Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

No, the entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated Militia of Individuals of the People of the United States.

You are welcome to continue to repeat that. But SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, has ruled otherwise. And has done so consistently. Never have they ruled that the point of the 2nd amendment was a state militia. In fact, they have explicitly said differently.

Should we ask for a mandamus in order to obtain an answer even more definitive and and comprehensive, than even Madison's, Republican Doctrine?

The entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated Militia of Individuals of the People of the United States.

You continue to neglect to include the rest of the amendment.

"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." Now if this were strictly addressing the militia, it would have been included in the section of the constitution concerning militia. It was not.

And there is no need for a mandamus when the ruling in DC v. Heller is quite clear.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

There is no vacuum of special pleading since it is an appeal to ignorance of the standard operation of the law; thus, the second clause cannot be "read" on its own since it would not be included without the first clause; because, rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.

This is not about property rights, per se.

And the SCOTUS is quite clear about what the 2nd amendment means. You may disagree, but that changes nothing. Your attempts to obscure your point in flowery language also changes nothing. There is no appeal to ignorance by the SCOTUS in their ruling on DC v. Heller. Perhaps if you did not know Madison's intent, I could say that you are ignorant about the history and reasoning behind the 2nd amendment. But since I have shown you, I can only call it willful stupidity or a refusal to admit you are wrong.

I have no issue with your intelligence (much). But to claim that you are better suited to interpret the US Constitution than the majority of justices on the US Supreme Court is a bit much.

I have shown you Madison's intent. I have shown you that the US Supreme Court has ruled against your claims.

I think I have done enough. Now you are trolling.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument; i rest my case.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are welcome to continue to repeat that. But SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, has ruled otherwise. And has done so consistently. Never have they ruled that the point of the 2nd amendment was a state militia. In fact, they have explicitly said differently.

Should we ask for a mandamus in order to obtain an answer even more definitive and and comprehensive, than even Madison's, Republican Doctrine?

The entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated Militia of Individuals of the People of the United States.

You continue to neglect to include the rest of the amendment.

"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." Now if this were strictly addressing the militia, it would have been included in the section of the constitution concerning militia. It was not.

And there is no need for a mandamus when the ruling in DC v. Heller is quite clear.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

There is no vacuum of special pleading since it is an appeal to ignorance of the standard operation of the law; thus, the second clause cannot be "read" on its own since it would not be included without the first clause; because, rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.

This is not about property rights, per se.

And the SCOTUS is quite clear about what the 2nd amendment means. You may disagree, but that changes nothing. Your attempts to obscure your point in flowery language also changes nothing. There is no appeal to ignorance by the SCOTUS in their ruling on DC v. Heller. Perhaps if you did not know Madison's intent, I could say that you are ignorant about the history and reasoning behind the 2nd amendment. But since I have shown you, I can only call it willful stupidity or a refusal to admit you are wrong.

I have no issue with your intelligence (much). But to claim that you are better suited to interpret the US Constitution than the majority of justices on the US Supreme Court is a bit much.

I have shown you Madison's intent. I have shown you that the US Supreme Court has ruled against your claims.

I think I have done enough. Now you are trolling.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument; i rest my case.

LMAO! If that is what you need to think.

 

[danielpalos]

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

Can you cite where in our Second Amendment that right is to be found. Keep and bear is not the same as acquire and possess, if we should have to quibble in legal venues.

Keep and bear are the same as possess. If we are allowed to keep something, it is allowed in our possession. If we are allowed to bear arms, we are allowed to possess arms.

I agree to disagree. They cannot be the same or we would not need those different phrases in our lexicon.

In any Case, our supreme law of the land cannot be reducible to a mere fraction of its supreme self.

In order to support your claim, we would need to resort to Nine-Tenths of our supreme law of the land regarding possession.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]

Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

Thus, keeping and bearing Arms is more supreme by one-tenth than acquiring and possessing.

 

[WinterBorn]

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

Can you cite where in our Second Amendment that right is to be found. Keep and bear is not the same as acquire and possess, if we should have to quibble in legal venues.

Keep and bear are the same as possess. If we are allowed to keep something, it is allowed in our possession. If we are allowed to bear arms, we are allowed to possess arms.

