The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

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

I'm not sure what your point is here.

The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.

The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?

Well it's clear.

The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.

Okay, so, you say "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"

How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.

Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.

You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.

one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms. tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?

Natural rights are recognized and secured in our State Constitutions. Protection of self and property, is a natural right.

Our Second Article of Amendment declares that Only well regulated militia of the entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; not natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert.

I'll bet you an entire year of your salary that he knows more about the English language than you

even if I lose it won't cost me 10 bucks

Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition. Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. It really is, that simple.

show me the dictionary or literary journals that cite you as a language expert

You're banging your head against the wall talking to that one. I put him on ignore ages ago because he'll just go around and around in circles ignore anything and everything you say.

i don't resort to fallacy for my Causes; unlike the nine hundred ninety-nine.

 

[danielpalos]

I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".

no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic

I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.

having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing

Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?

holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.

some people get more paid holidays that others

but you have to have a job to get those don't you?

compensation for doing nothing; i got it.

being, civic, is a "job unto itself" and sometimes, its Only reward. We have a better understanding of economics, now.

 

[danielpalos]

no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic

I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.

having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing

Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?

holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.

some people get more paid holidays that others

but you have to have a job to get those don't you?

Sure, but maybe you should have been a bit more specific about what you were talking about. You weren't talking about people getting money for not working, but people who don't have jobs being given money by the government for not working.

Though even then you have those who can't work, who can't currently get a job and have paid into the system for unemployment benefits, and then you have lazy bastards who don't do anything. The latter is far different to the former.

Capitalism relies on capital morals for a price; socialism requires social morals for free. The right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

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

I'm not sure what your point is here.

The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.

The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?

Well it's clear.

The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.

Okay, so, you say "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"

How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.

Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.

You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.

one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms. tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?

Proven? How much proof do you need?

First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.

But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783

George Washington


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Then you have the Supreme Court.


ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”


PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

Even Heller upheld the Presser case.

Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".


Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.

they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.

if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that

it merely says, that well regulated militia of the entire and whole People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, for the security needs of their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.

having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing

Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?

holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.

some people get more paid holidays that others

but you have to have a job to get those don't you?

Sure, but maybe you should have been a bit more specific about what you were talking about. You weren't talking about people getting money for not working, but people who don't have jobs being given money by the government for not working.

Though even then you have those who can't work, who can't currently get a job and have paid into the system for unemployment benefits, and then you have lazy bastards who don't do anything. The latter is far different to the former.

employees do not pay into unemployment

employers do via federal and state unemployment taxes

The benefits paid to jobless workers are financed through federal and stateunemployment taxes paid by employers. Every state's unemployment system bases the employer's tax rate on the amount of benefits paid to former workers. Your actions affect your tax rate.May 2, 2016

The Unemployment Benefits System: How it Works and When to Contest a Claim | BizFilings Toolkit

A general tax on Firms is cheaper.

And, we have a federal Doctrine in American law and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will. Or, employment at the will of either party.

Our current regime is why some on the left, make fun of some on the right, for complaining about illegals to our own laws.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm not sure what your point is here.

The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.

The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?

Well it's clear.

The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.

Okay, so, you say "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"

How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.

Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.

You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.

one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms. tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?

Proven? How much proof do you need?

First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.

But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783

George Washington


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Then you have the Supreme Court.


ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”


PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

Even Heller upheld the Presser case.

Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".


Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.

they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.

if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that

"it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?

But, the amendment DID say that.

It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.

When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.

Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?

The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia. If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia

you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?

The security needs of a free State and the Union; not, natural rights.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia. If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia

you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?

Fucking hell. How many times do I have to say this? I HAVE NOT SAID THAT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WAS RESTRICTED TO MILITIA SERVICE.

The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE.

What do you think the intent of the 2A is?

The right to stick a gun up your ass?

so you can only bear arms in the service of a militia

You are saying that an individual does nor have a right to carry a weapon because bearing arms doesn't mean carry a weapon it means serving in the militia.

