Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

"Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Free state; not United States.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

BTW- The SC agrees with me.

The militia in the constitution is a militia in which the states appoint officers, and which the feds can call up to federal duty. It is NOT just any old militia. If you read Presser you'd know this.

There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 or the context, intent, and purpose of our Second Article of Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

"The militia in the constitution is a militia in which the states appoint officers, and which the feds can call up to federal duty. It is NOT just any old militia. If you read Presser you'd know this".

And if Presser were to read me he might learn something.

non sequiturs are still fallacies.

 

[danielpalos]

The right to freedom and self defense existed BEFORE the Constitution was written and it will STILL exist after the US has collapsed. Do NOT count upon words on paper to protect your rights! ONLY your willingness and ability to KILL would be usurpers has EVER established or maintained rights. lethal threat is the only thing that tyrants and criminal thugs have ever understood/respected, and nothing about this will ever change. You disarm at the risk of your life and your honor.

You are resorting to a fallacy of composition by confusing what is necessary to the security of a free State and rights in private property declared inalienable or indefeasible in State Constitutions.

 

[WinterBorn]

"Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Free state; not United States.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

BTW- The SC agrees with me.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. 10USC311 applies. Next.

No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

 

[WinterBorn]

Individuals have rights. States may have authority; not rights.

Maybe you missed "..right of the people.." part.

States have rights in relation to the general government of the Union as declared in our Tenth Amendment.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free Sate not individual rights in private property since Arms for the Militia of the United States are declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8--To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

10USC311--10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes -
(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.

Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; Only well regulated Militias are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

Only our federal Congress can prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Me thinks you ain't got a clue.

No weapons are socialized.
The US federal govt may arm the militia. However it also may not arm the militia. So, the militia needs arms in times when A) the govt is tyrannical and B) is not being armed.

So, the 2A is there so there is a ready supply of weapons apart from any government control.

I cited our supreme law of the land; all you have is obsolete propaganda and rhetoric.

No, you did not. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Parts of the US Code have been ruled unconstitutional in the past.

And when it says "...the right of the people" it is referring to individual citizens, not any state gov't.

 

[danielpalos]

"Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Free state; not United States.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

BTW- The SC agrees with me.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. 10USC311 applies. Next.

No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Where is the Term individual rights in private property to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?

 

[danielpalos]

"Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Free state; not United States.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

BTW- The SC agrees with me.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. 10USC311 applies. Next.

No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

There is no Individual right regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[2aguy]

"Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Free state; not United States.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

BTW- The SC agrees with me.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. 10USC311 applies. Next.

No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Where is the Term individual rights in private property to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?

As a gun grabber you are barking up the wrong tree.....you at least don't fantasize about sex with guns or obsess with our penises......that is a nice change of pace for a gun grabber.....

 

[danielpalos]

Individuals have rights. States may have authority; not rights.

Maybe you missed "..right of the people.." part.

States have rights in relation to the general government of the Union as declared in our Tenth Amendment.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free Sate not individual rights in private property since Arms for the Militia of the United States are declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8--To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

10USC311--10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes -
(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.

Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; Only well regulated Militias are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

Only our federal Congress can prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Me thinks you ain't got a clue.

No weapons are socialized.
The US federal govt may arm the militia. However it also may not arm the militia. So, the militia needs arms in times when A) the govt is tyrannical and B) is not being armed.

So, the 2A is there so there is a ready supply of weapons apart from any government control.

I cited our supreme law of the land; all you have is obsolete propaganda and rhetoric.

No, you did not. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Parts of the US Code have been ruled unconstitutional in the past.

And when it says "...the right of the people" it is referring to individual citizens, not any state gov't.

"The People are the Militia", Person on the disingenuous right.

 

[danielpalos]

"Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Free state; not United States.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

BTW- The SC agrees with me.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. 10USC311 applies. Next.

No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Where is the Term individual rights in private property to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?

As a gun grabber you are barking up the wrong tree.....you at least don't fantasize about sex with guns or obsess with our penises......that is a nice change of pace for a gun grabber.....

still nothing but fallacy and claiming you are for any "gospel Truth"?

