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

[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).

Imagine the country of Romania, ruled by a evil dictator, brought down by patriots who began their revolution with single shot target pistols. Now, imagine how much lower the death toll among the patriots would have been if they had better weapons to begin with. You seem to forget that the military has to sleep sometime. You seem to forget that we have been fighting in Afghanistan for over a decade and the little bastards armed with rifles are STILL FIGHTING.

It seems it is you who are not following current events.

You can believe whatever the hell you want to, the fact is I disagree, and I know that masses of people do not work well together unless there is strong leadership, which has the moral authority to weed out bad apples and those who do not follow orders, cannot function against a force well trained and disciplined.

Nicolae Ceaușescu has neither, the moral authority nor in the end a well trained military to defend him.

Do not expect a Nicolae Ceaușescu to repress a nation of 300+ million; Trump is the most divisive POTUS of all, and even he cannot engage in the atrocities which the Romanian People endured.

Our forces in Afghanistan are not fully engaged, there is nothing to even match the forces used in WW II on the March across the Pacific to Japan, let alone one year earlier when the beaches at Normandy were stormed.

 

[Pop23]

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).

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.

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.

Yeah, the British had the most advanced fighting machine on the face of the earth, and expressed the same sentiments as you, how'd that work out for em?

 

[danielpalos]

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

If it’s clearly stated, then it is by the people’s right to keep and bear stems.

Thanks.

Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.

If you care to make an argument, do so in such a way that is understandable. That's simply gibberish.

If you don't understand that, you are simply clueless and Causeless and lack any Standing, in Any legal venue.

 

[Pop23]

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

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.

OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.

 

[Pop23]

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.

If it’s clearly stated, then it is by the people’s right to keep and bear stems.

Thanks.

Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.

If you care to make an argument, do so in such a way that is understandable. That's simply gibberish.

If you don't understand that, you are simply clueless and Causeless and lack any Standing, in Any legal venue.

OMG, the dude is completely triggered.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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).

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 able to work well together without trained non commissioned officers for every dozen or so? An LT or above to oversee a company?

A mob is not a military force.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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).

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

 

[danielpalos]

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

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

Let's clarify things, shall we?

According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
"Definition of amend
transitive verb
1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (something, such as a text)

• amended the manuscript

2 a : to change or modify (something) for the better : improve

• amend the situation

b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition

• amend a constitution"

This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document. This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution. And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.

Then, why does the right wing imply, our Second Article of Amendment is a Constitution unto itself; instead of merely the the second Article which happens to amend a point about the security needs of a free State.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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).

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. They can do it in Afghanistan.

Idiot

 

[danielpalos]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about our form of Government, either.

We don't have a unitary form of federal government like State governments do.

And, we have a doctrine of separation of powers. Only the right wing, loves to make a federal Case out of Every Thing.

Nobody care who you take seriously. Make your point with pacts, not vague attempts at insults.

The fact is, the US Constitution is the law of the land. No state constitution can overrule it. We have been through this before, Danny-boy.

the fact is, stories are all you have. any more red herrings?

 

[danielpalos]

That is Your story bro. Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.

Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.

Yours is the nice story Bro.

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.

no, You are confused. Our Second Amendment clearly declares, what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

All the right wing has, is appeals to ignorance of the term, militia.

 

[Pop23]

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).

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 able to work well together without trained non commissioned officers for every dozen or so? An LT or above to oversee a company?

A mob is not a military force.

No. it's a mob, ask those commanders in Vietnam how effective fighting a mob was.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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).

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.

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.

Yeah, the British had the most advanced fighting machine on the face of the earth, and expressed the same sentiments as you, how'd that work out for em?

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.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

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.

OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.

Where is the express Power to Prohibit (political) speech, in our original Constitution?

 

[Pop23]

Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.

Yours is the nice story Bro.

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.

no, You are confused. Our Second Amendment clearly declares, what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

All the right wing has, is appeals to ignorance of the term, militia.

..........and that because it is necessary to have a Militia (Military) to defend a free State, and with recent History (the revolution) showing how that Militia (Military) can be used against it's own people, that the People would have the right to defend itself against a rogue Government that would use the might of the Militia (Military) against them.

See how beautifully thought out that was.

 

[Pop23]

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

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.

OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.

Where is the express Power to Prohibit (political) speech, in our original Constitution?

I guess the same place where the express power to prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms is?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

If it’s clearly stated, then it is by the people’s right to keep and bear stems.

Thanks.

Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.

If you care to make an argument, do so in such a way that is understandable. That's simply gibberish.

If you don't understand that, you are simply clueless and Causeless and lack any Standing, in Any legal venue.

OMG, the dude is completely triggered.

nothing but appeals to Ignorance, right wingers?

Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.

 

[Pop23]

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).

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.

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.

Yeah, the British had the most advanced fighting machine on the face of the earth, and expressed the same sentiments as you, how'd that work out for em?

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.

 

[Pop23]

If it’s clearly stated, then it is by the people’s right to keep and bear stems.

Thanks.

Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.

If you care to make an argument, do so in such a way that is understandable. That's simply gibberish.

If you don't understand that, you are simply clueless and Causeless and lack any Standing, in Any legal venue.

OMG, the dude is completely triggered.

nothing but appeals to Ignorance, right wingers?

Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.

Make a point instead of thinking anyone want's to take your mindless test.

Good God, PLEASE AT SOME POINT MAKE A POINT! I for one would love that!