I agree to disagree. They cannot be the same or we would not need those different phrases in our lexicon.

In any Case, our supreme law of the land cannot be reducible to a mere fraction of its supreme self.

In order to support your claim, we would need to resort to Nine-Tenths of our supreme law of the land regarding possession.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]

Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

Thus, keeping and bearing Arms is more supreme by one-tenth than acquiring and possessing.

If their meaning is not exactly the same, they are certainly close. If your argument now rests on the claim that "keep and bear" do not mean that citizens cannot have them, you are truly getting desperate.

 

[danielpalos]

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

Can you cite where in our Second Amendment that right is to be found. Keep and bear is not the same as acquire and possess, if we should have to quibble in legal venues.

Keep and bear are the same as possess. If we are allowed to keep something, it is allowed in our possession. If we are allowed to bear arms, we are allowed to possess arms.

I agree to disagree. They cannot be the same or we would not need those different phrases in our lexicon.

In any Case, our supreme law of the land cannot be reducible to a mere fraction of its supreme self.

In order to support your claim, we would need to resort to Nine-Tenths of our supreme law of the land regarding possession.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]

Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

Thus, keeping and bearing Arms is more supreme by one-tenth than acquiring and possessing.

If their meaning is not exactly the same, they are certainly close. If your argument now rests on the claim that "keep and bear" do not mean that citizens cannot have them, you are truly getting desperate.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean, should private citizens have to quibble with the Militia of the United States, well regulated, in that office of public Trust. Did you miss the historical precedent of our Civil War?

 

[WinterBorn]

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

Can you cite where in our Second Amendment that right is to be found. Keep and bear is not the same as acquire and possess, if we should have to quibble in legal venues.

Keep and bear are the same as possess. If we are allowed to keep something, it is allowed in our possession. If we are allowed to bear arms, we are allowed to possess arms.

I agree to disagree. They cannot be the same or we would not need those different phrases in our lexicon.

In any Case, our supreme law of the land cannot be reducible to a mere fraction of its supreme self.

In order to support your claim, we would need to resort to Nine-Tenths of our supreme law of the land regarding possession.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]

Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

Thus, keeping and bearing Arms is more supreme by one-tenth than acquiring and possessing.

If their meaning is not exactly the same, they are certainly close. If your argument now rests on the claim that "keep and bear" do not mean that citizens cannot have them, you are truly getting desperate.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean, should private citizens have to quibble with the Militia of the United States, well regulated, in that office of public Trust. Did you miss the historical precedent of our Civil War?

I did not miss the intent of James Madison. I did not miss the rulings of the US Supreme Court.

And I am enjoying the benefits of the law of the land which guarantees its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[danielpalos]

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

Can you cite where in our Second Amendment that right is to be found. Keep and bear is not the same as acquire and possess, if we should have to quibble in legal venues.

Keep and bear are the same as possess. If we are allowed to keep something, it is allowed in our possession. If we are allowed to bear arms, we are allowed to possess arms.

I agree to disagree. They cannot be the same or we would not need those different phrases in our lexicon.

In any Case, our supreme law of the land cannot be reducible to a mere fraction of its supreme self.

In order to support your claim, we would need to resort to Nine-Tenths of our supreme law of the land regarding possession.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]

Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

Thus, keeping and bearing Arms is more supreme by one-tenth than acquiring and possessing.

If their meaning is not exactly the same, they are certainly close. If your argument now rests on the claim that "keep and bear" do not mean that citizens cannot have them, you are truly getting desperate.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean, should private citizens have to quibble with the Militia of the United States, well regulated, in that office of public Trust. Did you miss the historical precedent of our Civil War?

I did not miss the intent of James Madison. I did not miss the rulings of the US Supreme Court.

And I am enjoying the benefits of the law of the land which guarantees its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

Acquire and possess is not the same as keep and bear.

In any case, are you claiming that militias of the United States well regulated, may not Infringe upon the Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms, who may be disturbing the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States; whilst, the militia (well regulated) enjoys literal recourse to our Second Amendment?

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

 

[WinterBorn]

Keep and bear are the same as possess. If we are allowed to keep something, it is allowed in our possession. If we are allowed to bear arms, we are allowed to possess arms.

