The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

Because it would be spent, keeping You employed. Any more silly questions.

Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.

DERP!

Any more silly questions.

Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?

silly. it is about full employment of capital resources.

Yes, your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism. Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.

There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.

It does.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.

So can getting off your ass and getting a job.

Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid

Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

 

[danielpalos]

A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

Employment at will doesn't involve handouts for the lazy.

so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?

When are you going to repay your bailout?

What interest rate are you willing to pay?

A positive multiplier effect of two to one. Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.

A positive multiplier effect of two to one.

Prove it.

All talk just to be clueless and Causeless?

Summary: The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession--https://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20101615fs.htm

 

[danielpalos]

The point is, UE benefits should only expire when capitalism's natural rate of unemployment expires.

Which is right about now, isn't it? The Fed says that rate should be between 4.7 and 5.8%, which is where we are now. So these days nobody should get extended UE benefits, 26 weeks and you're done, right?

Definition: The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.

The Federal Reserve estimates that this rate is between 4.7 percent and 5.8 percent.

It is only natural for the bottom line of capitalists, not labor. UE benefits should only expire when labor gets hired.

So you are actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?

Capital must circulate, regardless. What part of that do you not get?

Let's assume that we end our statutory minimum wage in favor of a minimum wage to not participate in the market for labor.

How many Persons would prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis, if all they need do, is something market friendly that pays?

Capital must circulate, regardless

Failing to hand you a check for sitting on your ass is not impairing the efficient circulation of capital one iota.

any lack in demand means less need for supply.

only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.

DERP!

Any more silly questions.

Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?

silly. it is about full employment of capital resources.

Yes, your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism. Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.

There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.

It does.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.

So can getting off your ass and getting a job.

Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid

Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

Nothing but gibberish from you.
The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Employment at will doesn't involve handouts for the lazy.

so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?

When are you going to repay your bailout?

What interest rate are you willing to pay?

A positive multiplier effect of two to one. Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.

A positive multiplier effect of two to one.

Prove it.

All talk just to be clueless and Causeless?

Summary: The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession--https://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20101615fs.htm

I agree, when it comes to economics, you're clueless.

The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession

And? Besides having zero to do with your "idea"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which is right about now, isn't it? The Fed says that rate should be between 4.7 and 5.8%, which is where we are now. So these days nobody should get extended UE benefits, 26 weeks and you're done, right?

Definition: The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.

The Federal Reserve estimates that this rate is between 4.7 percent and 5.8 percent.

It is only natural for the bottom line of capitalists, not labor. UE benefits should only expire when labor gets hired.

So you are actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?

Capital must circulate, regardless. What part of that do you not get?

Let's assume that we end our statutory minimum wage in favor of a minimum wage to not participate in the market for labor.

How many Persons would prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis, if all they need do, is something market friendly that pays?

Capital must circulate, regardless

Failing to hand you a check for sitting on your ass is not impairing the efficient circulation of capital one iota.

any lack in demand means less need for supply.

only the right wing, never gets it.

Paying people to not supply work......is inefficient use of capital.

Only the lazy never get it.

 

[danielpalos]

silly. it is about full employment of capital resources.

Yes, your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism. Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.

There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.

It does.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.

So can getting off your ass and getting a job.

Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid

Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

Nothing but gibberish from you.
The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.

1929 is a proven fact; socialism has been bailing capitalism ever since, is also, a proven fact.

 

[danielpalos]

so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?

When are you going to repay your bailout?

What interest rate are you willing to pay?

A positive multiplier effect of two to one. Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.

A positive multiplier effect of two to one.

Prove it.

All talk just to be clueless and Causeless?

Summary: The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession--https://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20101615fs.htm

I agree, when it comes to economics, you're clueless.

The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession

And? Besides having zero to do with your "idea"?

it is about solving simple poverty to ensure full employment of capital resources and, a wealth of nations.

 

[danielpalos]

It is only natural for the bottom line of capitalists, not labor. UE benefits should only expire when labor gets hired.

So you are actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?

Capital must circulate, regardless. What part of that do you not get?

Let's assume that we end our statutory minimum wage in favor of a minimum wage to not participate in the market for labor.

How many Persons would prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis, if all they need do, is something market friendly that pays?

Capital must circulate, regardless

Failing to hand you a check for sitting on your ass is not impairing the efficient circulation of capital one iota.

any lack in demand means less need for supply.

only the right wing, never gets it.

Paying people to not supply work......is inefficient use of capital.

Only the lazy never get it.

Capital doesn't care; only the right wing, never gets it. Capital must circulate under any form of Capitalism.

 

[task0778]

So Daniel, one more time: are you actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?

