Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[WinterBorn]

Sounds like we may need a writ of mandate to settle this issue.

There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.

The People are the Militia. Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.

No need for a writ of mandate. It has already been settled by the highest court in the nation, as I have stated numerous times.

And just as an FYI:

From Merriam-Webster
"keep
verb \ˈkēp\
: to continue having or holding (something) : to not return, lose, sell, give away, or throw away (something)

: to continue in a specified state, condition, or position

: to cause (someone or something) to continue in a specified state, condition, or position"

I didn't see this argument in any holding.

There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People. Both terms are plural, not Individual.

Keep is not the Only term used. Keep is presented with bear; which has specific military applications for a militia, but not Individuals merely acquiring and possessing private property in the class called Arms.

The People are the Militia. A well regulated Militia of the People is necessary to the security of a free State. Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.

"Bear" is not a military term. This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.

And of course "the People" is plural. The amendment cover all citizens. Even back then there were more than one.

 

[danielpalos]

Sounds like we may need a writ of mandate to settle this issue.

There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.

The People are the Militia. Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.

No need for a writ of mandate. It has already been settled by the highest court in the nation, as I have stated numerous times.

And just as an FYI:

From Merriam-Webster
"keep
verb \ˈkēp\
: to continue having or holding (something) : to not return, lose, sell, give away, or throw away (something)

: to continue in a specified state, condition, or position

: to cause (someone or something) to continue in a specified state, condition, or position"

I didn't see this argument in any holding.

There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People. Both terms are plural, not Individual.

Keep is not the Only term used. Keep is presented with bear; which has specific military applications for a militia, but not Individuals merely acquiring and possessing private property in the class called Arms.

The People are the Militia. A well regulated Militia of the People is necessary to the security of a free State. Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.

"Bear" is not a military term. This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.

And of course "the People" is plural. The amendment cover all citizens. Even back then there were more than one.

Yes, bear is a military term. To bear Arms for our Republic is one such usage.

The People is plural as is Militia but not Individual.

 

[WinterBorn]

Sounds like we may need a writ of mandate to settle this issue.

There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.

The People are the Militia. Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.

No need for a writ of mandate. It has already been settled by the highest court in the nation, as I have stated numerous times.

And just as an FYI:

From Merriam-Webster
"keep
verb \ˈkēp\
: to continue having or holding (something) : to not return, lose, sell, give away, or throw away (something)

: to continue in a specified state, condition, or position

: to cause (someone or something) to continue in a specified state, condition, or position"

I didn't see this argument in any holding.

There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People. Both terms are plural, not Individual.

Keep is not the Only term used. Keep is presented with bear; which has specific military applications for a militia, but not Individuals merely acquiring and possessing private property in the class called Arms.

The People are the Militia. A well regulated Militia of the People is necessary to the security of a free State. Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.

"Bear" is not a military term. This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.

And of course "the People" is plural. The amendment cover all citizens. Even back then there were more than one.

Yes, bear is a military term. To bear Arms for our Republic is one such usage.

The People is plural as is Militia but not Individual.

Absolutely ridiculous.

The word "bear" may not be part of the common vernacular, but there is nothing at all to suggest that it relates only to a militia. You are grasping at straws. There is no appeal to ignorance of vocabulary.

The 4th amendment uses the word "people" too. Does that mean that only the state or a militia is guaranteed to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


And if "people" means the state, then why does the 10th amendment say "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."?

The 10th amendment makes it VERY obvious that "the people" and "the state(s)" are not the same thing at all.

 

[danielpalos]

Sounds like we may need a writ of mandate to settle this issue.

There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.

The People are the Militia. Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.

No need for a writ of mandate. It has already been settled by the highest court in the nation, as I have stated numerous times.

And just as an FYI:

From Merriam-Webster
"keep
verb \ˈkēp\
: to continue having or holding (something) : to not return, lose, sell, give away, or throw away (something)

: to continue in a specified state, condition, or position

: to cause (someone or something) to continue in a specified state, condition, or position"

I didn't see this argument in any holding.

There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People. Both terms are plural, not Individual.

Keep is not the Only term used. Keep is presented with bear; which has specific military applications for a militia, but not Individuals merely acquiring and possessing private property in the class called Arms.

The People are the Militia. A well regulated Militia of the People is necessary to the security of a free State. Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.

"Bear" is not a military term. This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.

And of course "the People" is plural. The amendment cover all citizens. Even back then there were more than one.

Yes, bear is a military term. To bear Arms for our Republic is one such usage.

The People is plural as is Militia but not Individual.

Absolutely ridiculous.

The word "bear" may not be part of the common vernacular, but there is nothing at all to suggest that it relates only to a militia. You are grasping at straws. There is no appeal to ignorance of vocabulary.

