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

[Auld Phart]

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.

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

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

Irrelevant to the post you quoted.

But I will respond anyway. A well regulated militia was declared necessary. And in the context of the times (context is important, remember?) that meant an armed population capable of responding when needed. There was no requirement for anyone to be a member of a standing militia. And in the SCOTUS ruling that you quoted, there is no requirement for service in a militia.

he keeps getting beat up by his own links....


pitiful....pitttiiiful

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

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.

yes, it is. It is about there being no natural rights recognized in our federal, Second Amendment.

The US Constitution is the law of the land. On numerous occasions this has been proven.

The Bill of Rights lists rights of US citizens. Whether you want to call them natural or not does not matter. They are the basic rights of citizens of the USA. Not based on state laws or rights. In fact, when state constitutions have limited or removed those rights, they have been ruled unconstitutional and overridden.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

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?

lol. each amendment is unique. a simple dictionary definition is all i need.

Definition of PEOPLE

And that definition applies to the 1st and 4th amendments as well?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

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.

The security of a free State is the context, not natural rights.

Your reply has nothing to do with what you quoted.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

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.

The security of a free State is the context, not natural rights.

Your reply has nothing to do with what you quoted.

rarely does

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Not according to your 10USC246 claim.

just your lousy reading comprehension.

"
(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.

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.

Nothing in that quote from an unnamed state constitution goes against the 2nd amendment. And if it did, the US Constitution would rule.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

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?

You don't need an example. You just have to take what he said for granted.

Or check the dictionary.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not according to your 10USC246 claim.

just your lousy reading comprehension.

"
(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.

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.

hat is the statutory, federal militia.

reread it.

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.

if, we argue your point about the militia acts; then, clearly, our Second Amendment cannot be about, natural rights.

The 2nd amendment is about the law of the land. State laws or constitutions cannot overrule that.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

And, what answer did he get?

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Why do they have to be secured by the US Constitution?

US Constitution protects individual rights and limits federal government powers against those individual rights, i.e. rights of the people.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

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.

It doesn't matter what you have asked. He's on autopilot, and only answer to himself.

By the way, thread is completely off topic, even after I asked mods to keep it in line.

 

[jillian]

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

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

you might want to try responding to the rest of what I said.

or we can spend all day debating whether you're a states' rights type or not.

 

[jillian]

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.

Why do they have to be secured by the US Constitution?

US Constitution protects individual rights and limits federal government powers against those individual rights, i.e. rights of the people.

so you agree that Roe v Wade and Brown v Bd of Ed are correct then?

 

[Flash]

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 just right wing special pleading. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Your response is nothing more that asinine extreme Left Wing hate of the Bill of Rights. Go read the Heller case that put an end to the silliness of the militia definition and established the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

 

[danielpalos]

just your lousy reading comprehension.

"
(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.

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.

hat is the statutory, federal militia.

reread it.

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.

if, we argue your point about the militia acts; then, clearly, our Second Amendment cannot be about, natural rights.

No, the point is, and always has been, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

can you cite where our federal Constitution claims to be about natural rights?

 

[danielpalos]

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 just right wing special pleading. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Your response is nothing more that asinine extreme Left Wing hate of the Bill of Rights. Go read the Heller case that put an end to the silliness of the militia definition and established the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Judicial activism. 10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers. Don't be illegal to federal law.

 

[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.

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

you might want to try responding to the rest of what I said.

or we can spend all day debating whether you're a states' rights type or not.

There is no debate in whether I am a states righter. I am also not one who has claimed the should be no regulation of firearms.

YOu must have me confused with someone else.

 

[Auld Phart]

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 just right wing special pleading. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Your response is nothing more that asinine extreme Left Wing hate of the Bill of Rights. Go read the Heller case that put an end to the silliness of the militia definition and established the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Judicial activism. 10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers. Don't be illegal to federal law.

as has been pointed out, 10USC246 only covers certain people, not the populace as a whole.

Whereas, the 2nd does cover the populace.

 

[WinterBorn]

"
(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.

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.

hat is the statutory, federal militia.

reread it.

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.

if, we argue your point about the militia acts; then, clearly, our Second Amendment cannot be about, natural rights.

No, the point is, and always has been, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

can you cite where our federal Constitution claims to be about natural rights?

Can you give an example of the state constitutions overriding the US Constitution? I have asked several times.

Or can you explain why the use of "people" infers a collective right in the 2nd amendment but not in the 1st or 4th? I have asked that several times as well.

 

[danielpalos]

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 just right wing special pleading. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Your response is nothing more that asinine extreme Left Wing hate of the Bill of Rights. Go read the Heller case that put an end to the silliness of the militia definition and established the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Judicial activism. 10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers. Don't be illegal to federal law.

as has been pointed out, 10USC246 only covers certain people, not the populace as a whole.

Whereas, the 2nd does cover the populace.

Thank you for finally recognizing that well regulated militia of the populace, has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.