I agree to disagree. They cannot be the same or we would not need those different phrases in our lexicon.

In any Case, our supreme law of the land cannot be reducible to a mere fraction of its supreme self.

In order to support your claim, we would need to resort to Nine-Tenths of our supreme law of the land regarding possession.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]

Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

Thus, keeping and bearing Arms is more supreme by one-tenth than acquiring and possessing.

If their meaning is not exactly the same, they are certainly close. If your argument now rests on the claim that "keep and bear" do not mean that citizens cannot have them, you are truly getting desperate.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean, should private citizens have to quibble with the Militia of the United States, well regulated, in that office of public Trust. Did you miss the historical precedent of our Civil War?

I did not miss the intent of James Madison. I did not miss the rulings of the US Supreme Court.

And I am enjoying the benefits of the law of the land which guarantees its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

Acquire and possess is not the same as keep and bear.

In any case, are you claiming that militias of the United States well regulated, may not Infringe upon the Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms, who may be disturbing the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States; whilst, the militia (well regulated) enjoys literal recourse to our Second Amendment?

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

I have never maintained that anyone should be exempt from the laws. If an armed citizen is breaking the law, they should be disarmed and arrested. If they are found guilty of a felony they forfeit the right to own a gun.

 

[danielpalos]

I agree to disagree. They cannot be the same or we would not need those different phrases in our lexicon.

In any Case, our supreme law of the land cannot be reducible to a mere fraction of its supreme self.

In order to support your claim, we would need to resort to Nine-Tenths of our supreme law of the land regarding possession.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]

Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

Thus, keeping and bearing Arms is more supreme by one-tenth than acquiring and possessing.

If their meaning is not exactly the same, they are certainly close. If your argument now rests on the claim that "keep and bear" do not mean that citizens cannot have them, you are truly getting desperate.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean, should private citizens have to quibble with the Militia of the United States, well regulated, in that office of public Trust. Did you miss the historical precedent of our Civil War?

I did not miss the intent of James Madison. I did not miss the rulings of the US Supreme Court.

And I am enjoying the benefits of the law of the land which guarantees its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

Acquire and possess is not the same as keep and bear.

In any case, are you claiming that militias of the United States well regulated, may not Infringe upon the Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms, who may be disturbing the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States; whilst, the militia (well regulated) enjoys literal recourse to our Second Amendment?

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

I have never maintained that anyone should be exempt from the laws. If an armed citizen is breaking the law, they should be disarmed and arrested. If they are found guilty of a felony they forfeit the right to own a gun.

You are confusing keeping and bearing Arms with acquiring and possessing Arms for personal use as a private citizen.

 

[WinterBorn]

If their meaning is not exactly the same, they are certainly close. If your argument now rests on the claim that "keep and bear" do not mean that citizens cannot have them, you are truly getting desperate.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean, should private citizens have to quibble with the Militia of the United States, well regulated, in that office of public Trust. Did you miss the historical precedent of our Civil War?

I did not miss the intent of James Madison. I did not miss the rulings of the US Supreme Court.

And I am enjoying the benefits of the law of the land which guarantees its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

Acquire and possess is not the same as keep and bear.

In any case, are you claiming that militias of the United States well regulated, may not Infringe upon the Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms, who may be disturbing the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States; whilst, the militia (well regulated) enjoys literal recourse to our Second Amendment?

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

I have never maintained that anyone should be exempt from the laws. If an armed citizen is breaking the law, they should be disarmed and arrested. If they are found guilty of a felony they forfeit the right to own a gun.

You are confusing keeping and bearing Arms with acquiring and possessing Arms for personal use as a private citizen.

You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms. I answered.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, that is exactly what I mean, should private citizens have to quibble with the Militia of the United States, well regulated, in that office of public Trust. Did you miss the historical precedent of our Civil War?

I did not miss the intent of James Madison. I did not miss the rulings of the US Supreme Court.

And I am enjoying the benefits of the law of the land which guarantees its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

Acquire and possess is not the same as keep and bear.

In any case, are you claiming that militias of the United States well regulated, may not Infringe upon the Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms, who may be disturbing the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States; whilst, the militia (well regulated) enjoys literal recourse to our Second Amendment?