You implied it, but have dodged the question thus far.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism. Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.

There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.

It does.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.

So can getting off your ass and getting a job.

Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid

Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

Nothing but gibberish from you.
The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.

1929 is a proven fact; socialism has been bailing capitalism ever since, is also, a proven fact.

FDR's socialist ideas certainly deserve some of the credit for lengthening the Depression.
Bailing out capitalism? LOL! Hardly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When are you going to repay your bailout?

What interest rate are you willing to pay?

A positive multiplier effect of two to one. Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.

A positive multiplier effect of two to one.

Prove it.

All talk just to be clueless and Causeless?

Summary: The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession--https://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20101615fs.htm

I agree, when it comes to economics, you're clueless.

The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession

And? Besides having zero to do with your "idea"?

it is about solving simple poverty to ensure full employment of capital resources and, a wealth of nations.

"Solving poverty" isn't the same thing as using capital efficiently.
Handouts to unemployables will not improve efficiency or help GDP.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't complain about illegals I merely state that all illegal aliens re criminals by definition

how can you say you care about the law if you don't agree with that fact?

And it's your choice not to work so it is your choice not to earn any money that's not my fault so I shouldn't have to pay your lazy ass a dime

so, you don't care about State laws regarding employment at will; how about a federal Doctrine in American law? don't complain; be Patriotic and legal to our own laws.

What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?

A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

which law and be specific

let's go with the federal doctrine. edd should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage UE benefits in our at-will employment State.

so what's the law

give me all the info

 

[Skull Pilot]

it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.

Why do you feel that handing you money for not working would have a positive multiplier?
Why would handing you money increase GDP?

Aristotle wasn't talking about handouts to the lazy.

Because it would be spent, keeping You employed. Any more silly questions.

Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.

DERP!

Any more silly questions.

Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?

silly. it is about full employment of capital resources.

you are not a resource

market based metrics is about our capital reality. no wonder the right wing, has nothing but economic fantasy.

and you are still not a resource.

you are a drain on the economy

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you are actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?

Capital must circulate, regardless. What part of that do you not get?

Let's assume that we end our statutory minimum wage in favor of a minimum wage to not participate in the market for labor.

How many Persons would prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis, if all they need do, is something market friendly that pays?

Capital must circulate, regardless

Failing to hand you a check for sitting on your ass is not impairing the efficient circulation of capital one iota.

any lack in demand means less need for supply.

only the right wing, never gets it.

Paying people to not supply work......is inefficient use of capital.

Only the lazy never get it.

Capital doesn't care; only the right wing, never gets it. Capital must circulate under any form of Capitalism.

I agree, capital doesn't care about your silly "ideas".
And it certainly doesn't need to be circulated thru your hands for efficiency.

 

[task0778]

Yes, your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism. Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.

There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.

It does.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.

So can getting off your ass and getting a job.

Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid

Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

Nothing but gibberish from you.
The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.

1929 is a proven fact; socialism has been bailing capitalism ever since, is also, a proven fact.

Actually, that is an unproven opinion. Which you are entitled to, but the fact is that the Great Depression was still going strong in 1939 when WWII pretty much broke out.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you fucking kidding me? I presented loads of evidence and you're just doing what all the other people who find it inconvenient for their desire to have something else do. They dismiss it, ignore it. Pretend that their zero evidence is more than the founding fathers.

I showed you where it is totally clear that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty", in fact I even showed you where they switched between the two in different draft versions.

Look, I'm not going to fuck around here. I presented evidence that you have not refuted at all. You've presented NOTHING.

I'm not going to go around wasting my time trying to convince someone who is willing to ignore the truth.

So, until you decide you want to debate PROPERLY, I'm not wasting my time with you. If you want to wallow in ignorance, that's your problem. If you want to know the truth, then you can debate with me.

totally clear but not exclusive

and FYI no one has the right to be in the militia (military)( since their application can be denied by the government for a host of reasons

As far back as the first SCOTUS the Second was regarded as protecting individual rights to keep and bear arms

James Wilson an original SCOTUS Justice

Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]

The right to bear arms in self defense is an INDIVIDUAL right

"totally clear", right, so you're rejecting something that is totally clear?

"but no exclusive"..... which means what?

You're wrong about the right to be in the militia. Why do you think they made the Dick Act in 1902? All 17-45 years are in the unorganized militia. The govt can reject you from being in the NATIONAL GUARD, it didn't apply to the states, they could kick you out if they wanted. But they made the Dick Act as a convenient way of getting around the right to bear arms, so they could make the National Guard. Without what they did, yes, people would have been able to demand to be in the National Guard. Now the govt can say, but, but, but, you're in the unorganized militia.

