Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[WinterBorn]

LMAO!! Your claims that a gun, with no outside force involved, is inherently dangerous makes a stronger point than anything else.

Yes, I agree with some of the regulations in place, such as those convicted of felonies or ruled insane should not have guns.

However, the attempt to claim that guns fall under the Commerce clause is ridiculous. But if you want to make the claim that I have proven your point, I guess it makes you feel better.

Not at all; I am on the federal and liberal left. I subscribe to the federal doctrine as described in the federalist papers and enumerated in our supreme law of the land.

Any Thing acquired and possessed as private property may be subject to a Commerce Clause; only the Part of Militia of the United States which is necessary and proper to the security of a free State is exempted due the keeping and bearing of Arms, as distinct from acquisition and possession of private property due to the subject of Arms being declared socialized, as part of the Most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the Convention with our supreme law of the land.--they really did think of every Thing.

Yes they did. That is why they wrote the 2nd amendment and made it separate from the section on militia. This is part of why the SCOTUS ruled it an individual right, and specifically said it was unconnected with service in a militia.

If, it is an Individual right, then it must have come from a State Constitution.

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.

Why should anyone believe Individual rights are declared for what is necessary to the (collective) security of a free State, with the declared terms, militia and the people?

Here is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment:

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.

Any rights only come from the states? What nonsense.

The US Constitution guarantees a number of rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

Yes, rights in the federal districts come from the authority of our federal Constitution. It really is that simple for the several Citizens in the several and sovereign and free States.

The rights in all 50 states plus federal districts come from the US Constitution first, and states second.

 

[danielpalos]

The general government is Only delegated the social Power to legislate "in all Cases whatsoever", in the federal districts, not in the several and sovereign and free States.

 

[WinterBorn]

The general government is Only delegated the social Power to legislate "in all Cases whatsoever", in the federal districts, not in the several and sovereign and free States.

The rights outlined in the first 10 amendments cannot be set aside by any state. Nor can any constitutionally guaranteed right.

 

[danielpalos]

The general government is Only delegated the social Power to legislate "in all Cases whatsoever", in the federal districts, not in the several and sovereign and free States.

The rights outlined in the first 10 amendments cannot be set aside by any state. Nor can any constitutionally guaranteed right.

Our Second Amendment clearly states what is necessary to the security of a free State--10USC311.

 

[WinterBorn]

The general government is Only delegated the social Power to legislate "in all Cases whatsoever", in the federal districts, not in the several and sovereign and free States.

The rights outlined in the first 10 amendments cannot be set aside by any state. Nor can any constitutionally guaranteed right.

Our Second Amendment clearly states what is necessary to the security of a free State--10USC311.

Our 2nd amendment clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And the highest court has ruled in that it is an individual right.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment clearly states what is necessary to the security of a free State--10USC311--thus, the People who are a well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State; gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause, are not.

 

[WinterBorn]

Our Second Amendment clearly states what is necessary to the security of a free State--10USC311--thus, the People who are a well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State; gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause, are not.

The 2nd amendment clearly states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". And the SCOTUS has ruled that this is an individual right, unconnected to service in the militia.

 

[PredFan]

Come on people, Palos is an idiot troll. Let's leave this thread to talk about how gun grabbers Luke him are severely butthurt.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment clearly states what is necessary to the security of a free State--10USC311--thus, the People who are a well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State; gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause, are not.

The 2nd amendment clearly states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". And the SCOTUS has ruled that this is an individual right, unconnected to service in the militia.

If, the People are the Militia, then which Persons of the People may not be Infringed, literally; regardless of all of the other ones?

 

[danielpalos]

Come on people, Palos is an idiot troll. Let's leave this thread to talk about how gun grabbers Luke him are severely butthurt.

the only idiots are the ones who are full of fallacy and have advanced degrees.

 

[WinterBorn]

Our Second Amendment clearly states what is necessary to the security of a free State--10USC311--thus, the People who are a well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State; gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause, are not.

The 2nd amendment clearly states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". And the SCOTUS has ruled that this is an individual right, unconnected to service in the militia.

If, the People are the Militia, then which Persons of the People may not be Infringed, literally; regardless of all of the other ones?

