CDZ Food for thought: Right to keep and bear arms.

[WinterBorn]

No, the state constitutions do not over-ride the US Constitution. Quite the opposite.

You don't know what you are talking about.

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.

all you are telling me, is that you are ignorant of the law as applied by the Courts.

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.

Federal courts go by State laws unless it is a specifically, federal issue.

I see you cannot provide an example of a state constitution overriding the US Constitution.

 

[Auld Phart]

the fallacy is yours, if you believe the Founders didn't mean ALL the people.

This is why, I Always question every Thing, about the right Wing.

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?

simply appealing to ignorance of the unorganized militia of the People who are specifically not, well regulated?

such as?

No other description of them?

try 10USC246. it is also, federal law, right wingers. don't be, illegal to federal law.

great, finally a definition of unorganized militia.

oops, one problem...


"he militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. "

still not allowing women, unless they belong to the NG, males under 17, or over 45.


Restricts ownership somewhat, doesn't it?

restrictions that haven't been enforced since 1776

 

[Auld Phart]

No, the state constitutions do not over-ride the US Constitution. Quite the opposite.

You don't know what you are talking about.

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.

all you are telling me, is that you are ignorant of the law as applied by the Courts.

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.

Federal courts go by State laws unless it is a specifically, federal issue.

gee, gosh...

the 2nd Amendment is a FEDERAL ISSUE

 

[WinterBorn]

It says "the right" is singular. So every single citizen has it.

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

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.

You don't know what you are talking about.

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.

one has to love when states' righters suddenly find the supremacy clause.

that said there is nothing in Heller that says regulation is unconstitutional -- only total bans are unconstitutional. (and heller was pretty way out there extremist and didn't go as far as you want)

Are you claiming that I am a "states righter"? I'd love to see your justification for that. lol

 

[WinterBorn]

twisting the wording again

not at all. it is current practice in our Republic.

only your twisted concept of it.

you keep leaving out the wording, they right of the people to keep and bear arms.

why?

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?

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.

then, it cannot be about Individual rights since the People is plural in both term and context.

Certainly it can. It is a singular right of multiple persons. The population at the time was around 2.5 million. Would having a right for a singular person make sense? Also, in DC v. Heller (which you quoted) ruled that it is an individual right, not connected to service in a military or militia.

 

[WinterBorn]

It says "the right" is singular. So every single citizen has it.

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

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.

You don't know what you are talking about.

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.

all you are telling me, is that you are ignorant of the law as applied by the Courts.

Not at all. But apparently you are. YOu have not shown one single example of a state constitution overriding the US Constitution. Can you?

 

[WinterBorn]

the fallacy is yours, if you believe the Founders didn't mean ALL the people.

This is why, I Always question every Thing, about the right Wing.

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.

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?

This is from a State Constitution and State supreme law of the land:

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.

Link?

 

[danielpalos]

It says, the security of a free State depends on well regulated militia not being Infringed.

Nope, it doesn't say that.

Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't. Read paragraph (2) of DC v Heller, and tell me I am wrong.

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."

Paragraph (2) supports my contention and denies and disparages, Your contention.

If I had said there can be no limitations, you might have a point. But I didn't. But since you want to use DC v. Heller, I find it amusing that you want to use the second paragraph and claim it proves your contention that "It says, the security of a free State depends on well regulated militia not being Infringed". It obviously does not. And even more amusing, you want to completely ignore the first paragraph, which destroys your argument completely. ""The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia...".

Simply, judicial forms of activism. Appealing to ignorance of the legal fact that the people are the militia under the common law for the common defense.

"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

 

[danielpalos]

You don't know what you are talking about.

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.

all you are telling me, is that you are ignorant of the law as applied by the Courts.

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.

Federal courts go by State laws unless it is a specifically, federal issue.

Not the point. YOu have claimed that state laws and constitutions override the US Constitution. And that is blatantly false. Where the two conflict, the US Constitution wins.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

[WinterBorn]

Since you, Daniel, cannot provide any examples of state laws overriding the US Constitution, allow me to provide some examples where states rulings and state laws were overruled by the US Constitution.

When Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore installed a monument to the 10 Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court lobby, his ruling was that it was legal. The federal courts ruled that it was unconstitutional (using the US Constitution). The monument was removed.

When the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, it went against the state constitutions of Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi (at least). The states were forced to change their laws.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

simply appealing to ignorance of the unorganized militia of the People who are specifically not, well regulated?

such as?

No other description of them?

try 10USC246. it is also, federal law, right wingers. don't be, illegal to federal law.

great, finally a definition of unorganized militia.

oops, one problem...


"he militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. "

still not allowing women, unless they belong to the NG, males under 17, or over 45.


Restricts ownership somewhat, doesn't it?

restrictions that haven't been enforced since 1776

Infringement is not Only, restriction of ownership.

