The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

What rules of construction did the Justices use?

You tell me. Cite the SC decision that backs your assertion, admit you're wrong, or admit that you think that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices and supply your legal credentials.

It's really that simple.

It is expressed in our Constitution. I don't need to appeal to authority; because that would be a fallacy.

Come try and take my guns son

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well.

Go for it son.

The unorganized militia can be drafted.

 

[Doc1]

You tell me. Cite the SC decision that backs your assertion, admit you're wrong, or admit that you think that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices and supply your legal credentials.

It's really that simple.

It is expressed in our Constitution. I don't need to appeal to authority; because that would be a fallacy.

Come try and take my guns son

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well.

Go for it son.

The unorganized militia can be drafted.

I served. Come get my guns.

 

[danielpalos]

It is expressed in our Constitution. I don't need to appeal to authority; because that would be a fallacy.

Come try and take my guns son

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well.

Go for it son.

The unorganized militia can be drafted.

I served. Come get my guns.

Why do I need to get Your guns?

The militia of the United States is not about equality. It is about, superiority.

 

[Doc1]

Come try and take my guns son

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well.

Go for it son.

The unorganized militia can be drafted.

I served. Come get my guns.

Why do I need to get Your guns?

Does the SC agree with your "interpretation"? Am I "militia"?

 

[danielpalos]

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well.

Go for it son.

The unorganized militia can be drafted.

I served. Come get my guns.

Why do I need to get Your guns?

Does the SC agree with your "interpretation"? Am I "militia"?

there is no "interpretation". the people are the militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[Doc1]

Go for it son.

The unorganized militia can be drafted.

I served. Come get my guns.

Why do I need to get Your guns?

Does the SC agree with your "interpretation"? Am I "militia"?

there is no "interpretation". the people are the militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

(smile) What to the federalist papers say about it?

 

[danielpalos]

The unorganized militia can be drafted.

I served. Come get my guns.

Why do I need to get Your guns?

Does the SC agree with your "interpretation"? Am I "militia"?

there is no "interpretation". the people are the militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

(smile) What to the federalist papers say about it?

The same thing.

Besides, that quote is from the ratification debates regarding our federal Constitution. That is the militia.

 

[P@triot]

The People are the Militia. That means, everyone who is not well regulated, Is the unorganized militia.

Um...no....snowflake. The people are the people. Being a member of a militia is not a requirement for personhood.

 

[P@triot]

(smile) What to the federalist papers say about it?

The same thing. Besides, that quote is from the ratification debates regarding our federal Constitution. That is the militia.

So tell us, fake constitutionalist, where in the U.S. Constitution does it state who will “regulate” the militia?

 

[P@triot]

So much for the left-wing propaganda that England is a utopia after the people were stripped of their firearms.

Crime Wave UK: Govt Moves to Stop Knife Sales as Blade Crime Hits 7-Year High

 

[hadit]

Which SC decision backs that up?

Our Constitution says so.

Again, that's YOUR opinion of what it means. Since you are unable/unwilling to cite a decision supporting your contention, the Supreme Court obviously holds a different opinion. The only way, therefore, for you to maintain that your interpretation is correct, you have to believe that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court.

So, which is it? Will you supply a decision that agrees with you or will you maintain that your understanding of the Constitution is better than the justices' and back it up with your stellar legal career after graduating from one of the nation's elite law schools?

Or will you, in a miracle, be able to admit you're wrong? You know that you still have not dealt with your insistence that none of the amendments protect individual rights, despite exercising your first amendment rights even though you're not a member of a regulated advocacy group.

What rules of construction did the Justices use?

You tell me. Cite the SC decision that backs your assertion, admit you're wrong, or admit that you think that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices and supply your legal credentials.

It's really that simple.

It is expressed in our Constitution. I don't need to appeal to authority; because that would be a fallacy.

Do you or do you not believe your understanding of the Constitution is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court?