Why else do you think they made a militia that DOESN'T DO ANYTHING??????

Why did you bring up the individual issue? This has nothing to do with what we've spoken about at all. But all of a sudden you feel the need to bring it up. Yes, the 2A, like all other parts of the Bil of Rights, protects individuals. We don't need to argue about this any more, we agree with this.

Individuals have the right to be in the militia.

"Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]"

Wait, is this a quote? If you're going to quote shit, QUOTE IT, it needs QUOTATION MARKS, otherwise you're saying it, and your claim to have written it, in which case it's plagiarism.

Also, like I said before, the Bill of Rights doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing things that would potentially infringe on your rights. We've done this already. Your non-quote/quote that you didn't quote doesn't bring anything new here.

There is a right to self defense, this right does NOT come from the 2A. The right to self defense is the same as the right to privacy, not in the Constitution but assumed to exist and the Supreme Court has stated that it is protected by the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.

There is not "right to bear arms in self defense", that would imply there isn't a right to defend yourself in any other way. There is a right to own weapons. There is a right to self defense. And you are able, BY LAW, to use those guns you can own in self defense, just as you can use a TV, your fists, a dead man's penis, whatever the fuck you can physically use to try and defend yourself. There is not a right to a TV simply because you can defend yourself with it. So why would there be a right to a gun simply because you can defend yourself with it? There isn't. There IS a right to own a weapon, but it doesn't come from the right to self defense.

so according to you the intent of the framers was to restrict the bearing of arms solely to service in the militia

therefore while you have the right to self preservation you do not have the right to carry a firearm to be used to defend yourself

you really think that was the intent?

The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are not collective rights

By using the term an unorganized militia you negate the entire collective argument that bear arms means solely militia service in the sense that I can call my self a member of an unorganized militia and therefore bear arms everywhere I go

therefore my individual right to keep and bear arms (concealed or open carry) is intact and cannot be infringed

No, that is not what I said.

What I said what that the "right to bear arms" is "militia duty".

Carrying arms around in the US is legal in some places and not legal in other places. This has NOTHING to do with the 2A.

Why are you going on about collective and individual rights again for?

I'm using the term "unorganized militia" because, er... because the US CONGRESS WROTE A LAW THAT USES THIS. It's not hard to understand, is it?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

Here's the law on Wikipedia.

"The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the Dick Act,"

"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."

Two groups, one was the "Unorganized Militia", all males aged 17-45 and the National Guard.

I did not make up the "unorganized militia", the US govt did.

I never, EVER used the collective argument, and I have no fucking idea why the hell you're even talking about it. In fact, when people start acting like they're talking to someone else, and not responding to what I have said, it annoys me.

Yes, your individual right to keep arms (own weapons) and bear arms (be in the militia) cannot be infringed before due process.

Well, unless of course you think criminals and the insane should be able to own weapons and be in the militia. Do you want the insane to not have their right to be in the militia infringed upon?

The problem here is, I know what you'll do. You're making a connection with the second amendment carrying guns around, which the Supreme Court has said in Presser, and backed up in Heller, is NOT protected by the 2A. But the Supreme Court says you're wrong, the Founding Father say you're wrong, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.

You have two rights that are protected by the 2A. There might be other rights out there. There are other freedoms, but the 2A does not deal with these. You can go take a crap right now. The 2A doesn't protect this. Nor does it protect carrying arms around with you, but you can still do it. You don't need the 2A to protect something for you in order to be able to do it, you do so many things every day that are not protected by the 2A. And one of those might be carrying arms around.

yes 2 rights

to right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. But since even in the 18th century bear meant to carry then I can carry a firearm regardless of service to a militia

"bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.

But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?

 

[danielpalos]

So Daniel, one more time: are you actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?

You implied it, but have dodged the question thus far.

Yes. That is a requirement unless you can solve for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. Capital must circulate even if socialism has to bailout capitalism, to do it.

However, how many Persons who are not Religious, would be prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis.

Any form of fraud, denies and disparages Your contention.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism. Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.

There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.

It does.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.

So can getting off your ass and getting a job.

Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid

Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

Nothing but gibberish from you.
The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.

1929 is a proven fact; socialism has been bailing capitalism ever since, is also, a proven fact.

Not a proven fact..as was pointed out...FDRs socialism and attacks on Business lengthened and deepened the depression...no other depression had been as severe as that one because his depression was the only one where the government started interfering......

