2nd Amendment should not be infringed upon because of Las Vegas shooter.

[danielpalos]

The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.

Give the exact language of a law that would work better.

We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.

Works for me.

Well that would take away the right to have a militia.

What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?

You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.

Depends on your definition of militia!

No, it doesn't. Militia is already define for the US.

 

[Humorme]

You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.

The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.

I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property

Then you need to buy a dictionary.

really?

Militia - New World Encyclopedia

There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.

I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.

I'm not a hillbilly.

A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.

Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.

FWIW, even hillbillies are entitled to the equal protection of the laws pursuant to the 14th Amendment.

On another note, in 2005 the United States Supreme Court ruled "that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband."

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

That ruling went a long way into upholding another precedent wherein the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled:

"[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists"

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Put into simple English, it is the duty of the individual to provide for their own personal safety. I'll be damned if I allow the masses to tell me how to best protect myself and / or at what point I cannot employ common technology (i.e. a firearm.)

You have the Right and the Duty to protect yourself... and to be ready to defend your country.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

 

[danielpalos]

Wellness of regulation. Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. Only well regulated militia are authorized, their own colors, standards, guidons and banners.

Everybody should know the pledge of allegiance.

Troll post

dear, You being clueless and Causeless, does not mean I am a troll.

You making troll post means you are a troll.

You are a troll post; projecting much, right winger.

Nope, not projecting and not a right winger.

lol. Yes, it is; and, you have the right wing position, down pat.

 

[danielpalos]

We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.

Works for me.

Well that would take away the right to have a militia.

What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?

You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.

The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.

I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property

Then you need to buy a dictionary.

really?

Militia - New World Encyclopedia

There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.

The Unorganized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.

The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.

I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property

Then you need to buy a dictionary.

really?

Militia - New World Encyclopedia

There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.

I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.

I'm not a hillbilly.

A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.

Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.

No, it isn't. It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.

 

[Humorme]

The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.

I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property

Then you need to buy a dictionary.

really?

Militia - New World Encyclopedia

There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.

I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.

I'm not a hillbilly.

A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.

Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.

No, it isn't. It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.

What's your point? The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, unalienable, absolute, God given Right. So, big freaking deal. A state can "secure" the Right. The state does not grant the Right nor can it, constitutionally, deprive you of it. And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.

 

[danielpalos]

Then you need to buy a dictionary.

really?

Militia - New World Encyclopedia

There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.

I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.

I'm not a hillbilly.

A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.

Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.

No, it isn't. It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.

What's your point? The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, unalienable, absolute, God given Right. So, big freaking deal. A state can "secure" the Right. The state does not grant the Right nor can it, constitutionally, deprive you of it. And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.

No, it isn't. The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well that would take away the right to have a militia.

What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?

You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.

The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.

I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property

Then you need to buy a dictionary.

really?

Militia - New World Encyclopedia

There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.

The Unorganized militia.

I am very organized

 

[Skull Pilot]

The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.

I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property

Then you need to buy a dictionary.

really?

Militia - New World Encyclopedia

There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.

I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.

I'm not a hillbilly.

A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.

Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.

I have no problem with you protecting your home, but your militia is the National Guard.

No it's not.

There are private militia in existence today.

I happen to belong to one with just one member, me.

 

[danielpalos]

You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.

The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.

I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property

Then you need to buy a dictionary.

really?

Militia - New World Encyclopedia

There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.

The Unorganized militia.

I am very organized

me too; but, I am not well regulated or authorized my own colors, standards, guidons and banners.

Thus, I will need to find militia who are.

 

[Taz]

Then you need to buy a dictionary.

really?

Militia - New World Encyclopedia

There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.

I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.

I'm not a hillbilly.

A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.

Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.

I have no problem with you protecting your home, but your militia is the National Guard.

No it's not.

There are private militia in existence today.

I happen to belong to one with just one member, me.

You're lucky that the US allows delusional people to own guns.

 

[hunarcy]

Troll post

dear, You being clueless and Causeless, does not mean I am a troll.

You making troll post means you are a troll.

You are a troll post; projecting much, right winger.

Nope, not projecting and not a right winger.

lol. Yes, it is; and, you have the right wing position, down pat.

I pity your inability to do anything but troll. However, I will do the only rational thing and set your posts aside. BTW, I have rational positions based on common sense and a progressive agenda. That you want to paint me as a "rightwinger" just proves your status as a troll.

 

[Humorme]

really?

Militia - New World Encyclopedia

There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.

I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.

I'm not a hillbilly.

A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.

Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.

No, it isn't. It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.

What's your point? The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, unalienable, absolute, God given Right. So, big freaking deal. A state can "secure" the Right. The state does not grant the Right nor can it, constitutionally, deprive you of it. And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.

No, it isn't. The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.

The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and earliest court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.

Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong. AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.

The judicial view:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - 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 (1859)

The United States Supreme Court agreed:

."The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution. State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute. The courts have consistently ruled that the word "absolute" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, unalienable, etc. (aka God given Rights.)

