The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

why was the perpetrator "worrying" and not, being happy, to such an extent, he had to "rebel against authority"?

Probably because he has to live in a country where liberty is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but constantly stripped by left-wing hatriot fascists.

why was that Person not home having a peaceful time with family and friends?

Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?

why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

And there it is, the inevitable lament. We get it, you want to get paid for not working.

full employment of capital resources; what a concept.

only fools and horses, should Have to work.

 

[danielpalos]

Sure it is.

But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?

No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.

It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?

I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.

I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
That is the idea behind the words.

In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution

Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.

How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.

what does it mean?

other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is

What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.

the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State; it has Every Thing, to do with well regulated militia; who must not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
That is the idea behind the words.

In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution

Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.

How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.

what does it mean?

other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is

What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.

the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms

Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.

Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.

In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 25th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.

But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...

the debate over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment. The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself. There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
compelling military service is conscription.

It seems you have the draft and the militia confused

The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms

 

[danielpalos]

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

Just a fallacy of composition, that is all.

We have a Second Article of Amendment, it is not a, Constitution, unto itself.

 

[danielpalos]

Sure it is.

But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?

No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.

It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?

I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.

I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
That is the idea behind the words.

In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution

Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.

How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.

what does it mean?

other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is

What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.

This is just from Heller.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Our Second Amendment has nothing to with natural rights; the intent and purpose, is in the first clause.

 

[Skull Pilot]

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.

so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?

it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you

it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter

 

[Skull Pilot]

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

Just a fallacy of composition, that is all.

We have a Second Article of Amendment, it is not a, Constitution, unto itself.

we do not have a second article of amendment

we have the bill of rights that consists of separate amendments to the constitution.

 

[Skull Pilot]

at least until i can build a keep.

you have to get a job first

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

being unemployed and collecting welfare is not a resume builder

learning how to build a keep and putting it on my resume, does help, "build" that resume.

yeah go apply for a job and put that as an accomplishment

that resume will hit the circular file before you get out of the interview

 

[hadit]

Probably because he has to live in a country where liberty is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but constantly stripped by left-wing hatriot fascists.

why was that Person not home having a peaceful time with family and friends?

Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?

why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

And there it is, the inevitable lament. We get it, you want to get paid for not working.

full employment of capital resources; what a concept.

only fools and horses, should Have to work.

And those who want to eat.

 

[danielpalos]

Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.

How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.

what does it mean?

other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is

What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.

the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms

Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.

Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.

In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 25th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.

But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...

the debate over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment. The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself. There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
compelling military service is conscription.

It seems you have the draft and the militia confused

The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms

well regulated, is a "limiting qualifier". all of the militia of the United States is not well regulated, and therefor, unnecessary to the security of a free State, and may be Infringed as a result, by well regulated militia, for the security and domestic tranquility needs of our free States.

 

[hadit]

Probably because he has to live in a country where liberty is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but constantly stripped by left-wing hatriot fascists.

why was that Person not home having a peaceful time with family and friends?

Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?

why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

And there it is, the inevitable lament. We get it, you want to get paid for not working.

full employment of capital resources; what a concept.

only fools and horses, should Have to work.

Paying people who are not working is most emphatically NOT "full employment of capital resources". You're not using words right.

 

[danielpalos]

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.

so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?

it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you

it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter

Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.

 

[danielpalos]

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

Just a fallacy of composition, that is all.

We have a Second Article of Amendment, it is not a, Constitution, unto itself.

we do not have a second article of amendment

we have the bill of rights that consists of separate amendments to the constitution.

yes, dear; we have a Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

It is Not, a Constitution, unto Itself.

 

[danielpalos]

at least until i can build a keep.

you have to get a job first

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

being unemployed and collecting welfare is not a resume builder

learning how to build a keep and putting it on my resume, does help, "build" that resume.

yeah go apply for a job and put that as an accomplishment

that resume will hit the circular file before you get out of the interview

i could claim I had to learn it, not from the "ground up, but from the basement up". Some managers may find that initiative, "something to work with".

 

[danielpalos]

why was that Person not home having a peaceful time with family and friends?

Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?

why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

And there it is, the inevitable lament. We get it, you want to get paid for not working.

full employment of capital resources; what a concept.

only fools and horses, should Have to work.

And those who want to eat.

we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.

that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.

 

[hadit]

Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?

why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

And there it is, the inevitable lament. We get it, you want to get paid for not working.

full employment of capital resources; what a concept.

only fools and horses, should Have to work.

And those who want to eat.

we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.

that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.

Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker. Producers help society, takers do not.

Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.

 

[danielpalos]

why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

And there it is, the inevitable lament. We get it, you want to get paid for not working.

full employment of capital resources; what a concept.

only fools and horses, should Have to work.

And those who want to eat.

we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.

that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.

Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker. Producers help society, takers do not.

Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.

Only in your special pleading; propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for economics.

it is about full employment of capital resources; and correcting for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency regarding full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is that natural rate of inefficiency regarding capital resources and the circulation of capital in our economy.

We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and improving the capital efficiency of those markets, at the same time.

 

[hadit]

And there it is, the inevitable lament. We get it, you want to get paid for not working.

full employment of capital resources; what a concept.

only fools and horses, should Have to work.

And those who want to eat.

we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.

that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.

Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker. Producers help society, takers do not.

Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.

Only in your special pleading; propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for economics.

it is about full employment of capital resources; and correcting for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency regarding full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is that natural rate of inefficiency regarding capital resources and the circulation of capital in our economy.

We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and improving the capital efficiency of those markets, at the same time.

Dude, once again you're reduced to flinging around the same worn out meaningless slogans that you don't even understand. Paying someone to not work is welfare, it's not "full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor". Face it, you end up here every single time, you can't explain what it is you're trying to say, and you only end up looking foolish. Just stop.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

full employment of capital resources; what a concept.

only fools and horses, should Have to work.

And those who want to eat.

we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.

that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.

Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker. Producers help society, takers do not.

Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.

Only in your special pleading; propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for economics.

it is about full employment of capital resources; and correcting for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency regarding full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is that natural rate of inefficiency regarding capital resources and the circulation of capital in our economy.

We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and improving the capital efficiency of those markets, at the same time.

Dude, once again you're reduced to flinging around the same worn out meaningless slogans that you don't even understand. Paying someone to not work is welfare, it's not "full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor". Face it, you end up here every single time, you can't explain what it is you're trying to say, and you only end up looking foolish. Just stop.

He's saying he should get unemployment benefits for sitting in his Mom's basement growing weed.

 

[P@triot]

only fools and horses, should Have to work.

Nobody said you have to work. Feel free not to. But the rest of us are not supporting your pathetic ass.

By the way - PETA would vehemently disagree with you on the horses. They believe your worthless ass should be put to work to care for the horses. Just say'n little buddy...