 

[2aguy]

totally clear but not exclusive

and FYI no one has the right to be in the militia (military)( since their application can be denied by the government for a host of reasons

As far back as the first SCOTUS the Second was regarded as protecting individual rights to keep and bear arms

James Wilson an original SCOTUS Justice

Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]

The right to bear arms in self defense is an INDIVIDUAL right

"totally clear", right, so you're rejecting something that is totally clear?

"but no exclusive"..... which means what?

You're wrong about the right to be in the militia. Why do you think they made the Dick Act in 1902? All 17-45 years are in the unorganized militia. The govt can reject you from being in the NATIONAL GUARD, it didn't apply to the states, they could kick you out if they wanted. But they made the Dick Act as a convenient way of getting around the right to bear arms, so they could make the National Guard. Without what they did, yes, people would have been able to demand to be in the National Guard. Now the govt can say, but, but, but, you're in the unorganized militia.

Why else do you think they made a militia that DOESN'T DO ANYTHING??????

Why did you bring up the individual issue? This has nothing to do with what we've spoken about at all. But all of a sudden you feel the need to bring it up. Yes, the 2A, like all other parts of the Bil of Rights, protects individuals. We don't need to argue about this any more, we agree with this.

Individuals have the right to be in the militia.

"Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]"

Wait, is this a quote? If you're going to quote shit, QUOTE IT, it needs QUOTATION MARKS, otherwise you're saying it, and your claim to have written it, in which case it's plagiarism.

Also, like I said before, the Bill of Rights doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing things that would potentially infringe on your rights. We've done this already. Your non-quote/quote that you didn't quote doesn't bring anything new here.

There is a right to self defense, this right does NOT come from the 2A. The right to self defense is the same as the right to privacy, not in the Constitution but assumed to exist and the Supreme Court has stated that it is protected by the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.

There is not "right to bear arms in self defense", that would imply there isn't a right to defend yourself in any other way. There is a right to own weapons. There is a right to self defense. And you are able, BY LAW, to use those guns you can own in self defense, just as you can use a TV, your fists, a dead man's penis, whatever the fuck you can physically use to try and defend yourself. There is not a right to a TV simply because you can defend yourself with it. So why would there be a right to a gun simply because you can defend yourself with it? There isn't. There IS a right to own a weapon, but it doesn't come from the right to self defense.

so according to you the intent of the framers was to restrict the bearing of arms solely to service in the militia

therefore while you have the right to self preservation you do not have the right to carry a firearm to be used to defend yourself

you really think that was the intent?

The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are not collective rights

By using the term an unorganized militia you negate the entire collective argument that bear arms means solely militia service in the sense that I can call my self a member of an unorganized militia and therefore bear arms everywhere I go

therefore my individual right to keep and bear arms (concealed or open carry) is intact and cannot be infringed

No, that is not what I said.

What I said what that the "right to bear arms" is "militia duty".

Carrying arms around in the US is legal in some places and not legal in other places. This has NOTHING to do with the 2A.

Why are you going on about collective and individual rights again for?

I'm using the term "unorganized militia" because, er... because the US CONGRESS WROTE A LAW THAT USES THIS. It's not hard to understand, is it?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

Here's the law on Wikipedia.

"The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the Dick Act,"

"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."

Two groups, one was the "Unorganized Militia", all males aged 17-45 and the National Guard.

I did not make up the "unorganized militia", the US govt did.

I never, EVER used the collective argument, and I have no fucking idea why the hell you're even talking about it. In fact, when people start acting like they're talking to someone else, and not responding to what I have said, it annoys me.

Yes, your individual right to keep arms (own weapons) and bear arms (be in the militia) cannot be infringed before due process.

Well, unless of course you think criminals and the insane should be able to own weapons and be in the militia. Do you want the insane to not have their right to be in the militia infringed upon?

The problem here is, I know what you'll do. You're making a connection with the second amendment carrying guns around, which the Supreme Court has said in Presser, and backed up in Heller, is NOT protected by the 2A. But the Supreme Court says you're wrong, the Founding Father say you're wrong, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.

You have two rights that are protected by the 2A. There might be other rights out there. There are other freedoms, but the 2A does not deal with these. You can go take a crap right now. The 2A doesn't protect this. Nor does it protect carrying arms around with you, but you can still do it. You don't need the 2A to protect something for you in order to be able to do it, you do so many things every day that are not protected by the 2A. And one of those might be carrying arms around.

yes 2 rights

to right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. But since even in the 18th century bear meant to carry then I can carry a firearm regardless of service to a militia

"bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.

But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?

No...you have rejected all facts....and reality....

From Heller...the most recent decision....from the Supreme Court....notice who they cite in Heller in regard to the meaning of Bearing Arms....Social Justice justice Ginsberg....

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.

--------

n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I