"bear arms" means "militia duty".

So, you just said "so you can only do militia duty in the service of the militia", yes, you can only be in the militia in the militia.

Yes, I'm saying an individual does NOT have a right to carry a weapon around. Presser seemed to make that clear, and Heller confirmed this.

You can't have a license for a right. So carry and conceal permits would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And yet the NRA supports carry and conceal permits. Go figure. Why would they do this if there were a right to carry arms?

Think about it.

there are states that do not require a permit for concealed carry

So what? What the hell does this have to do with the argument? You just decided that because I wrote "carry and conceal permit" you'd come up with a fun fact of the day which includes "carry and conceal permit"? Wow.

Did you really not get my point at all?

I understand your point I happen to disagree

if the only rights you had as far as firearms are concerned is keeping one in your home or using it in service to the militia then one could keep but never use a gun outside the home unless called upon by the militia

is that what you think the second amendment says?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, it is a form of full employment of capital resources simply Because, Capital does and must Circulate.

If you're not working, you're not employed. Full stop.

Capitalism doesn't care about a work ethic, and neither do the laws of demand and supply.

Capital Must Circulate, under Any form of Capitalism.

 

[Skull Pilot]

having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing

Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?

holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.

some people get more paid holidays that others

but you have to have a job to get those don't you?

Sure, but maybe you should have been a bit more specific about what you were talking about. You weren't talking about people getting money for not working, but people who don't have jobs being given money by the government for not working.

Though even then you have those who can't work, who can't currently get a job and have paid into the system for unemployment benefits, and then you have lazy bastards who don't do anything. The latter is far different to the former.

employees do not pay into unemployment

employers do via federal and state unemployment taxes

The benefits paid to jobless workers are financed through federal and stateunemployment taxes paid by employers. Every state's unemployment system bases the employer's tax rate on the amount of benefits paid to former workers. Your actions affect your tax rate.May 2, 2016

The Unemployment Benefits System: How it Works and When to Contest a Claim | BizFilings Toolkit

A general tax on Firms is cheaper.

And, we have a federal Doctrine in American law and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will. Or, employment at the will of either party.

Our current regime is why some on the left, make fun of some on the right, for complaining about illegals to our own laws.

my god you thick idiot

ALL business already pay both state and federal unemployment taxes

 

[Skull Pilot]

You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.

one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms. tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?

Proven? How much proof do you need?

First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.

But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783

George Washington


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Then you have the Supreme Court.


ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”


PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

Even Heller upheld the Presser case.

Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".


Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.

they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.

if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that

"it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?

But, the amendment DID say that.

It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.

When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.

Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?

The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia. If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia

you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?

The security needs of a free State and the Union; not, natural rights.

the bill of rights is about the people not the states not the federal government.

It is a very clear list of rights that belong to the people not the government

 

[Skull Pilot]

What? How does getting paid by the federal government to quit your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?

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.

it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.

If it takes money - go earn it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?

I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".

no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic

silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I do not subscribe to forms of, "wage slavery" merely so the rich, can get richer, faster.

you don't get compensated for sitting on your ass in Mommy's basement

that is a fact of life you must accept if you ever want to be considered an adult

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert.

I'll bet you an entire year of your salary that he knows more about the English language than you

even if I lose it won't cost me 10 bucks

Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition. Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. It really is, that simple.

show me the dictionary or literary journals that cite you as a language expert

It is all in our federal Constitution.

show me where you have been cited as an expert in the English language

 

[danielpalos]

Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?

holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.

some people get more paid holidays that others

but you have to have a job to get those don't you?

Sure, but maybe you should have been a bit more specific about what you were talking about. You weren't talking about people getting money for not working, but people who don't have jobs being given money by the government for not working.

