Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

[danielpalos]

Only due to your ignorance since it does mention well regulated militia. That is why nobody takes immoral false witness bearing right-wingers seriously in abortion threads.

The mention of a well-regulated militia or its necessity is not a bar to the people's gun rights.

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

So the right to keep and bear Arms is absolute and pertains to the whole people, each and every one of them, without exception or infringement.

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, unlike the unorganized militia of the rest of the whole People as Individuals.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, unlike the unorganized militia of the rest of the whole People as Individuals.

FALSE!!!

There are no such qualifiers in the literal text of the 2A.

Let's look at grammar again, Dan:

A _______ being necessary for _____________, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can fill in the blanks with whatever the fuck you want and it will not change the operation of the 2A, PERIOD!!!! You cannot modify the 2A with the fucking Dick Act. Don't be stupid.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, unlike the unorganized militia of the rest of the whole People as Individuals.

FALSE!!!

There are no such qualifiers in the literal text of the 2A.

Let's look at grammar again, Dan:

A _______ being necessary for _____________, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can fill in the blanks with whatever the fuck you want and it will not change the operation of the 2A, PERIOD!!!! You cannot modify the 2A with the fucking Dick Act. Don't be stupid.

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law. The first clause clearly proclaims what is necessary to the security of a free State and it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

 

[Rigby5]

Only due to your ignorance since it does mention well regulated militia. That is why nobody takes immoral false witness bearing right-wingers seriously in abortion threads.

The mention of a well-regulated militia or its necessity is not a bar to the people's gun rights.

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

So the right to keep and bear Arms is absolute and pertains to the whole people, each and every one of them, without exception or infringement.

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, unlike the unorganized militia of the rest of the whole People as Individuals.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

Sorry, but that is stupid.
There are not any rights in the Bill of Rights, only restrictions on the federal government.
So talking about "recourse" to something in the Bill of Rights is irrational.
No one gets any "recourse" to anything in the Bill of Rights.
The 2nd amendment simply says there can't be any federal jurisdiction over weapons.
We can argue why forever, and it changes nothing.

The idea the 2nd amendment was to prevent the federal government from disarming its own Organized Militia, makes no sense at all. It is not important for the Organized Militia to retain arms all the time because it can be armed after being called up. So clearly the Organized Militia was not the purpose or intent of the 2nd amendment prohibition on the federal government.

Nor do you seem to read what you write:
{... Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution) ...}
That clearly says there can't be any infringement of weapons rights to the general public unless being arrested for a crime.

 

[Rigby5]

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, unlike the unorganized militia of the rest of the whole People as Individuals.

FALSE!!!

There are no such qualifiers in the literal text of the 2A.

Let's look at grammar again, Dan:

A _______ being necessary for _____________, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can fill in the blanks with whatever the fuck you want and it will not change the operation of the 2A, PERIOD!!!! You cannot modify the 2A with the fucking Dick Act. Don't be stupid.

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law. The first clause clearly proclaims what is necessary to the security of a free State and it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

That makes no sense.
Clearly it most definitely IS the unorganized militia of the People that is necessary to the security of a free state.

The main threat to the security of any free state comes from government corruption taking over through the police and military, like Hitler did and all dictators always do.
The Organized Militia is always suspects since it is paid and under the control of the wealthy elite.
Freedom always come from the poor masses instead, the unorganized militia.

Just look at history.
Almost all democratic republics are the result of a rebellion by the unorganized militia.
Not once has an Organized Militia ever conducted a rebellion or established a democratic republic.

 

[danielpalos]

The idea the 2nd amendment was to prevent the federal government from disarming its own Organized Militia, makes no sense at all.

However did you come up with Your right wing fantasy and propaganda from a literal interpretation of our Second Amendment?

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.

 

[danielpalos]

Clearly it most definitely IS the unorganized militia of the People that is necessary to the security of a free state.

Maybe in right wing fantasy.

This is why they enumerated 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

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not the unorganized militia.