The 4th amendment uses the word "people" too. Does that mean that only the state or a militia is guaranteed to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


And if "people" means the state, then why does the 10th amendment say "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."?

The 10th amendment makes it VERY obvious that "the people" and "the state(s)" are not the same thing at all.

How can I be grasping at straws when those terms were included by our Founding Fathers in an amendment that contains a militia clause.

A militia is a military body of the citizenry and military terms are appropriate. Individual terms are not appropriate in our Second Amendment since the Intent and Purpose is the security of a free State, not security of Individual rights in private property.

Because, Arms are declared socialized for the Militia should there be any need to quibble this point in legal venues; simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself and cannot be read on its own should there be Any ambiguity.

The Fourth Amendment does not contain a militia clause. Both the People and the Militia are collective, not Individual.

The Tenth Amendment also covers Body politics such as States and the People in their collective capacity as the electorate and citizenry in the several States; with corresponding privileges and immunities.

 

[WinterBorn]

No need for a writ of mandate. It has already been settled by the highest court in the nation, as I have stated numerous times.

And just as an FYI:

From Merriam-Webster
"keep
verb \ˈkēp\
: to continue having or holding (something) : to not return, lose, sell, give away, or throw away (something)

: to continue in a specified state, condition, or position

: to cause (someone or something) to continue in a specified state, condition, or position"

I didn't see this argument in any holding.

There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People. Both terms are plural, not Individual.

Keep is not the Only term used. Keep is presented with bear; which has specific military applications for a militia, but not Individuals merely acquiring and possessing private property in the class called Arms.

The People are the Militia. A well regulated Militia of the People is necessary to the security of a free State. Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.

"Bear" is not a military term. This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.

And of course "the People" is plural. The amendment cover all citizens. Even back then there were more than one.

Yes, bear is a military term. To bear Arms for our Republic is one such usage.

The People is plural as is Militia but not Individual.

Absolutely ridiculous.

The word "bear" may not be part of the common vernacular, but there is nothing at all to suggest that it relates only to a militia. You are grasping at straws. There is no appeal to ignorance of vocabulary.

The 4th amendment uses the word "people" too. Does that mean that only the state or a militia is guaranteed to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


And if "people" means the state, then why does the 10th amendment say "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."?

The 10th amendment makes it VERY obvious that "the people" and "the state(s)" are not the same thing at all.

How can I be grasping at straws when those terms were included by our Founding Fathers in an amendment that contains a militia clause.

A militia is a military body of the citizenry and military terms are appropriate. Individual terms are not appropriate in our Second Amendment since the Intent and Purpose is the security of a free State, not security of Individual rights in private property.

Because, Arms are declared socialized for the Militia should there be any need to quibble this point in legal venues; simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself and cannot be read on its own should there be Any ambiguity.

The Fourth Amendment does not contain a militia clause. Both the People and the Militia are collective, not Individual.

The Tenth Amendment also covers Body politics such as States and the People in their collective capacity as the electorate and citizenry in the several States; with corresponding privileges and immunities.

No, the 2nd is not a constitution unto itself. That is why it is quite clear what the founding fathers meant by the placement of the 2nd. The fact that it was not included in the section dealing with militia makes that very clear.

You are grasping at straws because you are trying to redefine "keep" and "bear" to mean something strictly military. That is laughable.

 

[danielpalos]

I didn't see this argument in any holding.

There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People. Both terms are plural, not Individual.

Keep is not the Only term used. Keep is presented with bear; which has specific military applications for a militia, but not Individuals merely acquiring and possessing private property in the class called Arms.

The People are the Militia. A well regulated Militia of the People is necessary to the security of a free State. Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.

"Bear" is not a military term. This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.

And of course "the People" is plural. The amendment cover all citizens. Even back then there were more than one.

Yes, bear is a military term. To bear Arms for our Republic is one such usage.

The People is plural as is Militia but not Individual.

Absolutely ridiculous.

The word "bear" may not be part of the common vernacular, but there is nothing at all to suggest that it relates only to a militia. You are grasping at straws. There is no appeal to ignorance of vocabulary.

The 4th amendment uses the word "people" too. Does that mean that only the state or a militia is guaranteed to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


And if "people" means the state, then why does the 10th amendment say "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."?

The 10th amendment makes it VERY obvious that "the people" and "the state(s)" are not the same thing at all.

How can I be grasping at straws when those terms were included by our Founding Fathers in an amendment that contains a militia clause.

A militia is a military body of the citizenry and military terms are appropriate. Individual terms are not appropriate in our Second Amendment since the Intent and Purpose is the security of a free State, not security of Individual rights in private property.

Because, Arms are declared socialized for the Militia should there be any need to quibble this point in legal venues; simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself and cannot be read on its own should there be Any ambiguity.

