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

[danielpalos]

lol. You don't know what you are talking about. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric concerning natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

I understand quite well.

Between the US Constitution and any state constitutions, you only have to look at which one is the standard and which one has to follow that standard.

The US Constitution is the standard and the law of the land.

yet, the right wing claims, the second clause of the second article, is what really really matters, regardless of what the rest of our Constitution says.

Who has claimed this? Show me an example. (like THAT will happen)

And what does the rest of our constitution say that contradicts the 2nd amendment?

lol. only the right wing is that clueless and that causeless, in the public domain.

You claimed that the right wing claim something, but cannot show any examples.
YOu claim that there is something in the US Constitution that contradicts the 2nd amendment, but you refuse to detail what that is.

You are a waste of time here. Every argument you have presented on this topic has been soundly refuted or is so vague as to be worthless without elaboration or backup. And you steadfastly refuse to provide backup.

only the disingenuous right wing, claims that.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.

Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.

They are, in fact, amendments to the US Constitution. That makes them part of the US Constitutions.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Here is what our Second Amendment, amends:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

They took them seriously enough to give them all 3 keys to Washington DC this time around. You had better start taking them seriously as well. They may not act like they are taking you too seriously, but trust me, they are. They are serious as a heart attack. And will use almost any and all methods.

It is why we have three branches of Government. The right wing is obviously clueless and Causeless about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

 

[WinterBorn]

No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind. Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.

Your reply has little or no content.

I have no appealed to ignorance at all. I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions. And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.

The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.

lol. the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.

Do they? Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?

to be well regulated?

You claimed they allege that all their individual rights are found in the 2nd amendment. I asked you a simple question. What do you say we finish this line of thought before we move to another.

 

[WinterBorn]

It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.

Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.

They are, in fact, amendments to the US Constitution. That makes them part of the US Constitutions.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Here is what our Second Amendment, amends:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

They took them seriously enough to give them all 3 keys to Washington DC this time around. You had better start taking them seriously as well. They may not act like they are taking you too seriously, but trust me, they are. They are serious as a heart attack. And will use almost any and all methods.

It is why we have three branches of Government. The right wing is obviously clueless and Causeless about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

You are the one shown to be clueless when you make baseless claims and refuse to provide backup or post vague nonsense which you refuse to clarify.

 

[danielpalos]

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.

Your reply has little or no content.

I have no appealed to ignorance at all. I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions. And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.

The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.

lol. the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.

Do they? Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?

to be well regulated?

You claimed they allege that all their individual rights are found in the 2nd amendment. I asked you a simple question. What do you say we finish this line of thought before we move to another.

lol. Why are we even having this argument? There are No individual or natural rights in our Second Amendment; only civil rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

Your reply has little or no content.

I have no appealed to ignorance at all. I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions. And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.

The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.

lol. the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.

Do they? Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?

to be well regulated?

You claimed they allege that all their individual rights are found in the 2nd amendment. I asked you a simple question. What do you say we finish this line of thought before we move to another.

lol. Why are we even having this argument? There are No individual or natural rights in our Second Amendment; only civil rights.

Again, you refuse to answer a simple question.

And the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. But just to be sure, are you saying that civil rights are not individual rights?

 

[danielpalos]

lol. the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.

Do they? Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?

to be well regulated?

You claimed they allege that all their individual rights are found in the 2nd amendment. I asked you a simple question. What do you say we finish this line of thought before we move to another.

lol. Why are we even having this argument? There are No individual or natural rights in our Second Amendment; only civil rights.

Again, you refuse to answer a simple question.

And the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. But just to be sure, are you saying that civil rights are not individual rights?

It is a civil right not a natural right.

 

[WinterBorn]

Do they? Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?

to be well regulated?

You claimed they allege that all their individual rights are found in the 2nd amendment. I asked you a simple question. What do you say we finish this line of thought before we move to another.

lol. Why are we even having this argument? There are No individual or natural rights in our Second Amendment; only civil rights.

Again, you refuse to answer a simple question.

And the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. But just to be sure, are you saying that civil rights are not individual rights?

It is a civil right not a natural right.

That is not what I asked. You are pathological about not answering questions, aren't you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country. We don't. When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment. If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing. At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway. But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors. Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act. He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops. The System works and works well, traitor.

And we ain't Britain. You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.

Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.

Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.

Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact. You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution. Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded. If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting. Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.

So, I can live with my place in life.

And your side is funded by Soros. The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England. He is far more anti America than the kochs are. Me thinks you need to do some more research.

Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America. Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer. Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers? Not something I would admit to willingly.

Wrong. The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co. Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies. The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.

Three million more people voted for the other candidates than did for Trump, Trump won the electoral college by less than 1.5% in WI, MI & PA. He did not carry 50% of the votes and has never once had an approval ratting higher than 40%.

Hence, the argument posted by Westwall is once again an attempt to mislead the reader.

 

[westwall]

Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.

Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.

Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact. You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution. Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded. If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting. Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.

So, I can live with my place in life.

And your side is funded by Soros. The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England. He is far more anti America than the kochs are. Me thinks you need to do some more research.

Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America. Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer. Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers? Not something I would admit to willingly.

Wrong. The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co. Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies. The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.