 

[justinacolmena]

Well, well, well, what do you know? Another liar and another lawyer in trouble with the bar.

There are not any rights in the Bill of Rights, only restrictions on the federal government.

To wit, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, an absolute right which namely shall not be infringed, by federal, state, borough, municipal, county, city, or any other government.

 

[justinacolmena]

However did you come up with Your right wing fantasy and propaganda from a literal interpretation of our Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment is, literally, part of the Constitution of the United States, and, literally, is what it is, to be interpreted as the letter of the law by people who can actually read.

Golly gee whiz, I didn't "literally" commit a crime, but you and your ilk of left-wing fascists are still going to put me in prison because I might have "figuratively" committed a crime, but not "really" done anything wrong.

The letter of the law of the U.S. Constitution is not "right wing fantasy." Get off the weed and grow up.

 

[danielpalos]

Well, well, well, what do you know? Another liar and another lawyer in trouble with the bar.

There are not any rights in the Bill of Rights, only restrictions on the federal government.

To wit, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, an absolute right which namely shall not be infringed, by federal, state, borough, municipal, county, city, or any other government.

Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Uion, unlike the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People who are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[danielpalos]

However did you come up with Your right wing fantasy and propaganda from a literal interpretation of our Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment is, literally, part of the Constitution of the United States, and, literally, is what it is, to be interpreted as the letter of the law by people who can actually read.

Golly gee whiz, I didn't "literally" commit a crime, but you and your ilk of left-wing fascists are still going to put me in prison because I might have "figuratively" committed a crime, but not "really" done anything wrong.

The letter of the law of the U.S. Constitution is not "right wing fantasy." Get off the weed and grow up.

Talk to your State legislators.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

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.

 

[Rigby5]

The idea the 2nd amendment was to prevent the federal government from disarming its own Organized Militia, makes no sense at all.

However did you come up with Your right wing fantasy and propaganda from a literal interpretation of our Second Amendment?

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.

Again you are not keeping up and fall back to mindless rhetoric.
Remember, I AM the left wing extremist here, the liberal, progressive, socialist.
Far more left wing than you or anyone else on this board, including you.

There is no way any left wing, liberal, progressive can support any federal gun control in any way.
All federal gun control always results in a right wing dictatorship of the police and military.
The fact you support federal gun control in any way questions how you call yourself liberal in any way?

The obvious meaning of the word "well regulated" is to be familiar and in possession of personal arms.
It does not mean "restricted", by any possible interpretation. That would contradict the whole point of putting it into the Bill of Rights. If you think it means, "A well restricted Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, there shall be no federal restrictions on firearms", then you clearly should see that is totally contradictory nonsense.

Obviously the need for a 2nd amendment is not for federal use of men at arms.
It is for some other need for men at arms, and it does not at all matter if it is state, municipal, or individual need.
The whole point is to prevent federal restrictions, and nothing else.
When it say for a free state, that could imply a state need, but even if that was intended, that does not preclude any other possible needs, like individual. The end result still has to be a ban on federal weapons jurisdiction. There is no other possible interpretation.

 

[Rigby5]

Clearly it most definitely IS the unorganized militia of the People that is necessary to the security of a free state.

Maybe in right wing fantasy.

This is why they enumerated 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

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not the unorganized militia.

It does not at all matter what or why they declared the ban on federal firearms jurisdiction to be necessary.
The point is there is still be an absolute ban on all federal firearm jurisdiction according to the Bill of Rights.
And it is not just from the 2nd amendment, but also the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments.

 

[Rigby5]

However did you come up with Your right wing fantasy and propaganda from a literal interpretation of our Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment is, literally, part of the Constitution of the United States, and, literally, is what it is, to be interpreted as the letter of the law by people who can actually read.

Golly gee whiz, I didn't "literally" commit a crime, but you and your ilk of left-wing fascists are still going to put me in prison because I might have "figuratively" committed a crime, but not "really" done anything wrong.

The letter of the law of the U.S. Constitution is not "right wing fantasy." Get off the weed and grow up.