The Fourth Amendment does not contain a militia clause. Both the People and the Militia are collective, not Individual.

The Tenth Amendment also covers Body politics such as States and the People in their collective capacity as the electorate and citizenry in the several States; with corresponding privileges and immunities.

No, the 2nd is not a constitution unto itself. That is why it is quite clear what the founding fathers meant by the placement of the 2nd. The fact that it was not included in the section dealing with militia makes that very clear.

You are grasping at straws because you are trying to redefine "keep" and "bear" to mean something strictly military. That is laughable.

Not sure what you are referring to. Our Second Amendment is an amendment like any other amendment; place doesn't matter.

 

[WinterBorn]

"Bear" is not a military term. This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.

And of course "the People" is plural. The amendment cover all citizens. Even back then there were more than one.

Yes, bear is a military term. To bear Arms for our Republic is one such usage.

The People is plural as is Militia but not Individual.

Absolutely ridiculous.

The word "bear" may not be part of the common vernacular, but there is nothing at all to suggest that it relates only to a militia. You are grasping at straws. There is no appeal to ignorance of vocabulary.

The 4th amendment uses the word "people" too. Does that mean that only the state or a militia is guaranteed to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


And if "people" means the state, then why does the 10th amendment say "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."?

The 10th amendment makes it VERY obvious that "the people" and "the state(s)" are not the same thing at all.

How can I be grasping at straws when those terms were included by our Founding Fathers in an amendment that contains a militia clause.

A militia is a military body of the citizenry and military terms are appropriate. Individual terms are not appropriate in our Second Amendment since the Intent and Purpose is the security of a free State, not security of Individual rights in private property.

Because, Arms are declared socialized for the Militia should there be any need to quibble this point in legal venues; simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself and cannot be read on its own should there be Any ambiguity.

The Fourth Amendment does not contain a militia clause. Both the People and the Militia are collective, not Individual.

The Tenth Amendment also covers Body politics such as States and the People in their collective capacity as the electorate and citizenry in the several States; with corresponding privileges and immunities.

No, the 2nd is not a constitution unto itself. That is why it is quite clear what the founding fathers meant by the placement of the 2nd. The fact that it was not included in the section dealing with militia makes that very clear.

You are grasping at straws because you are trying to redefine "keep" and "bear" to mean something strictly military. That is laughable.

Not sure what you are referring to. Our Second Amendment is an amendment like any other amendment; place doesn't matter.

Certainly it matters. It was not an amendment added much later. It was added to answer the calls from several states for limits on governmental powers and to protect individual liberties.

Much like trying to redefine two words, you are trying anything you can to cast doubt on a simple concept. That is why the SCOTUS has ruled consistently that the 2nd is an individual right.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment clearly describes a State's Individual right to its own security via the collectivism of a well regulated militia of the People.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?

 

[WinterBorn]

Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?

Perhaps because they can read? Paragraph (1) clearly states that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a state militia.

" 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"

 

[danielpalos]

Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?

Perhaps because they can read? Paragraph (1) clearly states that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a state militia.

" 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 are no Persons unconnected with the Militia, only Persons unconnected with Militia service, well regulated--10USC311.

And,

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.

 

[WinterBorn]

Our Second Amendment clearly describes a State's Individual right to its own security via the collectivism of a well regulated militia of the People.

No, the 2nd clearly states that an individual's right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

As was described by the SCOTUS in DC v. Heller:

"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

They wanted to preserve the ideal of a citizen's militia, to make sure that no gov't (our or others) could disarm our people.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?

Perhaps because they can read? Paragraph (1) clearly states that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a state militia.

" 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 are no Persons unconnected with the Militia, only Persons unconnected with Militia service, well regulated--10USC311.

And,

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.

No according to DC v. Heller. And since that ruling comes from our highest court, it stands as law.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?

Perhaps because they can read? Paragraph (1) clearly states that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a state militia.

" 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 are no Persons unconnected with the Militia, only Persons unconnected with Militia service, well regulated--10USC311.

And,

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.

No according to DC v. Heller. And since that ruling comes from our highest court, it stands as law.

It is in our supreme law of the land regarding the Militia.

The People are the Militia whether organized or not.

Only well regulated, thus well organized militias (of the People) are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed due to that necessity.

There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment for the militias of the several United States, well regulated, due to the subject of Arms being socialized for the Militia, should we need to quibble this point in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?

Perhaps because they can read? Paragraph (1) clearly states that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a state militia.

" 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 are no Persons unconnected with the Militia, only Persons unconnected with Militia service, well regulated--10USC311.

And,

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.

No according to DC v. Heller. And since that ruling comes from our highest court, it stands as law.

It is in our supreme law of the land regarding the Militia.

The People are the Militia whether organized or not.

Only well regulated, thus well organized militias (of the People) are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed due to that necessity.