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified. And it the courts declared the Right to be an absolute Right, then the Right is also inherent and unalienable pursuant to applicable case law.

You fail.

 

[Skull Pilot]

really?

Militia - New World Encyclopedia

There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.

I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.

I'm not a hillbilly.

A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.

Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.

I have no problem with you protecting your home, but your militia is the National Guard.

No it's not.

There are private militia in existence today.

I happen to belong to one with just one member, me.

You're lucky that the US allows delusional people to own guns.

Says the guy who never locks his doors and is convinced that there is no violence to be had in his little utopia

 

[danielpalos]

dear, You being clueless and Causeless, does not mean I am a troll.

You making troll post means you are a troll.

You are a troll post; projecting much, right winger.

Nope, not projecting and not a right winger.

lol. Yes, it is; and, you have the right wing position, down pat.

I pity your inability to do anything but troll. However, I will do the only rational thing and set your posts aside. BTW, I have rational positions based on common sense and a progressive agenda. That you want to paint me as a "rightwinger" just proves your status as a troll.

Not in this thread. You simply stated I am a troll, with nothing to support your position. That is why, I am resorting to the fewest fallacies.

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or not. Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.

The right wing is simply too laissez-fair to muster and become, necessary.

 

[danielpalos]

I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.

I'm not a hillbilly.

A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.

Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.

No, it isn't. It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.

What's your point? The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, unalienable, absolute, God given Right. So, big freaking deal. A state can "secure" the Right. The state does not grant the Right nor can it, constitutionally, deprive you of it. And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.

No, it isn't. The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.

The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and earliest court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.

Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong. AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.

The judicial view:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - 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 (1859)

The United States Supreme Court agreed:

."The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution. State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute. The courts have consistently ruled that the word "absolute" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, unalienable, etc. (aka God given Rights.)

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified. And it the courts declared the Right to be an absolute Right, then the Right is also inherent and unalienable pursuant to applicable case law.

You fail.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.

 

[danielpalos]

I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.

I'm not a hillbilly.

A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.

Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.

I have no problem with you protecting your home, but your militia is the National Guard.

No it's not.

There are private militia in existence today.

I happen to belong to one with just one member, me.

You're lucky that the US allows delusional people to own guns.

Says the guy who never locks his doors and is convinced that there is no violence to be had in his little utopia

The right wing is only about morals, when it is about drugs and sex.

Only Bad persons do Bad things, right wingers.

 

[Humorme]

I'm not a hillbilly.

A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.

Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.

No, it isn't. It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.

What's your point? The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, unalienable, absolute, God given Right. So, big freaking deal. A state can "secure" the Right. The state does not grant the Right nor can it, constitutionally, deprive you of it. And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.

No, it isn't. The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.

The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and earliest court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.

Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong. AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.

The judicial view:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - 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 (1859)

The United States Supreme Court agreed:

."The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution. State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute. The courts have consistently ruled that the word "absolute" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, unalienable, etc. (aka God given Rights.)

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified. And it the courts declared the Right to be an absolute Right, then the Right is also inherent and unalienable pursuant to applicable case law.

You fail.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.

Utterly non - responsive reply. danielpalos, you are trolling. Your post means nothing. How long have you been peddling that shit? Nobody has ever bought it.

Get your head out of your ass for a change. To "secure" a Right does not create the Right; it does not grant the Right. It merely establishes that the Right exists and "ensures" (sic) it.

Secure: 12. to effect; make certain of; ensure

the definition of secure

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Sorry, danielpalos, that's the law and you can't change it with troll posts.

 

[Humorme]

really?

Militia - New World Encyclopedia

There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.

I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.

I'm not a hillbilly.

A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.

Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.

I have no problem with you protecting your home, but your militia is the National Guard.

No it's not.

There are private militia in existence today.

I happen to belong to one with just one member, me.

You're lucky that the US allows delusional people to own guns.

The government does not "allow" it. They merely agree to insure the Right as it existed before government was created.

 

[Humorme]

I'm not a hillbilly.

A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.

Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.

No, it isn't. It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.

What's your point? The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, unalienable, absolute, God given Right. So, big freaking deal. A state can "secure" the Right. The state does not grant the Right nor can it, constitutionally, deprive you of it. And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.

No, it isn't. The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.

The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and earliest court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.

Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong. AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.

The judicial view:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - 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 (1859)

The United States Supreme Court agreed:

."The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution. State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute. The courts have consistently ruled that the word "absolute" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, unalienable, etc. (aka God given Rights.)

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified. And it the courts declared the Right to be an absolute Right, then the Right is also inherent and unalienable pursuant to applicable case law.

You fail.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.

Your nonsense is rarely worth a response, but I sure as Hell did not advocate any so - called "private justice."

Citizens are required to exhaust all nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. OTOH, when it comes to their personal security, the individual must, by law, be wholly responsible for that. In addition, if / when government breaks down, the citizenry is empowered to be the last line of defense in a free nation.