Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[PredFan]

Typical left wing Nutter. The SCOTUS says you are wrong. They count, you don't.

End of story moron.

 

[danielpalos]

You Only and Merely need to resort to your habitual fallacies, to lose your argument in any serious venue.

 

[pauls]

Nature would be a more peaceful place if we hobbled the deer and antelope and removed their horns and antlers.
I was assured of that by a lion and a wolf!

All the animals in nature are provided means to defend themselves. Why is it that some think that mankind would be better off unarmed?

 

[danielpalos]

Nature would be a more peaceful place if we hobbled the deer and antelope and removed their horns and antlers.
I was assured of that by a lion and a wolf!

All the animals in nature are provided means to defend themselves. Why is it that some think that mankind would be better off unarmed?

I am not sure what you mean. Well regulated militias of the People are a State's sovereign right and tasked with repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Both Federal and many State constitutions affirm that right of the individual. You cannot have a well regulated militia with that right of the individual.

 

[danielpalos]

Both Federal and many State constitutions affirm that right of the individual. You cannot have a well regulated militia with that right of the individual.

Why do you believe that? Rights in private property are distinct from being a well regulated militia who may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for your State or the Union.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Both Federal and many State constitutions affirm that right of the individual. You cannot have a well regulated militia with that right of the individual.

Why do you believe that? Rights in private property are distinct from being a well regulated militia who may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for your State or the Union.

It's true. Why are you so determined to believe an obvious and thoroughly refuted lie. My State guarantees the right to keep and bear arms without sort of verbiage about militias. Wonder why.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

See, if I came on here to play guess the clue game, I'd be happy. However I don't come on here for that. Again, if you have a point, make it, if you don't, don't bother replying.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Would it be possible to translate this into English so I might have a clue what you're talking about?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

At least one person is being honest.

 

[danielpalos]

Both Federal and many State constitutions affirm that right of the individual. You cannot have a well regulated militia with that right of the individual.

Why do you believe that? Rights in private property are distinct from being a well regulated militia who may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for your State or the Union.

It's true. Why are you so determined to believe an obvious and thoroughly refuted lie. My State guarantees the right to keep and bear arms without sort of verbiage about militias. Wonder why.

No. I have read State Constitutions where rights in private property are secured with the terms, acquire or possess to denote specifically, rights in private property with no militia qualification. An inalienable or indefeasible right in private property is distinct from keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of a free State.

I Only wonder why the right is so active in affirmative action threads regarding equal work for equal pay.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Would it be possible to translate this into English so I might have a clue what you're talking about?

sorry, Google Translate doesn't have an option for Clueless and Causeless

 

[9thIDdoc]

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions, by Date

Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *

Now available in published form at State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, 11 Texas Rev. of Law & Politics 191 (2006).
(incomplete)

1792 Kentucky:That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned...

1817 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State.

1818 Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

1868 Texas: Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe.

1868 Mississippi:All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence...

1870 Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense...

1875 Missouri:That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question...

1963 Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms...

1971 New Mexico:No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes...

1982 New Hampshire:All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state...

1984 North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

1984 Utah:The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed...

1986 West Virginia:A person has the right to keep and bear arms...

1987 Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms...

1988 Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof...

1998 Wisconsin:The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose...

 

[danielpalos]

So what: All you are citing is a color for authority for necessary and proper gun control laws for Persons considered specifically unconnected with militia service well regulated.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Read.
"..the right of the citizens..." ,."... Every citizen has a right to bear arms " "...Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself..." "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms...""the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms..." ".. the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms..."...No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes...""The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms... shall not be infringed..."

Obviously the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the individual; not of some militia (well regulated or otherwise) according to state constitutions. But feel free to try to twist those words to suit your agenda. The results should be humorous.

 

[danielpalos]

Here is the simple version from several State Constitutions, for the ease and convenience of the right.

Here is where rights in private property are secured:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Here is where Arms are specifically considered to effectuate the above:

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

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.

Thus no uninfringed right to acquire and possess Arms since that class of private property is explicit regarding police power.

Notice the difference between a right to acquire and possess and a right to keep and bear Arms (for a State or the Union):

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.

Simply because Only well regulated militias under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

It really is that simple, except to the Right.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Simply because Only well regulatedmilitias under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

Unfortunately for your argument neither the US nor state constitutions say any such thing nor have you been able to show where any such thing was intended. All you've given is your own personal fantasy .of how you think things should be and attempts to .deceive by parsing words. Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms and that right (as shown above) is expressly guaranteed for purposes other than militia service (although that may be included). Neither the Federal nor state government have the authority to infringe on individual rights and any attempt to do so is clearly tyranny and just cause for that governments' removal. Hopefully you will find someone who can read plain English to explain this to you.

 

[danielpalos]

did you run out of attention when reading my wall of text for that Purpose?

Simply because Only well regulated militias under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

It really is that simple, except to the Right.

 

[pauls]

danielpalos,
A few years ago the US supreme court conceded that the right to keep and bear arms was related to individuals - just like all the other enumerated rights in the bill of rights.

The right to keep and bear arms is for every individual and not dependent on service within a militia.

 

[frigidweirdo]

danielpalos,
A few years ago the US supreme court conceded that the right to keep and bear arms was related to individuals - just like all the other enumerated rights in the bill of rights.

The right to keep and bear arms is for every individual and not dependent on service within a militia.

Exactly. The whole point is that the right to keep arms is so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons, especially if the US Federal govt went bad and took away all of the Militia's other weapons.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so the militia has someone to use those guns.

The right has to be individual, otherwise it just wouldn't work. The Feds could take away your guns if they were militia guns, and not privately owned guns. They could also stop people being in the militia if there wasn't a right to be in the militia (bear arms).