Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?not at all. it is current practice in our Republic.the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the people shall not be infringed.It doesn't say the militia shall not be infringed,
twisting the wording again
only your twisted concept of it.
you keep leaving out the wording, they right of the people to keep and bear arms.
why?
You don't know what you are talking about.natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.what does a dictionary say?And that same "judicial activism" has ruled that the 1st and 4th amendments are not collective rights either.
Would you like to see all 3 amendments be seen as "collective rights"?
It says "the right" is singular. So every single citizen has it.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
No, the state constitutions do not over-ride the US Constitution. Quite the opposite.
This is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or even politics.
You don't know what you are talking about.natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.what does a dictionary say?
It says "the right" is singular. So every single citizen has it.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
No, the state constitutions do not over-ride the US Constitution. Quite the opposite.
This is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or even politics.
You must have slept through civics class. There is a little things called the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution.
from: Supremacy Clause
"Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect."
The Supremacy Clause states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
When the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, do you actually think the southern states would have accepted it if they had ANY choice in the matter?
No, the US Constitution is the law of the land. When there is a conflict between state constitutions and the US Constitution, the states lose to the law of the land.
Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't. Read paragraph (2) of DC v Heller, and tell me I am wrong.It says, the security of a free State depends on well regulated militia not being Infringed.It says, a well regulated militia is Necessary. It does not say, the unorganized militia of the People, is necessary in any way.and that's all the further you read.
continue reading...
the Right to keep and bear arms was given to the People, not the Militia.
As a militia they will be organized. But it does not say "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Because it is the people who will make up the militia if needed.
Nope, it doesn't say that.
simply appealing to ignorance of the unorganized militia of the People who are specifically not, well regulated?This is why, I Always question every Thing, about the right Wing.Nothing but special pleading?The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
I'm not the one leaving out "the Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms" from my posts.
Those are 'actual and literal' words in the 2nd.
The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
the fallacy is yours, if you believe the Founders didn't mean ALL the people.
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.
That is the common law.
organized militia?
Other than the National Guard, does the United States still support an 'organized Militia'?
and what is the 'unorganized militia' you kept bringing up?
Positive proof, as to why I don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.This is why, I Always question every Thing, about the right Wing.Nothing but special pleading?I'm not the one leaving out "the Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms" from my posts.
Those are 'actual and literal' words in the 2nd.
The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
the fallacy is yours, if you believe the Founders didn't mean ALL the people.
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.
That is the common law.
organized militia?
Other than the National Guard, does the United States still support an 'organized Militia'?
and what is the 'unorganized militia' you kept bringing up?
The several, United States are sovereign States unto themselves. They have their own militias and are entitled to their own security.
The right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance of the law.
The several, United States are sovereign States unto themselves. They have their own militias and are entitled to their own security.
then, it cannot be about Individual rights since the People is plural in both term and context.The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?not at all. it is current practice in our Republic.the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the people shall not be infringed.
twisting the wording again
only your twisted concept of it.
you keep leaving out the wording, they right of the people to keep and bear arms.
why?
I am not appealing to ignorance at all.
Yes, the word "people" is plural. Because the right to keep and bear arms was for more than one person. It was for the citizens.
However, the phrase "the right" is singular. So that singular right is for multiple persons. Which means the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is a singular right for multiple persons.
It has to do what the meaning of words, mean. Only the right wing, never gets it.WTF are you talking about?lol.this is the understanding that was ratified at the convention:
"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
again, the same person, in the debates to ratify the Constitution.
Would you like to see the remarks of several presidents, and statesmen, of that era?
Some whose names have lasted far longer than Masons?
That believe the Right of the People to keep and bear arms?
or is he your only argument.
our Constitution was ratified. It is all the argument I need.
And what that has to do with OP?
all you are telling me, is that you are ignorant of the law as applied by the Courts.You don't know what you are talking about.natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.what does a dictionary say?
It says "the right" is singular. So every single citizen has it.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
No, the state constitutions do not over-ride the US Constitution. Quite the opposite.
This is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or even politics.
You must have slept through civics class. There is a little things called the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution.
from: Supremacy Clause
"Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect."
The Supremacy Clause states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
When the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, do you actually think the southern states would have accepted it if they had ANY choice in the matter?
No, the US Constitution is the law of the land. When there is a conflict between state constitutions and the US Constitution, the states lose to the law of the land.
Nothing but special pleading?The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?not at all. it is current practice in our Republic.twisting the wording again
only your twisted concept of it.
you keep leaving out the wording, they right of the people to keep and bear arms.
why?Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
I'm not the one leaving out "the Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms" from my posts.
Those are 'actual and literal' words in the 2nd.
The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
Paragraph (2) supports my contention and denies and disparages, Your contention.Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't. Read paragraph (2) of DC v Heller, and tell me I am wrong.It says, the security of a free State depends on well regulated militia not being Infringed.It says, a well regulated militia is Necessary. It does not say, the unorganized militia of the People, is necessary in any way.
As a militia they will be organized. But it does not say "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Because it is the people who will make up the militia if needed.
Nope, it doesn't say that.
You want to quote DC v. Heller? LMAO!
Ok, look at paragraph 1. "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
As for paragraph 2, please point out where the militia is mentioned at all.
" 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
simply appealing to ignorance of the unorganized militia of the People who are specifically not, well regulated?This is why, I Always question every Thing, about the right Wing.Nothing but special pleading?I'm not the one leaving out "the Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms" from my posts.
