The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[OODA_Loop]

The People are the Militia for Second Amendment common defense and common law purposes; You are Either, Well Regulated or unorganized.

Or you're independent of the militia and have the right to bear arms protected as an individual for self-defense and other lawful purposes per SCOTUS affirmation.

You do not believe SCOTUS is the law of the land.

Tough shit.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia for Second Amendment common defense and common law purposes; You are Either, Well Regulated or unorganized.

Or you're independent of the militia and have the right to bear arms protected as and individual for self-defense and other lawful purposes per SCOTUS affirmation.

You do not believe SCOTUS is the law of the land.

Tough shit.

Well regulated militia are declared necessary. The unorganized militia is not.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Well regulated militia are declared necessary. The unorganized militia is not.

Irrelevant per SCOTUS

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are declared necessary. The unorganized militia is not.

Irrelevant per SCOTUS

federal law is federal law, right wingers. 10USC246 is federal law.

 

[hadit]

The why is the security of a free State, the what is the militia of the people. Only well regulated militia of the People are Necessary.

So, by that logic:

Big boobies, being necessary for the erotic nature of a titty bar, the right of the people to get implants shall not be infringed.

The why is the boner value of titty bars.

The what is big boobies.

So, only big boobies are necessary.

So, what does the the above amendment do? We have a why and a what, but no effect....unless we look at the second part about implants!

right wing special pleading?

the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the People are Necessary to the security of a free State.

The unorganized militia of the People are nowhere declared necessary to even the concept of natural rights.

Then you have no free speech rights unless you belong to an officially recognized, licensed and related advocacy group.

only police can yell fire in a crowed theatre, and get away with it.

That is meaningless. You can stand on a public sidewalk, hold up political advocacy signs and say anything political you want to, and you will not be arrested, even though you are not part of a group or representing a group. That is an individual right. The First does NOT apply only to the collective, and neither does the Second. Your line of argument is false, and if you'd like, we can go down through the rest of the amendments and look at whether each one applies to an individual or only to a group. Since you've insisted that none of the amendments apply to individuals, however, this one example is enough to prove you are wrong.

 

[OODA_Loop]

federal law is federal law, right wingers. 10USC246 is federal law.

Irrelevant pursuant to that certain Majority Affirmation #1 of DC vs Dick Heller

Held:

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.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[hadit]

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

so everyone can afford to Invest in;

Junk Bonds, not Junk Laws!

You're nearing your breaking point again, at which time you spout off even less meaningful phrases then wander into the night, muttering to yourself.

 

[danielpalos]

The why is the security of a free State, the what is the militia of the people. Only well regulated militia of the People are Necessary.

So, by that logic:

Big boobies, being necessary for the erotic nature of a titty bar, the right of the people to get implants shall not be infringed.

The why is the boner value of titty bars.

The what is big boobies.

So, only big boobies are necessary.

So, what does the the above amendment do? We have a why and a what, but no effect....unless we look at the second part about implants!

right wing special pleading?

the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the People are Necessary to the security of a free State.

The unorganized militia of the People are nowhere declared necessary to even the concept of natural rights.

Then you have no free speech rights unless you belong to an officially recognized, licensed and related advocacy group.

only police can yell fire in a crowed theatre, and get away with it.

That is meaningless. You can stand on a public sidewalk, hold up political advocacy signs and say anything political you want to, and you will not be arrested, even though you are not part of a group or representing a group. That is an individual right. The First does NOT apply only to the collective, and neither does the Second. Your line of argument is false, and if you'd like, we can go down through the rest of the amendments and look at whether each one applies to an individual or only to a group. Since you've insisted that none of the amendments apply to individuals, however, this one example is enough to prove you are wrong.

Apples and oranges. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.

 

[danielpalos]

federal law is federal law, right wingers. 10USC246 is federal law.

Irrelevant pursuant to that certain Majority Affirmation #1 of DC vs Dick Heller

Held:

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.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

A simple error.

This is the common law understanding of the militia 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]

So, by that logic:

Big boobies, being necessary for the erotic nature of a titty bar, the right of the people to get implants shall not be infringed.

The why is the boner value of titty bars.

The what is big boobies.

So, only big boobies are necessary.

So, what does the the above amendment do? We have a why and a what, but no effect....unless we look at the second part about implants!

right wing special pleading?

the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the People are Necessary to the security of a free State.

The unorganized militia of the People are nowhere declared necessary to even the concept of natural rights.

Then you have no free speech rights unless you belong to an officially recognized, licensed and related advocacy group.

only police can yell fire in a crowed theatre, and get away with it.