Talk to your State legislators.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

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.

But if you do not prevent federal firearms laws from disarming the People, then you no longer have a free State any free states.
Then you have a federal dictatorship with arbitrary powers the people do not have and did not delegate.
A self authorizing federal government is the exact definition of an illegal dictatorship that is treason in a democratic republic.

 

[justinacolmena]

Well regulated militia of the People

Once again you are using a nonsensical "chimera" of a phrase to obscure and deaden the meaning of our Constitution.

The people -- with or without the Militia -- and whether or not the said Militia is "organized" or "regulated" -- have the right to keep and bear Arms -- that is to possess and carry Firearms and other weapons -- an absolute right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

What part of our most basic law do you not understand?

 

[danielpalos]

The idea the 2nd amendment was to prevent the federal government from disarming its own Organized Militia, makes no sense at all.

However did you come up with Your right wing fantasy and propaganda from a literal interpretation of our Second Amendment?

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.

Again you are not keeping up and fall back to mindless rhetoric.
Remember, I AM the left wing extremist here, the liberal, progressive, socialist.
Far more left wing than you or anyone else on this board, including you.

There is no way any left wing, liberal, progressive can support any federal gun control in any way.
All federal gun control always results in a right wing dictatorship of the police and military.
The fact you support federal gun control in any way questions how you call yourself liberal in any way?

The obvious meaning of the word "well regulated" is to be familiar and in possession of personal arms.
It does not mean "restricted", by any possible interpretation. That would contradict the whole point of putting it into the Bill of Rights. If you think it means, "A well restricted Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, there shall be no federal restrictions on firearms", then you clearly should see that is totally contradictory nonsense.

Obviously the need for a 2nd amendment is not for federal use of men at arms.
It is for some other need for men at arms, and it does not at all matter if it is state, municipal, or individual need.
The whole point is to prevent federal restrictions, and nothing else.
When it say for a free state, that could imply a state need, but even if that was intended, that does not preclude any other possible needs, like individual. The end result still has to be a ban on federal weapons jurisdiction. There is no other possible interpretation.

Our legislators should be doing their Job.

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]

Clearly it most definitely IS the unorganized militia of the People that is necessary to the security of a free state.

Maybe in right wing fantasy.

This is why they enumerated 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

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not the unorganized militia.

It does not at all matter what or why they declared the ban on federal firearms jurisdiction to be necessary.
The point is there is still be an absolute ban on all federal firearm jurisdiction according to the Bill of Rights.
And it is not just from the 2nd amendment, but also the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments.

This is a State's right:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[justinacolmena]

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.

I don't live in Illinois. Illinois law and Illinois constitution do not apply in Alaska. And I'm originally from Washington. Read Section 24 of Article I of Washington's state constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

However did you come up with Your right wing fantasy and propaganda from a literal interpretation of our Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment is, literally, part of the Constitution of the United States, and, literally, is what it is, to be interpreted as the letter of the law by people who can actually read.

Golly gee whiz, I didn't "literally" commit a crime, but you and your ilk of left-wing fascists are still going to put me in prison because I might have "figuratively" committed a crime, but not "really" done anything wrong.

The letter of the law of the U.S. Constitution is not "right wing fantasy." Get off the weed and grow up.

Talk to your State legislators.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

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.

But if you do not prevent federal firearms laws from disarming the People, then you no longer have a free State any free states.
Then you have a federal dictatorship with arbitrary powers the people do not have and did not delegate.
A self authorizing federal government is the exact definition of an illegal dictatorship that is treason in a democratic republic.

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.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Organized militia can muster at the local armory to get issued their Arms.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia of the People

Once again you are using a nonsensical "chimera" of a phrase to obscure and deaden the meaning of our Constitution.

The people -- with or without the Militia -- and whether or not the said Militia is "organized" or "regulated" -- have the right to keep and bear Arms -- that is to possess and carry Firearms and other weapons -- an absolute right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

What part of our most basic law do you not understand?

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law in the first clause.