Those are 'actual and literal' words in the 2nd.
The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
the fallacy is yours, if you believe the Founders didn't mean ALL the people.
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.
That is the common law.
organized militia?
Other than the National Guard, does the United States still support an 'organized Militia'?
and what is the 'unorganized militia' you kept bringing up?
all you are telling me, is that you are ignorant of the law as applied by the Courts.You don't know what you are talking about.natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.It says "the right" is singular. So every single citizen has it.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
No, the state constitutions do not over-ride the US Constitution. Quite the opposite.
This is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or even politics.
You must have slept through civics class. There is a little things called the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution.
from: Supremacy Clause
"Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect."
The Supremacy Clause states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
When the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, do you actually think the southern states would have accepted it if they had ANY choice in the matter?
No, the US Constitution is the law of the land. When there is a conflict between state constitutions and the US Constitution, the states lose to the law of the land.
This is from a State Constitution and State supreme law of the land:Positive proof, as to why I don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.This is why, I Always question every Thing, about the right Wing.Nothing but special pleading?
The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
the fallacy is yours, if you believe the Founders didn't mean ALL the people.
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.
That is the common law.
organized militia?
Other than the National Guard, does the United States still support an 'organized Militia'?
and what is the 'unorganized militia' you kept bringing up?
The several, United States are sovereign States unto themselves. They have their own militias and are entitled to their own security.
The right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance of the law.The several, United States are sovereign States unto themselves. They have their own militias and are entitled to their own security.
Such as?
oh, and you still haven't explained what an 'unorganized militia' is.
Memory problems?
try 10USC246. it is also, federal law, right wingers. don't be, illegal to federal law.simply appealing to ignorance of the unorganized militia of the People who are specifically not, well regulated?This is why, I Always question every Thing, about the right Wing.Nothing but special pleading?
The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
the fallacy is yours, if you believe the Founders didn't mean ALL the people.
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.
That is the common law.
organized militia?
Other than the National Guard, does the United States still support an 'organized Militia'?
and what is the 'unorganized militia' you kept bringing up?
such as?
No other description of them?
This is from a State Constitution and State supreme law of the land:Positive proof, as to why I don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.This is why, I Always question every Thing, about the right Wing.the fallacy is yours, if you believe the Founders didn't mean ALL the people.
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.
That is the common law.
organized militia?
Other than the National Guard, does the United States still support an 'organized Militia'?
and what is the 'unorganized militia' you kept bringing up?
The several, United States are sovereign States unto themselves. They have their own militias and are entitled to their own security.
The right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance of the law.The several, United States are sovereign States unto themselves. They have their own militias and are entitled to their own security.
Such as?
oh, and you still haven't explained what an 'unorganized militia' is.
Memory problems?
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.
The People are the Militia, you are either, well regulated or unorganized.
Federal courts go by State laws unless it is a specifically, federal issue.all you are telling me, is that you are ignorant of the law as applied by the Courts.You don't know what you are talking about.natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
No, the state constitutions do not over-ride the US Constitution. Quite the opposite.
This is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or even politics.
You must have slept through civics class. There is a little things called the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution.
from: Supremacy Clause
"Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect."
The Supremacy Clause states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
When the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, do you actually think the southern states would have accepted it if they had ANY choice in the matter?
No, the US Constitution is the law of the land. When there is a conflict between state constitutions and the US Constitution, the states lose to the law of the land.
Give me an example of a state constitution overriding the US Constitution. I have shown you the the exact wording of the Supremacy Clause and provided an example of it overriding a state constitution.
Any State of our Union will do, for common defense purposes under the common law.This is from a State Constitution and State supreme law of the land:Positive proof, as to why I don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.This is why, I Always question every Thing, about the right Wing.
That is the common law.
organized militia?
Other than the National Guard, does the United States still support an 'organized Militia'?
and what is the 'unorganized militia' you kept bringing up?
The several, United States are sovereign States unto themselves. They have their own militias and are entitled to their own security.
The right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance of the law.The several, United States are sovereign States unto themselves. They have their own militias and are entitled to their own security.
Such as?
oh, and you still haven't explained what an 'unorganized militia' is.
Memory problems?
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.
The People are the Militia, you are either, well regulated or unorganized.
Which state.
and you're still lacking a definitive definition of 'unorganized militia.
Paragraph (2) supports my contention and denies and disparages, Your contention.Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't. Read paragraph (2) of DC v Heller, and tell me I am wrong.It says, the security of a free State depends on well regulated militia not being Infringed.As a militia they will be organized. But it does not say "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Because it is the people who will make up the militia if needed.
Nope, it doesn't say that.
You want to quote DC v. Heller? LMAO!
Ok, look at paragraph 1. "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
As for paragraph 2, please point out where the militia is mentioned at all.
" 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Federal courts go by State laws unless it is a specifically, federal issue.all you are telling me, is that you are ignorant of the law as applied by the Courts.You don't know what you are talking about.No, the state constitutions do not over-ride the US Constitution. Quite the opposite.
This is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or even politics.
You must have slept through civics class. There is a little things called the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution.
from: Supremacy Clause
"Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect."
The Supremacy Clause states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
When the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, do you actually think the southern states would have accepted it if they had ANY choice in the matter?
No, the US Constitution is the law of the land. When there is a conflict between state constitutions and the US Constitution, the states lose to the law of the land.
Give me an example of a state constitution overriding the US Constitution. I have shown you the the exact wording of the Supremacy Clause and provided an example of it overriding a state constitution.
