The Right To Bear Arms

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

However the point is they don't WANT to agree. You can present all the evidence in the world, but people like this will always reject what isn't convenient.

I appreciate you making actual arguments. Despite my asshole-ish demeanor on this forum, I am not opposed to an honest discussion and will consider your points. I am a liberty-first guy, so you can understand my tendencies.

Many things could have been protected in the Bill of Rights, but the reality was all of them had a purpose. Now you're trying to say the right to bear arms has not purpose other than because individuals want to. Then why didn't they protect the right to drink water? The right to breathe air? So many things that serve no purpose.

They did protect the right to drink water, and all other natural rights, in the 9th Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The right to keep arms and carry them on your person was a well-established natural right at the time. (please tell me you are not going to make me provide a source for this). Current law is not inconsistent with this argument on the limits of Congress regarding arms, as States had banned the open carry of firearms many years ago, but to my knowledge, there is no federal ban on the open or concealed carry of firearms. I could be wrong, and will admit my mistake readily.

No only does your argument make no sense, but you've also failed to back it up with a single document. On the other hand I have PROOF, I mean, unless you're willing to stick your head up your ass, you can't deny what is said in the document I provided.

I apologize, but I have not seen the document to which you are referring. Could you post a link again? Thanks.

I am not opposed to reviewing any evidence anyone has to offer.

Understand, as I said, I am a liberty-first guy. I label myself a libertarian for convenience, but I am really a classic liberal.

I believe our founders were also classic liberals. They believed in government by and for the people. I have provided documentation, that our founders all understood the right to possess and carry arms to be a natural right, that existed before governments.

I have provided quotes from the founders that support my argument that they intended the people to be armed as a security against government, to keep government in line and working for the people.

Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment may be correct, but given the history of the right, and the intent of the 9th Amendment, the right to keep and carry was not to be infringed by Congress, but remained the authority of the States.

 

[BluesLegend]

Its not rocket science, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" go ahead gun control nuts throw yourselves against that slab of granite.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

LMAO does the US Constitution say "Subject only to the police power"

 

[BluesLegend]

Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.

Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.

The SCOTUS disagrees with you, tissue? We have the 2nd amendment and you don't have the votes to amend it, sucks to be you.

 

[danielpalos]

Its not rocket science, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" go ahead gun control nuts throw yourselves against that slab of granite.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

LMAO does the US Constitution say "Subject only to the police power"

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State. Not the unorganized militia.

 

[emilynghiem]

Its not rocket science, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" go ahead gun control nuts throw yourselves against that slab of granite.

Yes BluesLegend Even if, as DP and FW argue, that the "state militias" are the standard of regulation,
that would still need the STATES to regulate this. the part that the Federal Govt regulates was already
provided as BLW cited in a previous post as well. The Right To Bear Arms

It seems DP contests this and still argues the federal govt is the authority on regulating arms through state militias.
danielpalos frigidweirdo Bootney Lee Farnsworth

I guess it makes sense, since the state govt ends up balancing the rights and beliefs of their local populations
with the nationalized Constitutional rights and protections, it ultimately does land on the state level to pass laws that satisfy BOTH.
BOTH the Constitutional/national levels of law and the beliefs and arguments of the people on local levels.

DP calls this federal regulations when the laws have to meet Constitutional standards.
I call it the PEOPLE deciding public policy through both the state and federal levels so there is no conflict on any level.

I don't know if I'm the only one here doing this: but I treat both the view of separating people/state/federal govt
and the view of defending Constitutional rights and beliefs as federal govt authority
as POLITICAL BELIEFS equally protected from infringement under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Because of the nature of liberals who wait until federal govt Courts and Congress endorse something as law,
this interpretation of "free exercise of religion" and "creed" as including "political beliefs"
is FOREIGN or NONEXISTENT/INVALID to others
who don't automatically claim the right to INTERPRET these laws as INCLUDING "political beliefs" and treating them equally as "religious beliefs."

