Progressive Propaganda: The 2nd Amendment Edition

[danielpalos]

Once again, you read into the law something that isn't there. The law does NOT say that the unorganized militia has the right NOT to be regulated.

What do you think “unorganized” means? You poor little dimwit.

Let's try this again. The Organized Militia are Organized by the State Governor. The Unorganized Militia is every able bodied men from 18 to 45 that are NOT Organized Militia. Yes, cupcake, that's means you as well and almost everyone you pass on the street from the ages of 18-45 that is neither State Militia or Federalized. You dipstick don't just create an Unorganized Militia, it's there without your help. And it has nothing to do with you idjits running around the woods in a pickle suit playing with guns.

Nobody mentioned any of that or argued that. Why do you resort to a straw man when you get embarrassed? The “unorganized” militia is “unregulated”.

Show me where there is a law that says that Unregulated Militia cannot be regulated? This going to be fun.

they like to make up stories.

This is the common law for the common defense:

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.

 

[P@triot]

Our supreme law of the land is more supreme. 10USC246 is a provision.

It can’t be a “provision” if it is unconstitutional. And if it is constitutional, then it is in play and not in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Your nervous tick of quoting something completely unrelated in a desperate attempt to change the subject when your ignorance has been exposed, is really idiotic.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

And there we see it again...that nervous tick of posting something completely unrelated in a desperate attempt to change the subject when your ignorance has been exposed.

 

[P@triot]

Show me where there is a law that says that Unregulated Militia cannot be regulated? This going to be fun.

There part where it recognizes the right to be “unorganized”.

 

[danielpalos]

Our supreme law of the land is more supreme. 10USC246 is a provision.

It can’t be a “provision” if it is unconstitutional. And if it is constitutional, then it is in play and not in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Your nervous tick of quoting something completely unrelated in a desperate attempt to change the subject when your ignorance has been exposed, is really idiotic.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

And there we see it again...that nervous tick of posting something completely unrelated in a desperate attempt to change the subject when your ignorance has been exposed.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 

[danielpalos]

Show me where there is a law that says that Unregulated Militia cannot be regulated? This going to be fun.

There part where it recognizes the right to be “unorganized”.

Legislators have the power to Organize the militia. Being unorganized must mean it is no longer about our Second Amendment and must be about natural rights.

 

[P@triot]

It can’t be a “provision” if it is unconstitutional. And if it is constitutional, then it is in play and not in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Your nervous tick of quoting something completely unrelated in a desperate attempt to change the subject when your ignorance has been exposed, is really idiotic.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

And there we see it again...that nervous tick of posting something completely unrelated in a desperate attempt to change the subject when your ignorance has been exposed.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

And there we see it again...that nervous tick of posting something completely unrelated in a desperate attempt to change the subject when your ignorance has been exposed. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

 

[danielpalos]

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Your nervous tick of quoting something completely unrelated in a desperate attempt to change the subject when your ignorance has been exposed, is really idiotic.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

And there we see it again...that nervous tick of posting something completely unrelated in a desperate attempt to change the subject when your ignorance has been exposed.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

And there we see it again...that nervous tick of posting something completely unrelated in a desperate attempt to change the subject when your ignorance has been exposed. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

a nervous appeal to ignorance? i cited our federal Constitution.

the unorganized militia can never be, well regulated without Government recognition.

 

[P@triot]

Being unorganized must mean it is no longer about our Second Amendment and must be about natural rights.

It’s about both, actually. You would know that if you weren’t so astoundingly ignorant of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. history. See, my rights are unlimited. They only end where someone else begins. The founders were abundantly clear about that. However, out of an abundance of fear, they created the Bill of Rights for the rights they felt were so extremely important, they needed “extra” security.

The irony? Alexander Hamilton actually argued against the Bill of Rights fearing that ignorant people such as yourself would view the Bill of Rights as the extent of our rights - rather than the bare minimum necessities which required additional securing. He articulated that in Federalist No. 84

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”

You are the exact ignorant person that Alexander Hamilton feared when he argued against the Bill of Rights. My rights are not limited to the 2nd Amendment or the Bill of Rights.

Excerpt From The Federalist Papers
James Madison. This material may be protected by copyright.

 

[P@triot]

i cited our federal Constitution.

Yes you did. Specifically, a section which had nothing to do with what we were talking about.

 

[danielpalos]

Being unorganized must mean it is no longer about our Second Amendment and must be about natural rights.

It’s about both, actually. You would know that if you weren’t so astoundingly ignorant of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. history. See, my rights are unlimited. They only end where someone else begins. The founders were abundantly clear about that. However, out of an abundance of fear, they created the Bill of Rights for the rights they felt were so extremely important, they needed “extra” security.