 

[danielpalos]

You don't know what you are talking about.

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.

all you are telling me, is that you are ignorant of the law as applied by the Courts.

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.

Federal courts go by State laws unless it is a specifically, federal issue.

gee, gosh...

the 2nd Amendment is a FEDERAL ISSUE

lol. natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our federal Constitution.

 

[WinterBorn]

Nope, it doesn't say that.

Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't. Read paragraph (2) of DC v Heller, and tell me I am wrong.

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."

Paragraph (2) supports my contention and denies and disparages, Your contention.

If I had said there can be no limitations, you might have a point. But I didn't. But since you want to use DC v. Heller, I find it amusing that you want to use the second paragraph and claim it proves your contention that "It says, the security of a free State depends on well regulated militia not being Infringed". It obviously does not. And even more amusing, you want to completely ignore the first paragraph, which destroys your argument completely. ""The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia...".

Simply, judicial forms of activism. Appealing to ignorance of the legal fact that the people are the militia under the common law for the common defense.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

So the same ruling that you call "judicial activism" somehow proves your point? Which, by the way, was about militias, even though paragraph 2 does not address militias at all.

 

[danielpalos]

not at all. it is current practice in our Republic.

only your twisted concept of it.

you keep leaving out the wording, they right of the people to keep and bear arms.

why?

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?

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.

then, it cannot be about Individual rights since the People is plural in both term and context.

Certainly it can. It is a singular right of multiple persons. The population at the time was around 2.5 million. Would having a right for a singular person make sense? Also, in DC v. Heller (which you quoted) ruled that it is an individual right, not connected to service in a military or militia.

the terms and words are plural, not Individual.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Positive proof, as to why I don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

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?

This is from a State Constitution and State supreme law of the land:

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.

Link?

"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

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

all you are telling me, is that you are ignorant of the law as applied by the Courts.

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.

Federal courts go by State laws unless it is a specifically, federal issue.

Not the point. YOu have claimed that state laws and constitutions override the US Constitution. And that is blatantly false. Where the two conflict, the US Constitution wins.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

When there is a conflict between state constitutions and the US Constitutions, the US Constitution is the law of the land and wins. I have shown you the Supremacy Clause which states that outright. I have given you examples of it. And all youhave done is insist that state constitutions are the law of the land. No proof, no evidence and no examples. You just keep saying it.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't. Read paragraph (2) of DC v Heller, and tell me I am wrong.

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."

Paragraph (2) supports my contention and denies and disparages, Your contention.

If I had said there can be no limitations, you might have a point. But I didn't. But since you want to use DC v. Heller, I find it amusing that you want to use the second paragraph and claim it proves your contention that "It says, the security of a free State depends on well regulated militia not being Infringed". It obviously does not. And even more amusing, you want to completely ignore the first paragraph, which destroys your argument completely. ""The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia...".

Simply, judicial forms of activism. Appealing to ignorance of the legal fact that the people are the militia under the common law for the common defense.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

So the same ruling that you call "judicial activism" somehow proves your point? Which, by the way, was about militias, even though paragraph 2 does not address militias at all.

no one is unconnected with the Militia only with militia service, well regulated.

 

[WinterBorn]

only your twisted concept of it.

you keep leaving out the wording, they right of the people to keep and bear arms.

why?

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?

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.

then, it cannot be about Individual rights since the People is plural in both term and context.

Certainly it can. It is a singular right of multiple persons. The population at the time was around 2.5 million. Would having a right for a singular person make sense? Also, in DC v. Heller (which you quoted) ruled that it is an individual right, not connected to service in a military or militia.

the terms and words are plural, not Individual.

The same words are used in the 1st amendment and the 4th amendment. But I don't see you insisting that they are collective rights. Why is that?

 

[danielpalos]

all you are telling me, is that you are ignorant of the law as applied by the Courts.

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.

Federal courts go by State laws unless it is a specifically, federal issue.

Not the point. YOu have claimed that state laws and constitutions override the US Constitution. And that is blatantly false. Where the two conflict, the US Constitution wins.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

When there is a conflict between state constitutions and the US Constitutions, the US Constitution is the law of the land and wins. I have shown you the Supremacy Clause which states that outright. I have given you examples of it. And all youhave done is insist that state constitutions are the law of the land. No proof, no evidence and no examples. You just keep saying it.

show me where natural rights are declared secured in our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

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.

then, it cannot be about Individual rights since the People is plural in both term and context.

Certainly it can. It is a singular right of multiple persons. The population at the time was around 2.5 million. Would having a right for a singular person make sense? Also, in DC v. Heller (which you quoted) ruled that it is an individual right, not connected to service in a military or militia.

the terms and words are plural, not Individual.

The same words are used in the 1st amendment and the 4th amendment. But I don't see you insisting that they are collective rights. Why is that?

context is everything, if you don't want to appeal to ignorance.