 

[WinterBorn]

"Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Free state; not United States.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

BTW- The SC agrees with me.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. 10USC311 applies. Next.

No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Where is the Term individual rights in private property to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?

"...the right of the people..." is exactly that. It does not guarantee property, so the gov't does not have to provide guns to individuals. But the right is an individual one.

 

[WinterBorn]

"Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Free state; not United States.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

BTW- The SC agrees with me.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. 10USC311 applies. Next.

No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

There is no Individual right regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.

There is an individual right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights was solely to protect the rights of individuals, not the state.

 

[PredFan]

"Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Free state; not United States.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

BTW- The SC agrees with me.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. 10USC311 applies. Next.

No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Where is the Term individual rights in private property to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?

As a gun grabber you are barking up the wrong tree.....you at least don't fantasize about sex with guns or obsess with our penises......that is a nice change of pace for a gun grabber.....

The idiot thinks the SCOTUS is wrong and he's right. Stupid gun grabbers are stupid.

 

[danielpalos]

"Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Free state; not United States.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

BTW- The SC agrees with me.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. 10USC311 applies. Next.

No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Where is the Term individual rights in private property to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?

"...the right of the people..." is exactly that. It does not guarantee property, so the gov't does not have to provide guns to individuals. But the right is an individual one.

Can those of the opposing view explain in what manner and fashion socializing arms for the militia (Article 1, Section 8 regarding arming the militia) can create rights in private property?

 

[danielpalos]

"Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Free state; not United States.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

BTW- The SC agrees with me.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. 10USC311 applies. Next.

No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

There is no Individual right regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.

There is an individual right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights was solely to protect the rights of individuals, not the state.

You are mistaken since it is States that guarantee rights in private property.

 

[danielpalos]

"Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Free state; not United States.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

BTW- The SC agrees with me.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. 10USC311 applies. Next.

No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Where is the Term individual rights in private property to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?

As a gun grabber you are barking up the wrong tree.....you at least don't fantasize about sex with guns or obsess with our penises......that is a nice change of pace for a gun grabber.....

The idiot thinks the SCOTUS is wrong and he's right. Stupid gun grabbers are stupid.

I know i am the least full of fallacy in any given legal venue and subsequent legal ethic.

 

[WinterBorn]

"Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Free state; not United States.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

BTW- The SC agrees with me.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. 10USC311 applies. Next.

No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

There is no Individual right regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.

There is an individual right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights was solely to protect the rights of individuals, not the state.

You are mistaken since it is States that guarantee rights in private property.

And the US Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms. No one guaranteed that they would GIVE you guns, but they cannot take them without violating the US Constitution. It is not a property rights issue.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. 10USC311 applies. Next.

No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Where is the Term individual rights in private property to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?

As a gun grabber you are barking up the wrong tree.....you at least don't fantasize about sex with guns or obsess with our penises......that is a nice change of pace for a gun grabber.....

The idiot thinks the SCOTUS is wrong and he's right. Stupid gun grabbers are stupid.

I know i am the least full of fallacy in any given legal venue and subsequent legal ethic.

Funny, you cling to the fallacy that the US Code overrules the US Constitution. That is blatantly wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. 10USC311 applies. Next.

No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

There is no Individual right regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.

There is an individual right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights was solely to protect the rights of individuals, not the state.

You are mistaken since it is States that guarantee rights in private property.

And the US Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms. No one guaranteed that they would GIVE you guns, but they cannot take them without violating the US Constitution. It is not a property rights issue.

Yes, the People who are a well regulated Militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when mustered to State or federal service.

 

[danielpalos]

No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Where is the Term individual rights in private property to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?

As a gun grabber you are barking up the wrong tree.....you at least don't fantasize about sex with guns or obsess with our penises......that is a nice change of pace for a gun grabber.....

The idiot thinks the SCOTUS is wrong and he's right. Stupid gun grabbers are stupid.

I know i am the least full of fallacy in any given legal venue and subsequent legal ethic.

Funny, you cling to the fallacy that the US Code overrules the US Constitution. That is blatantly wrong.

It is the understanding of those of the opposing view who must be wrong, by appealing to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.