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.
no one is unconnected with the Militia only with militia service, well regulated.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.Paragraph (2) supports my contention and denies and disparages, Your contention.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."
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...".
"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.
show me where natural rights are declared secured in our federal Constitution.natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.Federal courts go by State laws unless it is a specifically, federal issue.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.
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.
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.
context is everything, if you don't want to appeal to ignorance.the terms and words are plural, not Individual.then, it cannot be about Individual rights since the People is plural in both term and context.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.
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 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.the terms and words are plural, not Individual.then, it cannot be about Individual rights since the People is plural in both term and context.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.
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 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?
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.""I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."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.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.
Link?
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
no one is unconnected with the Militia only with militia service, well regulated.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.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...".
"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.
And? The portion of the paragraph I quoted said "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia...". What part of "...service in a militia..." are you disagreeing with?
yes, it is. It is about there being no natural rights recognized in our federal, Second Amendment.show me where natural rights are declared secured in our federal Constitution.natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.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.
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.
I have asked you to provide links or context to your claims. You have not. But you want me to continue to provide them for you?
The discussion is not about natural rights overall. It is about a specific part of the US Constitution that states cannot override.
no one is unconnected with the Militia only with militia service, well regulated.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.Paragraph (2) supports my contention and denies and disparages, Your contention.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."
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...".
"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.
lol. each amendment is unique. a simple dictionary definition is all i need.context is everything, if you don't want to appeal to ignorance.the terms and words are plural, not Individual.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 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?
And? What context makes it a collective right in one amendment and an individual right in the other two?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Do you use a different dictionary for the 1st and 4th amendment?
The security of a free State is the context, not natural rights.context is everything, if you don't want to appeal to ignorance.the terms and words are plural, not Individual.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 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?
It is laughable that you keep referring to "appeal to ignorance" when you steadfastly refuse to provide backup, evidence, proof or links for any of your claims. I have provided all of that, showing you to be wrong. And yet you continue to insist I am ignorant and you are educated. lol
Unless you have something substantial to offer in the way of evidence, proof, or links, this is simply you being shown repeatedly that you are wong followed by you claiming to be right and 'right wingers' just don't understand.
our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights."The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.""I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."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.
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.
Link?
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine
Need more?
just your lousy reading comprehension.no one is unconnected with the Militia only with militia service, well regulated.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.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...".
"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.
Not according to your 10USC246 claim.
that is just right wing special pleading. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.History is full of examples of a lesser armed rebellion defeating a better armed government force.
Here in the US if it really came down to fighting against a tyrannical government then I suspect many in the military would switch sides.
It is best for the US people to be well armed. The worse thing would be for only the filthy ass government and the crooks to have arms. We have seen how that works out in other countries, haven't we?
that is the statutory, federal militia.just your lousy reading comprehension.no one is unconnected with the Militia only with militia service, well regulated.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.
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.
Not according to your 10USC246 claim.
"
(a)
The 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.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
able bodied males OVER 17, UNDER 45, FEMALES, but only if they belong to the National Guard
NO infirm
NO males under the age of 17
NO males over the age of 45
NO females, unless they are members of the National Guard.
That excludes quite a number of citizens.
OR DID I READ IT WRONG?
that is the statutory, federal militia.just your lousy reading comprehension.no one is unconnected with the Militia only with militia service, well regulated.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.
Not according to your 10USC246 claim.
"
(a)
The 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.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
able bodied males OVER 17, UNDER 45, FEMALES, but only if they belong to the National Guard
NO infirm
NO males under the age of 17
NO males over the age of 45
NO females, unless they are members of the National Guard.
That excludes quite a number of citizens.
OR DID I READ IT WRONG?
here is a State supreme law of that State 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.
It is simple common sense under the common law for the common defense.
reread it.hat is the statutory, federal militia.
the point is, that well regulated militia are specifically enumerated as necessary and exempt for that reason.that is the statutory, federal militia.just your lousy reading comprehension.no one is unconnected with the Militia only with militia service, well regulated.
Not according to your 10USC246 claim.
"
(a)
The 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.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
able bodied males OVER 17, UNDER 45, FEMALES, but only if they belong to the National Guard
NO infirm
NO males under the age of 17
NO males over the age of 45
NO females, unless they are members of the National Guard.
That excludes quite a number of citizens.
OR DID I READ IT WRONG?
here is a State supreme law of that State 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.
It is simple common sense under the common law for the common defense.reread it.hat is the statutory, federal militia.
paragraph (2) is about the 'unorganized militia', and has the same restrictions.
the point is, that well regulated militia are specifically enumerated as necessary and exempt for that reason.that is the statutory, federal militia.just your lousy reading comprehension.Not according to your 10USC246 claim.
"
(a)
The 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.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
able bodied males OVER 17, UNDER 45, FEMALES, but only if they belong to the National Guard
NO infirm
NO males under the age of 17
NO males over the age of 45
NO females, unless they are members of the National Guard.
That excludes quite a number of citizens.
OR DID I READ IT WRONG?
here is a State supreme law of that State 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.
It is simple common sense under the common law for the common defense.reread it.hat is the statutory, federal militia.
paragraph (2) is about the 'unorganized militia', and has the same restrictions.
if, we argue your point about the militia acts; then, clearly, our Second Amendment cannot be about, natural rights.
no one is unconnected with the Militia only with militia service, well regulated.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.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...".
"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.
And? The portion of the paragraph I quoted said "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia...". What part of "...service in a militia..." are you disagreeing with?
lol. Well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.
"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
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."