Three million more people voted for the other candidates than did for Trump, Trump won the electoral college by less than 1.5% in WI, MI & PA. He did not carry 50% of the votes and has never once had an approval ratting higher than 40%.

Hence, the argument posted by Westwall is once again an attempt to mislead the reader.

He won those tiny margins in historically Democrat strongholds. The so called "blue wall". So yes, the PEOPLE voted for trump.

 

[Pop23]

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.

Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.

They are, in fact, amendments to the US Constitution. That makes them part of the US Constitutions.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Here is what our Second Amendment, amends:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

They took them seriously enough to give them all 3 keys to Washington DC this time around. You had better start taking them seriously as well. They may not act like they are taking you too seriously, but trust me, they are. They are serious as a heart attack. And will use almost any and all methods.

 

[Pop23]

No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind. Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.

Your reply has little or no content.

I have no appealed to ignorance at all. I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions. And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.

The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.

lol. the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.

Do they? Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?

to be well regulated?

Easily maintained and quickly called upon. Sounds about right? and your problem is?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917. I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US. Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of a chance. Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.

The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850. AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them. Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.

I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment. What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current. Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.

One citizen no

How abut a few million citizens?

How about that ^^^:

Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms work well together without trained non commissioned officers for ever dozen or so?

Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize

Idiot

Finally you sign a post with your nickname. But I digress.

Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?

Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment? Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter. Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.

Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.

Doesn't matter.

If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out

It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.

and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?

Belief goes a long way towards adaptation

 

[Wry Catcher]

The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

Actually, I think an armed civilian population could fare reasonably well against our gov't. First of all, you are correct that our military could decimate a population armed with small arms. But would they be able to do so without decimating the entire civilian population? Remember the uproar when our military shot up unarmed civilians in Iraq? Now imagine that being US citizens. The armed population would blend in with the rest of the population. It would not be a matter of defeating the US military, but doing enough damage to force them to engage and then take enough damage to force public opinion into the equation.

What you describe is a mob. And once a fire fight starts, chaos would reign. The mob would likely be fought with fire fighter tactics, an air drop and containment. With no supple lines, short order would lead to surrender or a Kamikaze charge leading to a slaughter of your imagined soldier citizens.

 

[danielpalos]

to be well regulated?

You claimed they allege that all their individual rights are found in the 2nd amendment. I asked you a simple question. What do you say we finish this line of thought before we move to another.

lol. Why are we even having this argument? There are No individual or natural rights in our Second Amendment; only civil rights.

Again, you refuse to answer a simple question.

And the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. But just to be sure, are you saying that civil rights are not individual rights?

It is a civil right not a natural right.

That is not what I asked. You are pathological about not answering questions, aren't you?

You have, nothing but diversion; why should I waste my time, again. I just gave you the answer. You don't get to ignore it, and claim I am the one ignoring the issue.

 

[danielpalos]

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.

Your reply has little or no content.

I have no appealed to ignorance at all. I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions. And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.

The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.

lol. the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.

Do they? Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?

to be well regulated?

Easily maintained and quickly called upon. Sounds about right? and your problem is?

your appeal to ignorance of the term, well regulated, in our federal Constitution. the right wing does it on purpose; we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact. You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution. Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded. If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting. Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.

So, I can live with my place in life.

And your side is funded by Soros. The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England. He is far more anti America than the kochs are. Me thinks you need to do some more research.

Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America. Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer. Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers? Not something I would admit to willingly.

Wrong. The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co. Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies. The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.

Three million more people voted for the other candidates than did for Trump, Trump won the electoral college by less than 1.5% in WI, MI & PA. He did not carry 50% of the votes and has never once had an approval ratting higher than 40%.

Hence, the argument posted by Westwall is once again an attempt to mislead the reader.

He won those tiny margins in historically Democrat strongholds. The so called "blue wall". So yes, the PEOPLE voted for trump.

BULLSHIT

 

[Wry Catcher]

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917. I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US. Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of a chance. Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.

The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850. AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them. Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.

I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment. What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current. Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.

One citizen no

How abut a few million citizens?

How about that ^^^:

Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms work well together without trained non commissioned officers for ever dozen or so?

Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize

Idiot

Finally you sign a post with your nickname. But I digress.

Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?

Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment? Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter. Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.

Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.

Doesn't matter.

If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out

It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.

and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?

Belief goes a long way towards adaptation

David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army. Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.

 

[Pop23]

Your reply has little or no content.

I have no appealed to ignorance at all. I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions. And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.

The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.

lol. the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.

Do they? Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?

to be well regulated?

Easily maintained and quickly called upon. Sounds about right? and your problem is?

your appeal to ignorance of the term, well regulated, in our federal Constitution. the right wing does it on purpose; we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.

You really think they spoke the same in 1776 as they do today?

Groovy dude, nice story bro

 

[Pop23]

One citizen no

How abut a few million citizens?

How about that ^^^:

Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms work well together without trained non commissioned officers for ever dozen or so?

Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize

Idiot

Finally you sign a post with your nickname. But I digress.

Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?

Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment? Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter. Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.

Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.

Doesn't matter.

If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out

It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.

and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?

Belief goes a long way towards adaptation

David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army. Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.

You serious bro?