that begs the question as to who took that power then, and who abuses that power now.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not sure what you mean by "volunteers". Our Second Amendment permits no voluntary association through freedom of contract regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[Josf]

"Our Second Amendment permits no voluntary association through freedom of contract regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State."

Who is claiming to be a member of "our" in your offer of your viewpoint above?

I agree with the absolute necessity of being armed so as then to have the power of defense when defense is needed in case of attack by anything or anyone not limited to mad dogs, packs of hungry dogs, lone gunman, or angry mobs who are members of angry mobs.

A statement offered on a piece of paper that documented a agreement to recognize the necessity of defense against attack is agreeable to me. The wording offered in that Second Amendment is not agreeable to me; as there is way too much room for what was known as construction.

No criminal ever gave their victims the power to defend themselves from those criminals. That was clearly understood by those people, like George Mason, and Patrick Henry, who were against the Constitution of 1787, and who were therefore pushing for, and getting, the Amendments called The Bill of Rights, but they did not write those Amendments.

What do you, and whoever agrees with you, think is the meaning of "freedom of contract" as you intend said meaning in your quoted words?

Freedom of contract, and freedom of producing, earning, having, holding, and employing defensive arms, to me is the same freedom as the freedom to breath, the freedom to drink water, and the freedom to agree to share water if water is scarce. If you assume that I agree with your contracts then that to me is an invalid assumption, a prejudice, an error on your part.

"I am not sure what you mean by "volunteers"."

Voluntary associations constituting mutual defense depend upon volunteers: no volunteers, no mutual defense.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So Using the logic present by the dunce abortion is NOT the law of the land since it was created by the Supreme Court and has no basis in legal history of this Country prior to that decision.

 

[danielpalos]

"Our Second Amendment permits no voluntary association through freedom of contract regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State."

Who is claiming to be a member of "our" in your offer of your viewpoint above?

I agree with the absolute necessity of being armed so as then to have the power of defense when defense is needed in case of attack by anything or anyone not limited to mad dogs, packs of hungry dogs, lone gunman, or angry mobs who are members of angry mobs.

A statement offered on a piece of paper that documented a agreement to recognize the necessity of defense against attack is agreeable to me. The wording offered in that Second Amendment is not agreeable to me; as there is way too much room for what was known as construction.

No criminal ever gave their victims the power to defend themselves from those criminals. That was clearly understood by those people, like George Mason, and Patrick Henry, who were against the Constitution of 1787, and who were therefore pushing for, and getting, the Amendments called The Bill of Rights, but they did not write those Amendments.

What do you, and whoever agrees with you, think is the meaning of "freedom of contract" as you intend said meaning in your quoted words?

Freedom of contract, and freedom of producing, earning, having, holding, and employing defensive arms, to me is the same freedom as the freedom to breath, the freedom to drink water, and the freedom to agree to share water if water is scarce. If you assume that I agree with your contracts then that to me is an invalid assumption, a prejudice, an error on your part.

"I am not sure what you mean by "volunteers"."

Voluntary associations constituting mutual defense depend upon volunteers: no volunteers, no mutual defense.

Are you simply presenting diversions? It applies to the US.

No one is claiming that Persons do not have a right to self defense or to acquire and possess Arms for that purpose. Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions, including with the Terms; acquire and possess to denote specifically, Individual Rights in private property:

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.

Thus, no need to secure such rights in our federal Constitution, which secures Due Process for the citizens in the several United States upon appeal to the general government.

 

[danielpalos]

So Using the logic present by the dunce abortion is NOT the law of the land since it was created by the Supreme Court and has no basis in legal history of this Country prior to that decision.

If you knew how to read and understand and muster some critical reasoning skills; you would that our supreme law of the land is more supreme than any legislation from the bench; simply Because, Only our elected representatives to legislature may write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our republic.

It is either found in our supreme law of the land or it is just an appeal to ignorance of the law if we should have to quibble in legal venues.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So Using the logic present by the dunce abortion is NOT the law of the land since it was created by the Supreme Court and has no basis in legal history of this Country prior to that decision.

If you knew how to read and understand and muster some critical reasoning skills; you would that our supreme law of the land is more supreme than any legislation from the bench; simply Because, Only our elected representatives to legislature may write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our republic.

It is either found in our supreme law of the land or it is just an appeal to ignorance of the law if we should have to quibble in legal venues.

So you agree Abortion is not the law of the land, right? I mean there was no law allowing it before the Supreme Court said it was legal after all? Also I guess you never read the part of the Constitution dealing with the Supreme Court and granting to it the power to determine what is and is not Constitutional when brought before the court in a legal matter?

 

[danielpalos]

So Using the logic present by the dunce abortion is NOT the law of the land since it was created by the Supreme Court and has no basis in legal history of this Country prior to that decision.

If you knew how to read and understand and muster some critical reasoning skills; you would that our supreme law of the land is more supreme than any legislation from the bench; simply Because, Only our elected representatives to legislature may write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our republic.

It is either found in our supreme law of the land or it is just an appeal to ignorance of the law if we should have to quibble in legal venues.

So you agree Abortion is not the law of the land, right? I mean there was no law allowing it before the Supreme Court said it was legal after all? Also I guess you never read the part of the Constitution dealing with the Supreme Court and granting to it the power to determine what is and is not Constitutional when brought before the court in a legal matter?

Apples and oranges. We have a Ninth Amendment.

There is no way to appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment without appeal to ignorance of the law: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

 

[blunthead]

I would like to take this time and opportunity to thank those on the Right for recusing themselves from any serious argumentation due to their lack of clue, Cause, and Standing as a result.

danielpalos, I hope this doesn't seem offensive but maybe I have a native language communication problem because I almost never have any idea what you're talking about.