The irony? Alexander Hamilton actually argued against the Bill of Rights fearing that ignorant people such as yourself would view the Bill of Rights as the extent of our rights - rather than the bare minimum necessities which required additional securing. He articulated that in Federalist No. 84

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”

You are the exact ignorant person that Alexander Hamilton feared when he argued against the Bill of Rights. My rights are not limited to the 2nd Amendment or the Bill of Rights.

Excerpt From The Federalist Papers
James Madison. This material may be protected by copyright.

i would believe you; but you omit the supremacy of our supreme law of the land, in any conflict of laws.

It it is not specifically about the militia; it must be about natural rights.

Natural rights are not recognized in our Second Amendment; only civil rights.

 

[danielpalos]

i cited our federal Constitution.

Yes you did. Specifically, a section which had nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Congress has plenary power over calling out the militia.

 

[Pilot1]

Congress has plenary power over calling out the militia.

You're absolute OBSESSION with tying the Militia to a requirement under the Second Amendment is bordering on Mental Illness. The 2A is an INDVIDUAL RIGHT, separate from being in any Militia.

That being said we are all in the Militia by U.S. Code, so covered for the Right to Keep, and BEAR arms from that perspective as well.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 2A is an INVIDUAL RIGHT.

You mention Militia in almost every post.

 

[danielpalos]

Congress has plenary power over calling out the militia.

You're absolute OBSESSION with tying the Militia to a requirement under the Second Amendment is bordering on Mental Illness. The 2A is an INDVIDUAL RIGHT, separate from being in any Militia.

That being said we are all in the Militia by U.S. Code, so covered for the Right to Keep, and BEAR arms from that perspective as well.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 2A is an INVIDUAL RIGHT.

You mention Militia in almost every post.

There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment. Your right wing fantasy is duly noted. All terms are plural and collective.

 

[Pilot1]

There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment. Your right wing fantasy is duly noted. All terms are plural and collective.

We've been down this road before, yet your obsession is duly noted. The Supreme Court has ruled it is an INDIVDUAL RIGHT. Until the Constitution is amended, then that is THE LAW.

"THE PEOPLE's" RIGHT to keep, and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. It doesn't say
"GOVERNMENT'S" Right. The People are made up of Individual Citizens. If you don't see that, you are just deluded, and obsessed.

Do you not acknowledge the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the Constitution? If so you are advocation criminal LAWLESSNESS.

 

[danielpalos]

There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment. Your right wing fantasy is duly noted. All terms are plural and collective.

We've been down this road before, yet your obsession is duly noted. The Supreme Court has ruled it is an INDIVDUAL RIGHT. Until the Constitution is amended, then that is THE LAW.

"THE PEOPLE's" RIGHT to keep, and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. It doesn't say
"GOVERNMENT'S" Right. The People are made up of Individual Citizens. If you don't see that, you are just deluded, and obsessed.

Do you not acknowledge the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the Constitution? If so you are advocation criminal LAWLESSNESS.

natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; not our Second Article of Amendment.

 

[Pilot1]

natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; not our Second Article of Amendment.

Government, especially the Federal Government does NOT GRANT US RIGHTS. They are held by the fact we are humans. All government can do is document that those rights will not be infringed. That is why the 2A is worded that way. It doesn't say the Federal government gives you that right to exercise. It says you're right, that you already posses, will not be infringed.

Why would you want to grant that much power of Government over you. Neither State, nor Federal government can GRANT YOU RIGHTS.

 

[P@triot]

i cited our federal Constitution.

Yes you did. Specifically, a section which had nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Congress has plenary power over calling out the militia.

And the PEOPLE have the right to decide whether or not to answer that call.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; not our Second Article of Amendment.

Government, especially the Federal Government does NOT GRANT US RIGHTS. They are held by the fact we are humans. All government can do is document that those rights will not be infringed. That is why the 2A is worded that way. It doesn't say the Federal government gives you that right to exercise. It says you're right, that you already posses, will not be infringed.

Why would you want to grant that much power of Government over you. Neither State, nor Federal government can GRANT YOU RIGHTS.

Civil rights are expressly declared; they are not implied.

 

[danielpalos]

i cited our federal Constitution.

Yes you did. Specifically, a section which had nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Congress has plenary power over calling out the militia.

And the PEOPLE have the right to decide whether or not to answer that call.

militia means, callable to Arms.

 

[P@triot]

natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; not our Second Article of Amendment.

No they are not, you imbecile. We have been over this many times. Why you insist on repeating your lies is beyond me.

1. We have 50 “state constitutions” you imbecile. That would mean we would all have separate and different “natural rights”.
2. The U.S. Constitution and federal law trump state laws. That means we would have no natural rights as the federal government could override them.

God damn, you are the dumbest little monkey in America. Peddle your nonsense somewhere else.