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

I have never maintained that anyone should be exempt from the laws. If an armed citizen is breaking the law, they should be disarmed and arrested. If they are found guilty of a felony they forfeit the right to own a gun.

You are confusing keeping and bearing Arms with acquiring and possessing Arms for personal use as a private citizen.

You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms. I answered.

The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..

 

[WinterBorn]

I did not miss the intent of James Madison. I did not miss the rulings of the US Supreme Court.

And I am enjoying the benefits of the law of the land which guarantees its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

Acquire and possess is not the same as keep and bear.

In any case, are you claiming that militias of the United States well regulated, may not Infringe upon the Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms, who may be disturbing the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States; whilst, the militia (well regulated) enjoys literal recourse to our Second Amendment?

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

I have never maintained that anyone should be exempt from the laws. If an armed citizen is breaking the law, they should be disarmed and arrested. If they are found guilty of a felony they forfeit the right to own a gun.

You are confusing keeping and bearing Arms with acquiring and possessing Arms for personal use as a private citizen.

You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms. I answered.

The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..

The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights. They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.

 

[danielpalos]

Acquire and possess is not the same as keep and bear.

In any case, are you claiming that militias of the United States well regulated, may not Infringe upon the Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms, who may be disturbing the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States; whilst, the militia (well regulated) enjoys literal recourse to our Second Amendment?

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

I have never maintained that anyone should be exempt from the laws. If an armed citizen is breaking the law, they should be disarmed and arrested. If they are found guilty of a felony they forfeit the right to own a gun.

You are confusing keeping and bearing Arms with acquiring and possessing Arms for personal use as a private citizen.

You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms. I answered.

The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..

The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights. They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.

While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have never maintained that anyone should be exempt from the laws. If an armed citizen is breaking the law, they should be disarmed and arrested. If they are found guilty of a felony they forfeit the right to own a gun.

You are confusing keeping and bearing Arms with acquiring and possessing Arms for personal use as a private citizen.

You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms. I answered.

The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..

The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights. They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.

While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.

Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state. Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?

 

[2aguy]

You are confusing keeping and bearing Arms with acquiring and possessing Arms for personal use as a private citizen.

You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms. I answered.

The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..

The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights. They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.

While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.

Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state. Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?

"Shouldn't that be assumed." I think that is the core of our justice system....innocent until proven guilty, you know, that little thing we have in this country....except when it is inconvenient for the leftwing statists.....

 

[danielpalos]

You are confusing keeping and bearing Arms with acquiring and possessing Arms for personal use as a private citizen.

You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms. I answered.

The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..

The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights. They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.

While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.

Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state. Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?

Gun statistics already asked for their assumption, first.

 

[danielpalos]

You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms. I answered.

The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..

The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights. They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.

While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.

Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state. Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?

"Shouldn't that be assumed." I think that is the core of our justice system....innocent until proven guilty, you know, that little thing we have in this country....except when it is inconvenient for the leftwing statists.....

Except, it doesn't work if the goals posts are moved via any law.

 

[WinterBorn]

You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms. I answered.

The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..

The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights. They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.

While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.

Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state. Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?

Gun statistics already asked for their assumption, first.

More nonsense.

The gun stats show the exact opposite.

There are an estimated 75,000,000 legal gun owners in the US.

There are around 9k gun related murders every year. So if all the gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (not even close) then 0.012% of gun owners have committed a murder with a gun.

In addition to the 9k gun murders there are around 22k people who commit suicide with a gun, 78,000 accidental gun related injuries and around 600 accidental gun deaths. This puts the total harmed at 109,600. Again, if all those were legal guns, they still only account for 0.15% of the legal gun owners. In other words, 99.85% of the legal gun owners have not harmed anyone, including themselves, with their firearms.

 

[WinterBorn]

The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..

The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights. They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.

While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.

Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state. Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?

"Shouldn't that be assumed." I think that is the core of our justice system....innocent until proven guilty, you know, that little thing we have in this country....except when it is inconvenient for the leftwing statists.....

Except, it doesn't work if the goals posts are moved via any law.

So don't move the goal posts.

 

[danielpalos]

You are barking up the wrong tree; it is a "health and safety" issue.