 

[danielpalos]

I would like to take this time and opportunity to thank those on the Right for recusing themselves from any serious argumentation due to their lack of clue, Cause, and Standing as a result.

danielpalos, I hope this doesn't seem offensive but maybe I have a native language communication problem because I almost never have any idea what you're talking about.

Don't worry. It is about morals. I don't expect the Right to have a clue or a Cause.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I would like to take this time and opportunity to thank those on the Right for recusing themselves from any serious argumentation due to their lack of clue, Cause, and Standing as a result.

danielpalos, I hope this doesn't seem offensive but maybe I have a native language communication problem because I almost never have any idea what you're talking about.

He is either the biggest liar on the board or incompetent to carry on any discussion with anyone on any subject. His ignorance is appalling and breathtaking at the same time.

 

[danielpalos]

I would like to take this time and opportunity to thank those on the Right for recusing themselves from any serious argumentation due to their lack of clue, Cause, and Standing as a result.

danielpalos, I hope this doesn't seem offensive but maybe I have a native language communication problem because I almost never have any idea what you're talking about.

He is either the biggest liar on the board or incompetent to carry on any discussion with anyone on any subject. His ignorance is appalling and breathtaking at the same time.

You say that Mr. semper fi; but how semper fi are you to our own laws with only fallacy to work with.

Nothing is more noble, nothing more venerable than fidelity. Faithfulness and truth are the most sacred excellences and endowments of the human mind.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

 

[Josf]

"Are you simply presenting diversions?"

That is an diversion. What I did was quoted. If you think that my words were written intentionally to cause a diversion then quote the words that inspire you to think so, please.

The link offered explains Posse Comitatus. I sent that link because you asked questions about State and Federal Acts (so called) which you thought were laws. I don't think those are laws. Why are they called ACTS?

I focused on that part of your stated views.

As to the idea of ignorance of the law having relevance in any case where law is applied, that can be another topic subject. Would that be considered as a diversion by you, or not?

"It applies to the US."

How can I proceed to challenge that claim above without your response arriving as another accusation that I am causing a diversion?

What do you mean by "the US"? Do you mean the people who are federated into something called The United States of America? Do you mean a legal fiction known as The United States? Do you mean the legal fictions known as the States and these legal fictions are United, so these legal fictions (which are united) are called - collectively - United States?

If you mean the people, then the claim is that the Second Amendment applies to the people who live in a geographical area where these people are federated into a voluntary mutual defense association known as The United States of America, and if that is your meaning, then I can agree with your meaning. If you mean something else then I cannot see how "It applies to the US." You can mean just about anything with that claim, and how would I know what you mean?

"No one is claiming that Persons do not have a right to self defense or to acquire and possess Arms for that purpose."

Any claims made by anyone that infringes upon my right to bear arms is doing exactly what you claim "No one is" doing, and they write those claims down and they claim that those claims are orders that must be obeyed without question. I think these types of people are collectively called "gun grabbers."

They most certainly do what you claim they do not do.

"Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions, including with the Terms; acquire and possess to denote specifically, Individual Rights in private property: "

I've read may original constitutions and many alterations done to the originals and there is a clear and unmistakable effort to change the words so as to change the meanings of the words for purposes that can become obvious if one is willing to do the work required to discover those facts.

Again you can claim that my response is a willful diversion on my part, or suggest as much, which works, I suppose, as a form of censorship, a form of character assassination, as if the idea was to ignore what I write, and the idea is to go after my personal character instead.

Natural rights are what they are with or without someone acknowledging those rights on papers. I think you know that, but the idea behind me offering that viewpoint is to cut past any more false assumptions you may make concerning me personally.

"Thus, no need to secure such rights in our federal Constitution, which secures Due Process for the citizens in the several United States upon appeal to the general government."

The federal constitution, which is for those who agree to it, is called The Articles of Confederation, and it was acknowledged by those who wrote it as a perpetual union for mutual defense. The consolidation effort became known as The Constitution of 1787, it is not federal, and those who were against it, such as George Mason and Patrick Henry insisted on amending it with a Bill of Rights because it was not federal. That means that your words are demonstrably untrue.

"Thus, no need to secure such rights in our federal Constitution, which secures Due Process for the citizens in the several United States upon appeal to the general government."

If your words were true, as you claim, then the words of at least George Mason and Patrick Henry speaking extensively, at length, against the consolidation effort, and insisting upon "securing such rights" were not true. Did I misunderstand the intended meaning of your words: were you speaking about the Articles of Confederation when you wrote "our federal Constitution"?

"...which secures Due Process for the citizens..."

Many opponents, again including George Mason and Patrick Henry, explained why your words are clearly wrong, again if you are speaking about the Constitution of 1787, as they spoke out against the ending of due process through this consolidation effort. Those opponents of that consolidation effort were proven right, and that happened even before the Bill of Rights were passed. The end of due process was bookmarked with the so called Judiciary Act of 1789 when the criminals who took over managed to give new life to British Admiralty Law, which is a cute way of collecting fraudulent "national debt" extortion payments.

 

[danielpalos]

Just a wall of text with hearsay and soothsay. If it is not in our Constitution it doesn't exist if we have to quibble in legal venues.

Drawing inference from posse comitatus is a fallacy since a militia and a posse are two distinct bodies, politic. A militia is not a posse. Our Second Amendment clearly states the term Militia not Posse. Thus, any inference from Posse comitatus is a fallacy of composition.

Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry."--Source: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Only Congress can prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States; and, States the equivalent for State Militias.

The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militias of the People who are the militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

Your rights to keep and bear Arms are subject to the police power of a State. Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions. There is no appeal to ignorance of this fact.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions with the appropriate verbiage. Our Federal Constitution Only secures Due Process, not rights in property.