Though even then you have those who can't work, who can't currently get a job and have paid into the system for unemployment benefits, and then you have lazy bastards who don't do anything. The latter is far different to the former.

employees do not pay into unemployment

employers do via federal and state unemployment taxes

The benefits paid to jobless workers are financed through federal and stateunemployment taxes paid by employers. Every state's unemployment system bases the employer's tax rate on the amount of benefits paid to former workers. Your actions affect your tax rate.May 2, 2016

The Unemployment Benefits System: How it Works and When to Contest a Claim | BizFilings Toolkit

A general tax on Firms is cheaper.

And, we have a federal Doctrine in American law and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will. Or, employment at the will of either party.

Our current regime is why some on the left, make fun of some on the right, for complaining about illegals to our own laws.

my god you thick idiot

ALL business already pay both state and federal unemployment taxes

A general tax on Firms is cheaper.

why do You have a problem lowering our Tax burden?

 

[danielpalos]

Proven? How much proof do you need?

First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.

But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783

George Washington


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Then you have the Supreme Court.


ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”


PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

Even Heller upheld the Presser case.

Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".


Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.

they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.

if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that

"it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?

But, the amendment DID say that.

It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.

When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.

Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?

The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia. If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia

you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?

The security needs of a free State and the Union; not, natural rights.

the bill of rights is about the people not the states not the federal government.

It is a very clear list of rights that belong to the people not the government

States' rights is also included, then.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.

If it takes money - go earn it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?

I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".

no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic

silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I do not subscribe to forms of, "wage slavery" merely so the rich, can get richer, faster.

you don't get compensated for sitting on your ass in Mommy's basement

that is a fact of life you must accept if you ever want to be considered an adult

it is about equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment, at the will of either party.

You don't really care about the law, so, why should I take You seriously when You complain about illegals to our own laws.

 

[danielpalos]

Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert.

I'll bet you an entire year of your salary that he knows more about the English language than you

even if I lose it won't cost me 10 bucks

Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition. Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. It really is, that simple.

show me the dictionary or literary journals that cite you as a language expert

It is all in our federal Constitution.

show me where you have been cited as an expert in the English language

Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the Convention, with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. There is No Thing, ambiguous, at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Paying unemployable clowns, because they refuse to work, does not improve the efficiency of an economy.

yes, it does; capital must circulate under any form of capitalism, regardless of any work ethic.

Nah. Capital never has to flow thru your hands for capitalism to work.
It certainly doesn't have to be handed to you to make capitalism efficient.

yes, it does; simply for the market based metrics. only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism, except when it interferes with their national socialism.

yes, it does;

No. The economy doesn't depend on handing money to unemployables.
Taxing the successful to hand money to you does not improve economic efficiency.

simply for the market based metrics

Gibberish.

only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism,

Only the lift-wing claims handouts aid capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What? How does getting paid by the federal government to quit your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?

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.

it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.

If it takes money - go earn it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?

I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".

no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic

silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I do not subscribe to forms of, "wage slavery" merely so the rich, can get richer, faster.

i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

You're already receiving your deserved compensation for not working. Zero.

I do not subscribe to forms of, "wage slavery" merely so the rich, can get richer, faster.

No need to worry about that, your value added is zero.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Paying unemployable clowns, because they refuse to work, does not improve the efficiency of an economy.

yes, it does; capital must circulate under any form of capitalism, regardless of any work ethic.

Nah. Capital never has to flow thru your hands for capitalism to work.
It certainly doesn't have to be handed to you to make capitalism efficient.

yes, it does; simply for the market based metrics. only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism, except when it interferes with their national socialism.

yes, it does;

No. The economy doesn't depend on handing money to unemployables.
Taxing the successful to hand money to you does not improve economic efficiency.

simply for the market based metrics

Gibberish.

only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism,

Only the lift-wing claims handouts aid capitalism.

dude; we have Capitalism, for the "realism" of objective, market based metrics; not the subjectiveness, of right wing social policies, on a national basis.

only the fantastical right wing can claim, "market based metrics", is "gibberish".

just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual; since 1929.