Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[WinterBorn]

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.

No. The SCOTUS has ruled consistently that the right to bear arms is an individual one. To be able to throw off the yoke of tyranny, it doesn't make sense to give the tyrant total control over all the weapons. And considering the people who wrote the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and what they had been thru, that is the fundamental reasoning behind the 2nd amendment. It was not just to ward off invaders.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Since there can be several ways to interpret the wording of the 2nd amendment, we must look to the other writings and consider the context under which the 2nd amendment was written. Doing so shows that my interpretation is correct.

And the only way for your interpretation to be correct is to ignore the other written views of the founding fathers, and to pretend that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the states as well. It wasn't.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No. The SCOTUS has ruled consistently that the right to bear arms is an individual one. To be able to throw off the yoke of tyranny, it doesn't make sense to give the tyrant total control over all the weapons. And considering the people who wrote the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and what they had been thru, that is the fundamental reasoning behind the 2nd amendment. It was not just to ward off invaders.

A well regulated Militia is what is declared necessary to the security of a free State. Whence any color for any authority repugnant to the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment as declared in the first clause?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Since there can be several ways to interpret the wording of the 2nd amendment, we must look to the other writings and consider the context under which the 2nd amendment was written. Doing so shows that my interpretation is correct.

And the only way for your interpretation to be correct is to ignore the other written views of the founding fathers, and to pretend that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the states as well. It wasn't.

There is Only one Intent and Purpose for that collective right.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

No. The SCOTUS has ruled consistently that the right to bear arms is an individual one. To be able to throw off the yoke of tyranny, it doesn't make sense to give the tyrant total control over all the weapons. And considering the people who wrote the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and what they had been thru, that is the fundamental reasoning behind the 2nd amendment. It was not just to ward off invaders.

A well regulated Militia is what is declared necessary to the security of a free State. Whence any color for any authority repugnant to the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment as declared in the first clause?

If the state or federal gov't is the cause of the loss of freedom, as the founding father wrote about, then the people should be armed to throw off the yoke of tyranny. That is the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Since there can be several ways to interpret the wording of the 2nd amendment, we must look to the other writings and consider the context under which the 2nd amendment was written. Doing so shows that my interpretation is correct.

And the only way for your interpretation to be correct is to ignore the other written views of the founding fathers, and to pretend that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the states as well. It wasn't.

There is Only one Intent and Purpose for that collective right.

To maintain a free people, which is why the right is guaranteed to the people and not the state.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, your claims fly in the face of every SCOTUS ruling and the words of the framers of the US Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. I am not going to argue anymore.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

The supreme law of the land and the court that is charged with interpreting it say there is. Game over. You lose.

 

[2aguy]

Daniel, your claims fly in the face of every SCOTUS ruling and the words of the framers of the US Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. I am not going to argue anymore.

And it flies in the face of natural rights.....the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not "grant" us anything......we wrote it down so the statists won't forget.......now they pretend they can't read.....

 

[PredFan]

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.

No. The SCOTUS has ruled consistently that the right to bear arms is an individual one. To be able to throw off the yoke of tyranny, it doesn't make sense to give the tyrant total control over all the weapons. And considering the people who wrote the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and what they had been thru, that is the fundamental reasoning behind the 2nd amendment. It was not just to ward off invaders.

A well regulated Militia is what is declared necessary to the security of a free State. Whence any color for any authority repugnant to the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment as declared in the first clause?

ZZZZZzzzzzzz.....that drivel you keep parroting is not only meaningless, but it's borung the shit out of everyone.

Here's the bottom line, you poor poor liberal gun grabbers have been getting your ignorant asses handed to you by the NRA and free Americans.

Suck it moron.

 

[danielpalos]

y'all need to put your arguments in writing; hearsay and soothsay won't work in this case.

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;

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free Sate not individual rights..."

Absolutely untrue. And pretty idiotic. You aren't paying attention. The Bill of Rights is all about individual rights. About as basic as it gets.

 

[danielpalos]

"Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free Sate not individual rights..."

Absolutely untrue. And pretty idiotic. You aren't paying attention. The Bill of Rights is all about individual rights. About as basic as it gets.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

So you cited something you don't understand and you make conclusions that are simply wrong? Well... that's not my fault.

I'll show you what I have.

First, I'll cite the US Constitution, as you have done.