That is meaningless. You can stand on a public sidewalk, hold up political advocacy signs and say anything political you want to, and you will not be arrested, even though you are not part of a group or representing a group. That is an individual right. The First does NOT apply only to the collective, and neither does the Second. Your line of argument is false, and if you'd like, we can go down through the rest of the amendments and look at whether each one applies to an individual or only to a group. Since you've insisted that none of the amendments apply to individuals, however, this one example is enough to prove you are wrong.

Apples and oranges. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.

Irrelevant, completely and totally irrelevant. The amendments apply to individuals, or you could be arrested for posting on the internet if you are not part of a licensed and regulated group. As is normal for you, you totally ignore that reality and won't even address it.

 

[OODA_Loop]

"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 will get no argument on WHO is the militia....it is your insistence that the individual bearing of arms must be in connection with the militia and your disregard of SCOTUS stare decisis on the matter.

Or are you just a super hardcore Originalist ?

 

[hadit]

federal law is federal law, right wingers. 10USC246 is federal law.

Irrelevant pursuant to that certain Majority Affirmation #1 of DC vs Dick Heller

Held:

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.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

A simple error.

This is the common law understanding of the militia 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

Tell me how the First Amendment applies only to groups and not to individuals. You did after all claim that none of the amendments apply to individuals.

 

[danielpalos]

right wing special pleading?

the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the People are Necessary to the security of a free State.

The unorganized militia of the People are nowhere declared necessary to even the concept of natural rights.

Then you have no free speech rights unless you belong to an officially recognized, licensed and related advocacy group.

only police can yell fire in a crowed theatre, and get away with it.

That is meaningless. You can stand on a public sidewalk, hold up political advocacy signs and say anything political you want to, and you will not be arrested, even though you are not part of a group or representing a group. That is an individual right. The First does NOT apply only to the collective, and neither does the Second. Your line of argument is false, and if you'd like, we can go down through the rest of the amendments and look at whether each one applies to an individual or only to a group. Since you've insisted that none of the amendments apply to individuals, however, this one example is enough to prove you are wrong.

Apples and oranges. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.

Irrelevant, completely and totally irrelevant. The amendments apply to individuals, or you could be arrested for posting on the internet if you are not part of a licensed and regulated group. As is normal for you, you totally ignore that reality and won't even address it.

Yes, it does. It applies to the individual comprising the Militia of the United States. Only well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

"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 will get no argument on WHO is the militia....it is your insistence that the individual bearing of arms must be in connection with the militia and your disregard of SCOTUS stare decisis on the matter.

Or are you just a super hardcore Originalist ?

natural rights are covered in our State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

federal law is federal law, right wingers. 10USC246 is federal law.

Irrelevant pursuant to that certain Majority Affirmation #1 of DC vs Dick Heller

Held:

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.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

A simple error.

This is the common law understanding of the militia 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

Tell me how the First Amendment applies only to groups and not to individuals. You did after all claim that none of the amendments apply to individuals.

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses which militia are necessary.

 

[hadit]

federal law is federal law, right wingers. 10USC246 is federal law.

Irrelevant pursuant to that certain Majority Affirmation #1 of DC vs Dick Heller

Held:

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.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

A simple error.

This is the common law understanding of the militia 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

Tell me how the First Amendment applies only to groups and not to individuals. You did after all claim that none of the amendments apply to individuals.

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses which militia are necessary.

See, I just demonstrated that you don't even read what is written for you. I said the FIRST amendment. You said none of the amendments applied to individuals, let's start with the first. Tell me why you only have free speech protection when you're a part of a licensed and regulated group.

 

[P@triot]

the people are the militia.

You’re not a member of the militia. Do you cease to be a person/individual because of that fact? No? Exactly.

 

[P@triot]

We should have no security problems. What is your right wing solution, right winger.

Liberty. Including the liberty for each citizen to “keep and bear arms”. We only have a problem where the anti-gun, pro-control Dumbocrats are in charge.

 

[P@triot]

Well regulated militia of the People are expressly declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the People.

Only to the illiterate such as yourself. What is “necessary” is the firearm that the 2nd Amendment makes a right. A militia without a firearm is just a group of useless Antifa thugs.

 

[P@triot]

Well regulated militia of the People are expressly declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the People.

So, why did they bother to use the word "people" in the amendment? Why not just say this:

"To maintain the security of a free state, the right of a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Had they phrased it that way, you would be correct. But, they didn't. You can't ignore the effect.

He doesn’t care that the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that the right belongs explicitly to the people. He doesn’t want you to have your constitutional rights so he will insist that the constitution says something other than what it actually does say.