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.

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?

The People are the Militia. What part of that, do you not understand?

 

[hadit]

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?

The People are the Militia. What part of that, do you not understand?

And you go around the circle yet again. Where did you go to law school and how long have you been arguing cases before the SC?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

The People are the Militia. What part of that, do you not understand?

And you go around the circle yet again. Where did you go to law school and how long have you been arguing cases before the SC?

red herrings are considered fallacies.

Let's start with the common law understanding, for the common defense:

"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

 

[hadit]

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?

The People are the Militia. What part of that, do you not understand?

And you go around the circle yet again. Where did you go to law school and how long have you been arguing cases before the SC?

red herrings are considered fallacies.

Let's start with the common law understanding, for the common defense:

"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

You're avoiding and deflecting, again. Your quote even establishes that everyone is covered under the second amendment. Think about that.

Now, please deal with your belief that you understand the Constitution better than the justices.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

The People are the Militia. What part of that, do you not understand?

And you go around the circle yet again. Where did you go to law school and how long have you been arguing cases before the SC?

red herrings are considered fallacies.

Let's start with the common law understanding, for the common defense:

"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

You're avoiding and deflecting, again. Your quote even establishes that everyone is covered under the second amendment. Think about that.

Now, please deal with your belief that you understand the Constitution better than the justices.

The People are the Militia; well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. The whole People, are the militia.

 

[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

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

I have no idea what you think you are trying to say

 

[Lesh]

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?

The People are the Militia. What part of that, do you not understand?

And you go around the circle yet again. Where did you go to law school and how long have you been arguing cases before the SC?

red herrings are considered fallacies.

Let's start with the common law understanding, for the common defense:

"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

You're avoiding and deflecting, again. Your quote even establishes that everyone is covered under the second amendment. Think about that.

Now, please deal with your belief that you understand the Constitution better than the justices.

The People are the Militia; well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. The whole People, are the militia.

NOt according to the DIck Act or Article 2 Section 8

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia. What part of that, do you not understand?

And you go around the circle yet again. Where did you go to law school and how long have you been arguing cases before the SC?

red herrings are considered fallacies.

Let's start with the common law understanding, for the common defense:

"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

You're avoiding and deflecting, again. Your quote even establishes that everyone is covered under the second amendment. Think about that.

Now, please deal with your belief that you understand the Constitution better than the justices.

The People are the Militia; well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. The whole People, are the militia.

NOt according to the DIck Act or Article 2 Section 8

don't know what you mean.

10USC246 defines the militia;

(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

don't know what you mean.

10USC246 defines the militia;

(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

But, that does not define a "well-regulated" militia. They don't use the words "well-regulated" in that statute, so all of your arguments about "well-regulated" meaning "organized" are complete horseshit and pure dumbassary.

The people still have the right, individually, to keep and bear arms, regardless of what congress attempts to do via legislation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your contention is that even though the 2A specifies WHY there was a need for "gun rights" they had other reasons for it...but chose not to enunciate those reasons?

Sorry but that's not how it works. Especially if you're going to try to claim to be a strict constructionist

Not in the Constitution, no. That IS how it works, since you will notice that no other Amendment in the Bill of Rights has any explanatory clause AT ALL.

You have to remember that this was a society in which ownership and use of weapons was commonplace, and the other uses and needs for those weapons would have been assumed and accepted. This one reason, however, did not follow with English common law and traditional societal practices as people of that day had previously understood them.

 

[danielpalos]

don't know what you mean.

10USC246 defines the militia;

(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

But, that does not define a "well-regulated" militia. They don't use the words "well-regulated" in that statute, so all of your arguments about "well-regulated" meaning "organized" are complete horseshit and pure dumbassary.

The people still have the right, individually, to keep and bear arms, regardless of what congress attempts to do via legislation.

only in right wing fantasy.

and, natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

don't know what you mean.

10USC246 defines the militia;

(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

But, that does not define a "well-regulated" militia. They don't use the words "well-regulated" in that statute, so all of your arguments about "well-regulated" meaning "organized" are complete horseshit and pure dumbassary.

The people still have the right, individually, to keep and bear arms, regardless of what congress attempts to do via legislation.

only in right wing fantasy.

and, natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

And, you have never once proved that no sense.

Either way, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to limit the power of the federal government.

I have repeatedly proved that.

 

[Lesh]

Not in the Constitution, no. That IS how it works, since you will notice that no other Amendment in the Bill of Rights has any explanatory clause AT ALL.

So you acknowledge that your claims don't emanate from what is in the Constitution

And THEN you note that this is the ONLY Amendment that tells us why it is there....which reinforces MY claim...not yours.

The Constitution was not a careless document. Everything in it was there for a reason

By the way...how was the vacation?

 

[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.

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

But the militia is not a requirement for personhood. You lose.

 

[P@triot]

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

Oh I see...you’ll go with the radicals who literally detest the U.S. Constitution and thus abuse their power to replace it with their own radical views? Got it.

 

[P@triot]

Thank God for his right to keep and bear arms...

Three crooks demand cash from gas station customer—who has concealed weapons permit. Nice try, guys.

 

[P@triot]

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?

The People are the Militia. What part of that, do you not understand?

The people are the people. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[P@triot]

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?

The People are the Militia. What part of that, do you not understand?

And you go around the circle yet again. Where did you go to law school and how long have you been arguing cases before the SC?

red herrings are considered fallacies.

Let's start with the common law understanding, for the common defense:

"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

You're avoiding and deflecting, again. Your quote even establishes that everyone is covered under the second amendment. Think about that.

Now, please deal with your belief that you understand the Constitution better than the justices.

The People are the Militia; well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. The whole People, are the militia.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It’s a right. It belongs to the people. And like all rights, it requires absolutely nothing but citizenship to be afforded it and to exercise it. Constitutional rights do not require one to join a group, take some action, etc.

It could not possibly be more crystal clear.

 

[P@triot]

and, natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Oh you poor little dimwit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Restricting firearms is not one of those powers.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

and, natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Oh you poor little dimwit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Restricting firearms is not one of those powers.

which is actually evidenced by the 1934 firearms act. They did not restrict the use of automatic weapons. They merely required a tax, which is all they were allowed to do.

Since that time, neither the Supreme Court, nor Congress and the Senate has given a rat fuck about the constitution and the limit of powers placed on them in terms of firearms.

We need a fucking shooting and killing war to restore our rights.