"
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;"

The Federal govt has the power to call forth "the Militia". "The" being the definite article. This means there is one of one. One Militia from only one militia to choose from. This one militia is the militia that can be called up to Federal service, it is the one militia which, as you can see, has officers appointed by the states and is trained by the authority of the state and according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

There is only one Militia. This one militia is broken down into many parts as each state will have it's own part of this militia.

The US Second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia,", this is merely a statement that a well regulated militia is necessary. It's still in the singular.

Anyways. What is the purpose of this militia? It was used to protect the militia from US govt maladministration. The govt had the power to arm the militia, it had the power to also not bother arming the militia. A tyrannical govt would not bother arming the militia at all. So a militia whole comprised of federal arms would only be useful when it wasn't need to take down bad govt.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

In the House while discussing the 2A.

Mr Gerry began with: "This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government;"

The Bill of Rights was about securing the people against mal-administration.

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So, he's saying that if you allowed the US Federal govt to declare all individuals religiously scrupulous then you would not have them in the militia (the right to bear arms being the right to be in the militia).

This basically means that in order to protect the militia you have an individual right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons, and you protect the right of an individual to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use such weapons.

You can see from the debate in the House that Mr Gerry and others were using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service". Therefore it is clear that the right is the individual right to be in the militia. You look for the purpose and it all makes sense.

If individuals are protected in keeping arms, for the purpose that one day they might be able to use them in militia duty, for which they have a right to do, then militia arms are not socialised as you claim.

The US govt, or the state govts may arm the Militia as they see fit. They may also not bother. The people also have a right to own arms so the militia has a ready supply.

No propaganda, no rhetoric. It's all based on fact.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"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.

Presser is dead. He can't read.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"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.

You want to make a point? Make it.

 

[danielpalos]

"Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free Sate not individual rights..."

Absolutely untrue. And pretty idiotic. You aren't paying attention. The Bill of Rights is all about individual rights. About as basic as it gets.

Only if you don't believe in States' sovereign rights.

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.

For the ease and convenience of the Right and the South, the underlined Part is the Intent and Purpose of that law.

 

[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.

So you cited something you don't understand and you make conclusions that are simply wrong? Well... that's not my fault.

I'll show you what I have.

First, I'll cite the US Constitution, as you have done.

"
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;"

The Federal govt has the power to call forth "the Militia". "The" being the definite article. This means there is one of one. One Militia from only one militia to choose from. This one militia is the militia that can be called up to Federal service, it is the one militia which, as you can see, has officers appointed by the states and is trained by the authority of the state and according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

There is only one Militia. This one militia is broken down into many parts as each state will have it's own part of this militia.

The US Second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia,", this is merely a statement that a well regulated militia is necessary. It's still in the singular.

Anyways. What is the purpose of this militia? It was used to protect the militia from US govt maladministration. The govt had the power to arm the militia, it had the power to also not bother arming the militia. A tyrannical govt would not bother arming the militia at all. So a militia whole comprised of federal arms would only be useful when it wasn't need to take down bad govt.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

In the House while discussing the 2A.

Mr Gerry began with: "This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government;"

The Bill of Rights was about securing the people against mal-administration.

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So, he's saying that if you allowed the US Federal govt to declare all individuals religiously scrupulous then you would not have them in the militia (the right to bear arms being the right to be in the militia).

This basically means that in order to protect the militia you have an individual right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons, and you protect the right of an individual to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use such weapons.

You can see from the debate in the House that Mr Gerry and others were using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service". Therefore it is clear that the right is the individual right to be in the militia. You look for the purpose and it all makes sense.

If individuals are protected in keeping arms, for the purpose that one day they might be able to use them in militia duty, for which they have a right to do, then militia arms are not socialised as you claim.

The US govt, or the state govts may arm the Militia as they see fit. They may also not bother. The people also have a right to own arms so the militia has a ready supply.

No propaganda, no rhetoric. It's all based on fact.

Propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for faith in our supreme law of the land, simply Because our Founding Fathers did such an Most Excellent job at the Convention.

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.

The underlined part, frigidwierdo to the Cause of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation and a moral of bearing True witness to one's State motto: Eureka!; is the Intent and Purpose of that law.

Any questions or only more fallacies to prove your loyalty to our California Republic.

 

[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.

You want to make a point? Make it.

Merely that you need to acquire and possess a clue and a Cause for me to take you seriously any longer.

 

[prison/con.net]

regardless of what the 2nd meant back then, today it means that we'll shoot you if you try to take our guns. Tough stuff.