There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment for the militias of the several United States, well regulated, due to the subject of Arms being socialized for the Militia, should we need to quibble this point in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

The mistake you make is assuming that all militia are controlled by the state. The founding fathers had just fought a war with their governing power. For them, the ability to throw off a tyrannical ruling power was critical to a free people. So they reserved that right for the citizens. That is why, as I quoted above, the armed people and the citizens militia it could form, were not under the control of the gov't.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?

Perhaps because they can read? Paragraph (1) clearly states that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a state militia.

" 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 are no Persons unconnected with the Militia, only Persons unconnected with Militia service, well regulated--10USC311.

And,

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.

No according to DC v. Heller. And since that ruling comes from our highest court, it stands as law.

It is in our supreme law of the land regarding the Militia.

The People are the Militia whether organized or not.

Only well regulated, thus well organized militias (of the People) are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed due to that necessity.

There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment for the militias of the several United States, well regulated, due to the subject of Arms being socialized for the Militia, should we need to quibble this point in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

There is no quibbling needed. The highest court has already ruled the 2nd is an individual right, and that it is unconnected with service in a militia. And they explained it quite clearly.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?

Perhaps because they can read? Paragraph (1) clearly states that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a state militia.

" 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 are no Persons unconnected with the Militia, only Persons unconnected with Militia service, well regulated--10USC311.

And,

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.

No according to DC v. Heller. And since that ruling comes from our highest court, it stands as law.

It is in our supreme law of the land regarding the Militia.

The People are the Militia whether organized or not.

Only well regulated, thus well organized militias (of the People) are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed due to that necessity.

There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment for the militias of the several United States, well regulated, due to the subject of Arms being socialized for the Militia, should we need to quibble this point in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

The mistake you make is assuming that all militia are controlled by the state. The founding fathers had just fought a war with their governing power. For them, the ability to throw off a tyrannical ruling power was critical to a free people. So they reserved that right for the citizens. That is why, as I quoted above, the armed people and the citizens militia it could form, were not under the control of the gov't.

All militias of the United States are regulated as prescribed by our federal Congress. There is no militia of the several United States that is not subject to the authority of Congress or a State.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?

Perhaps because they can read? Paragraph (1) clearly states that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a state militia.

" 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 are no Persons unconnected with the Militia, only Persons unconnected with Militia service, well regulated--10USC311.

And,

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.

No according to DC v. Heller. And since that ruling comes from our highest court, it stands as law.

It is in our supreme law of the land regarding the Militia.

The People are the Militia whether organized or not.

Only well regulated, thus well organized militias (of the People) are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed due to that necessity.

There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment for the militias of the several United States, well regulated, due to the subject of Arms being socialized for the Militia, should we need to quibble this point in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

There is no quibbling needed. The highest court has already ruled the 2nd is an individual right, and that it is unconnected with service in a militia. And they explained it quite clearly.

There are no Individual rights in the collective terms Militia and the People. It is a simple error in reasoning.

Statutory Construction

Definition
The process of determining what a particular statute means so that a court may apply it accurately.

Overview
Any question of statutory interpretation begins with looking at the plain language of the statute to discover its original intent. To discover a statute's original intent, courts first look to the words of the statute and apply their usual and ordinary meanings.

If after looking at the language of the statute the meaning of the statute remains unclear, courts attempt to ascertain the intent of the legislature by looking at legislative history and other sources. Courts generally steer clear of any interpretation that would create an absurd result which the Legislature did not intend.

Other rules of statutory interpretation include, but are not limited to:

• Statutes should be internally consistent. A particular section of the statute should not be inconsistent with the rest of the statute.
• When the legislature enumerates an exception to a rule, one can infer that there are no other exceptions.
• When the legislature includes limiting language in an earlier version of a statute, but deletes it prior to enactment of the statute, it can be presumed that the limitation was not intended by the legislature.
• The legislature is presumed to act intentionally and purposely when it includes language in one section but omits it in another.
• Where legislation and case law conflict, courts generally presume that legislation takes precedence over case law.
• The Rule of Lenity: in construing an ambiguous criminal statute, a court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant.
• A court may also look at: the common usage of a word, case law, dictionaries, parallel reasoning, punctuation

Statutes are sometimes ambiguous enough to support more than one interpretation. In these cases, courts are free to interpret statutes themselves. Once a court interprets the statute, other courts usually will not go through the exercise again, but rather will enforce the statute as interpreted by the other court.

Source: Statutory Construction Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute

 

[WinterBorn]

But there are individual rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. And one of those is the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[danielpalos]

But there are individual rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. And one of those is the right to keep and bear arms.

No, there are not. Only Due Process is secured in our federal Constitution not rights in property. Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms, acquire and possess, not keep and bear.