I never said the people were the militia. And SCOTUS has ruled that service in a militia is not required to enjoy the rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

 

[WinterBorn]

Come on people, Palos is an idiot troll. Let's leave this thread to talk about how gun grabbers Luke him are severely butthurt.

the only idiots are the ones who are full of fallacy and have advanced degrees.

No, I think those who makes claims that a SCOTUS ruling supports their position, when in fact, it specifically and explicitly contradicts that position, can be termed an idiot as well.

That you disagree with the SCOTUS does not matter. Their ruling is the law of the land and they have been consistent. So now, if it comes up again, that ruling (and others) provides precedent.

 

[danielpalos]

Come on people, Palos is an idiot troll. Let's leave this thread to talk about how gun grabbers Luke him are severely butthurt.

the only idiots are the ones who are full of fallacy and have advanced degrees.

No, I think those who makes claims that a SCOTUS ruling supports their position, when in fact, it specifically and explicitly contradicts that position, can be termed an idiot as well.

That you disagree with the SCOTUS does not matter. Their ruling is the law of the land and they have been consistent. So now, if it comes up again, that ruling (and others) provides precedent.

Which facts are those?

If, the People are the Militia, then which Persons of the People (10USC311) may not be Infringed, literally; regardless of all of the other ones.

 

[WinterBorn]

Come on people, Palos is an idiot troll. Let's leave this thread to talk about how gun grabbers Luke him are severely butthurt.

the only idiots are the ones who are full of fallacy and have advanced degrees.

No, I think those who makes claims that a SCOTUS ruling supports their position, when in fact, it specifically and explicitly contradicts that position, can be termed an idiot as well.

That you disagree with the SCOTUS does not matter. Their ruling is the law of the land and they have been consistent. So now, if it comes up again, that ruling (and others) provides precedent.

Which facts are those?

If, the People are the Militia, then which Persons of the People (10USC311) may not be Infringed, literally; regardless of all of the other ones.

The people are the militia when needed. But the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, no matter how many times you post it. And the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not dependent on service in a militia, no matter how many times you try and claim differently. A citizens militia can be created from armed citizens, which can also remove a tyrannical gov't, both foreign & domestic. A gov't operated militia could not. Which is one of the reasons Madison wrote the 2nd amendment separately from the main body of the US Constitution which covers militia. If they had intended the 2nd amendment to only apply to the gov't militia, they would not have amde the 2nd amendment separate.

 

[danielpalos]

US Code complements our Constitution; 10USC311 merely defines the term, 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.

Which facts are those?

If, the People are the Militia, then which Persons of the People (10USC311) may not be Infringed, literally; regardless of all of the other ones.

 

[WinterBorn]

US Code complements our Constitution; 10USC311 merely defines the term, 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.

Which facts are those?

If, the People are the Militia, then which Persons of the People (10USC311) may not be Infringed, literally; regardless of all of the other ones.

The fact is that the founding fathers never intended for the 2nd amendment to refer only to gov't militias. That is why it is not in the section which discusses militia. That is also why the SCOTUS ruled as it did.

Which facts? How about the fact that the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. How about the fact that the SCOTUS has never ruled that the 2nd amendment refers to state's rights or that it is reserved only for militia. With those two facts your claims fold like a cheap lawn chair.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you claiming the People are not the Militia?

Isn't that disingenuous.

If, the People are the Militia, then which Persons of the People (10USC311) may not be Infringed, literally; regardless of all of the other ones.

 

[WinterBorn]

Are you claiming the People are not the Militia?

Isn't that disingenuous.

If, the People are the Militia, then which Persons of the People (10USC311) may not be Infringed, literally; regardless of all of the other ones.

No, I am not saying the people are not militia.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia.

Our Second Amendment is not ambiguous at all.

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.

Thus, Only well regulated Militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[WinterBorn]

The People are the Militia.

Our Second Amendment is not ambiguous at all.

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.

Thus, Only well regulated Militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

A citizens militia is formed as needed. An armed people makes that possible. The 2nd amendment is not solely for state militias. The SCOTUS has ruled on that consistently as well.