Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[Papageorgio]

Since the Constitution was written without your added wording and no court has ever interpreted the 2nd Amendment the way you claim, what makes you remotely be.ieve you are correct in your interpretation?

Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller, says that very Thing.

The Supreme Court shot down the law as unconstitutional

This is what should have been discussed; and a federal doctrine promulgated:

“Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It was and it went against the District of Columbia, it upheld that individual citizens had a right to bear arms. The court found that six private citizens had a right to own a fire arm thus your idea that DC vs Heller somehow restricts fire arms in the hands of a private citizen is absolutely false.

What is the police power and what should it apply to, regarding Arms?

Heller was the only one that was part of law enforcement, the rest were private citizens with no police connection.

 

[Papageorgio]

Wonderful.

But what does it have to do with the right to bear arms? I wasn't aware this was a thread concerning the necessity and regulation of the militia. I could have sworn it was about gun laws and gun rights.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; the unorganized militia may be infringed, when Only for the cause of natural rights, not the security of our free States, or the Union.

Well since the Constitution doesn’t say or has ever been interpreted the way you just claimed, your point is mute. Nice try.

lol. it is standard practice in our Republic.

The standard practice in this country is every citizen has a right to bear arms.

defense of self and property, are considered natural rights and are recognized in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

 

[danielpalos]

Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller, says that very Thing.

The Supreme Court shot down the law as unconstitutional

This is what should have been discussed; and a federal doctrine promulgated:

“Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It was and it went against the District of Columbia, it upheld that individual citizens had a right to bear arms. The court found that six private citizens had a right to own a fire arm thus your idea that DC vs Heller somehow restricts fire arms in the hands of a private citizen is absolutely false.

What is the police power and what should it apply to, regarding Arms?

Heller was the only one that was part of law enforcement, the rest were private citizens with no police connection.

Can you cite any instances where a Person was engaged in self-defense; and arrested for having Arms?

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; the unorganized militia may be infringed, when Only for the cause of natural rights, not the security of our free States, or the Union.

Well since the Constitution doesn’t say or has ever been interpreted the way you just claimed, your point is mute. Nice try.

lol. it is standard practice in our Republic.

The standard practice in this country is every citizen has a right to bear arms.

defense of self and property, are considered natural rights and are recognized in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

Judicial activism? Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Supreme Court shot down the law as unconstitutional

This is what should have been discussed; and a federal doctrine promulgated:

“Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It was and it went against the District of Columbia, it upheld that individual citizens had a right to bear arms. The court found that six private citizens had a right to own a fire arm thus your idea that DC vs Heller somehow restricts fire arms in the hands of a private citizen is absolutely false.

What is the police power and what should it apply to, regarding Arms?

Heller was the only one that was part of law enforcement, the rest were private citizens with no police connection.

Can you cite any instances where a Person was engaged in self-defense; and arrested for having Arms?

Which has nothing to do with the DC vs. Heller case. Again, the court upheld Heller’s right to bear arms and also other plaintiffs who used the fire arms for target shooting..

 

[Papageorgio]

Well since the Constitution doesn’t say or has ever been interpreted the way you just claimed, your point is mute. Nice try.

lol. it is standard practice in our Republic.

The standard practice in this country is every citizen has a right to bear arms.

defense of self and property, are considered natural rights and are recognized in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

Judicial activism? Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.

Are you claiming 200 plus years of judicial activism?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

nothing but fallacy, right winger? even promiscuous women are more conserv

In English, please?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

only well regulated militia may not be infringed

English fail.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Judicial activism? Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.

And, it expressly says the right of the people...shall not be infringes.

You keep ignoring that part.

Learn English.

 

[danielpalos]

This is what should have been discussed; and a federal doctrine promulgated:

“Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It was and it went against the District of Columbia, it upheld that individual citizens had a right to bear arms. The court found that six private citizens had a right to own a fire arm thus your idea that DC vs Heller somehow restricts fire arms in the hands of a private citizen is absolutely false.

What is the police power and what should it apply to, regarding Arms?

Heller was the only one that was part of law enforcement, the rest were private citizens with no police connection.

Can you cite any instances where a Person was engaged in self-defense; and arrested for having Arms?

Which has nothing to do with the DC vs. Heller case. Again, the court upheld Heller’s right to bear arms and also other plaintiffs who used the fire arms for target shooting..

an outright ban is controversial; the manner of wearing Arms, is not.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. it is standard practice in our Republic.

The standard practice in this country is every citizen has a right to bear arms.

defense of self and property, are considered natural rights and are recognized in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

Judicial activism? Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.

Are you claiming 200 plus years of judicial activism?

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

Our federal Constitution is express, not implied.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.

If you understood English, you would know why that is not correct.

The people are distinguished from the militia in the 2nd. Otherwise, they would have used miliria twice.

You suck at English.

You are wrong.

I would try to explain, but you no comprende.

 

[danielpalos]

Judicial activism? Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.

And, it expressly says the right of the people...shall not be infringes.

You keep ignoring that part.

Learn English.

tell that to the lgbt community.

be, more than all political Talk.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.

If you understood English, you would know why that is not correct.

The people are distinguished from the militia in the 2nd. Otherwise, they would have used miliria twice.

You suck at English.

You are wrong.

I would try to explain, but you no comprende.

No, they are not. The People are the Militia. That is the understanding in our Second Amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our federal Constitution is express, not implied.

You don't understand those English words because you keep implying bullshit into the 2nd.

Learn English, Sancho.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Judicial activism? Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.

And, it expressly says the right of the people...shall not be infringes.

You keep ignoring that part.

Learn English.

tell that to the lgbt community.

be, more than all political Talk.

What do you want me to tell the lbgt communithy? I support their rights. I will do whay I can to protect them.

I like to protect rights. Unlike you, Sancho.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, they are not. The People are the Militia. That is the understanding in our Second Amendment.

The militia are the people.


A well-re militia is necessary to secure a free state. Nothing more.

If you hablar English, you would know.

 

[danielpalos]

Our federal Constitution is express, not implied.

You don't understand those English words because you keep implying bullshit into the 2nd.

Learn English, Sancho.

like what? you have, nothing but fallacy. Both the People and the Militia are plural, not individual, every time we have to quibble this specific point.

 

[danielpalos]

Judicial activism? Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.

And, it expressly says the right of the people...shall not be infringes.

You keep ignoring that part.

Learn English.

tell that to the lgbt community.

be, more than all political Talk.

What do you want me to tell the lbgt communithy? I support their rights. I will do whay I can to protect them.

I like to protect rights. Unlike you, Sancho.

The right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union?

 

[danielpalos]

No, they are not. The People are the Militia. That is the understanding in our Second Amendment.

The militia are the people.


A well-re militia is necessary to secure a free state. Nothing more.

If you hablar English, you would know.

the whole people are the militia. well regulated militia of the whole people, are expressly declared necessary.