 

[Lesh]

I'll go with the "understanding of the Constitution" held by Justices Stevens, Ginsberg etc. who use the actual wording of the Amendment as the basis of their argument

 

[hadit]

I'll go with the "understanding of the Constitution" held by Justices Stevens, Ginsberg etc. who use the actual wording of the Amendment as the basis of their argument

Again you answer for Daniel?

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia. That means, everyone who is not well regulated, Is the unorganized militia.

Um...no....snowflake. The people are the people. Being a member of a militia is not a requirement for personhood.

Personhood is a requirement for the militia, well regulated or unorganized.

 

[danielpalos]

(smile) What to the federalist papers say about it?

The same thing. Besides, that quote is from the ratification debates regarding our federal Constitution. That is the militia.

So tell us, fake constitutionalist, where in the U.S. Constitution does it state who will “regulate” the militia?

Congress.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Constitution says so.

Again, that's YOUR opinion of what it means. Since you are unable/unwilling to cite a decision supporting your contention, the Supreme Court obviously holds a different opinion. The only way, therefore, for you to maintain that your interpretation is correct, you have to believe that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court.

So, which is it? Will you supply a decision that agrees with you or will you maintain that your understanding of the Constitution is better than the justices' and back it up with your stellar legal career after graduating from one of the nation's elite law schools?

Or will you, in a miracle, be able to admit you're wrong? You know that you still have not dealt with your insistence that none of the amendments protect individual rights, despite exercising your first amendment rights even though you're not a member of a regulated advocacy group.

What rules of construction did the Justices use?

You tell me. Cite the SC decision that backs your assertion, admit you're wrong, or admit that you think that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices and supply your legal credentials.

It's really that simple.

It is expressed in our Constitution. I don't need to appeal to authority; because that would be a fallacy.

Do you or do you not believe your understanding of the Constitution is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court?

I resort to the fewest fallacies. Any questions?

 

[danielpalos]

I'll go with the "understanding of the Constitution" held by Justices Stevens, Ginsberg etc. who use the actual wording of the Amendment as the basis of their argument

which wording is that? i don't appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[Lesh]

I'll go with the "understanding of the Constitution" held by Justices Stevens, Ginsberg etc. who use the actual wording of the Amendment as the basis of their argument

which wording is that? i don't appeal to ignorance of the law.

Read Steven's dissent

 

[danielpalos]

I'll go with the "understanding of the Constitution" held by Justices Stevens, Ginsberg etc. who use the actual wording of the Amendment as the basis of their argument

which wording is that? i don't appeal to ignorance of the law.

Read Steven's dissent

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

 

[hadit]

Again, that's YOUR opinion of what it means. Since you are unable/unwilling to cite a decision supporting your contention, the Supreme Court obviously holds a different opinion. The only way, therefore, for you to maintain that your interpretation is correct, you have to believe that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court.

So, which is it? Will you supply a decision that agrees with you or will you maintain that your understanding of the Constitution is better than the justices' and back it up with your stellar legal career after graduating from one of the nation's elite law schools?

Or will you, in a miracle, be able to admit you're wrong? You know that you still have not dealt with your insistence that none of the amendments protect individual rights, despite exercising your first amendment rights even though you're not a member of a regulated advocacy group.

What rules of construction did the Justices use?

You tell me. Cite the SC decision that backs your assertion, admit you're wrong, or admit that you think that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices and supply your legal credentials.

It's really that simple.

It is expressed in our Constitution. I don't need to appeal to authority; because that would be a fallacy.

Do you or do you not believe your understanding of the Constitution is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court?

I resort to the fewest fallacies. Any questions?

I just asked you one that you blundered.

Let's see where we are. You insist on a certain interpretation of the second amendment. You cannot cite an SC decision that supports your view, and in fact the SC does not support it. You will not admit that your interpretation is flawed (again no decisions supporting it), but you won't come right out and say that you believe your legal understanding is superior to that of the justices, although to maintain that you are correct you have to believe it.

Do we have that about right?