So funny and frustrating at the same time.

If you lose your sense of humor about this circular predicament, on the level of Shakespearean tragic dark comedy.
no wonder people get abusive and violent. It's maddening and crazymaking
and both sides accuse the other of being the crazy ones!

 

[westwall]

Dear danielpalos
do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?

When people TODAY don't even "all agree"

What makes you think they would have agreed back
then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!

The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.

They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.

So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?

No, silly person. It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.

Run along little sheep, run along.

Nothing but diversion, right wingers?

The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.

It really is that simple, except to the right wing.

No, it's pretty obvious that it is you who are the defective one. Like I stated previously, if it were your opinion that was correct the ruling elite would have disarmed us decades ago. As they haven't I think it is safe to say that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

why do y'all waste your time with politics; gossip girls is what y'all are best at.

Well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

But no person may have a weapon when they are at home? That's funny. Truly funny. Especially in light of the US v Miller decision I gave you.

 

[BluesLegend]

Its not rocket science, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" go ahead gun control nuts throw yourselves against that slab of granite.

Yes BluesLegend Even if, as DP and FW argue, that the "state militias" are the standard of regulation,
that would still need the STATES to regulate this. the part that the Federal Govt regulates was already
provided as BLW cited in a previous post as well. The Right To Bear Arms

It seems DP contests this and still argues the federal govt is the authority on regulating arms through state militias.
danielpalos frigidweirdo Bootney Lee Farnsworth

I guess it makes sense, since the state govt ends up balancing the rights and beliefs of their local populations
with the nationalized Constitutional rights and protections, it ultimately does land on the state level to pass laws that satisfy BOTH.
BOTH the Constitutional/national levels of law and the beliefs and arguments of the people on local levels.

DP calls this federal regulations when the laws have to meet Constitutional standards.
I call it the PEOPLE deciding public policy through both the state and federal levels so there is no conflict on any level.

I don't know if I'm the only one here doing this: but I treat both the view of separating people/state/federal govt
and the view of defending Constitutional rights and beliefs as federal govt authority
as POLITICAL BELIEFS equally protected from infringement under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Because of the nature of liberals who wait until federal govt Courts and Congress endorse something as law,
this interpretation of "free exercise of religion" and "creed" as including "political beliefs"
is FOREIGN or NONEXISTENT/INVALID to others
who don't automatically claim the right to INTERPRET these laws as INCLUDING "political beliefs" and treating them equally as "religious beliefs."

So funny and frustrating at the same time.

If you lose your sense of humor about this circular predicament, on the level of Shakespearean tragic dark comedy.
no wonder people get abusive and violent. It's maddening and crazymaking
and both sides accuse the other of being the crazy ones!

The 2nd amendment is clear if you understand that when it was written, in many countries it was unlawful for common citizens to possess arms, or they were subject to seizure leaving the common people defenseless when facing tyrannical monarchies and dictators.

 

[BluesLegend]

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?

No, silly person. It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.

Run along little sheep, run along.

Nothing but diversion, right wingers?

The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.

It really is that simple, except to the right wing.

No, it's pretty obvious that it is you who are the defective one. Like I stated previously, if it were your opinion that was correct the ruling elite would have disarmed us decades ago. As they haven't I think it is safe to say that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

why do y'all waste your time with politics; gossip girls is what y'all are best at.

Well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

But no person may have a weapon when they are at home? That's funny. Truly funny. Especially in light of the US v Miller decision I gave you.

The SCOTUS made that crystal clear.

 

[turtledude]

Dear, Only Congress can prescribe "well regulated" to the Militia of the United States.

So R2D2-you are claiming the second amendment grants congress powers?

 

[turtledude]

Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.

Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.

wrong R2D2. the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and is a blanket negative restriction on the federal government to interfere with that

 

[hadit]

Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.

Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.

And the Supreme Court. Don't forget them. They disagree with you too.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?

No, silly person. It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.

Run along little sheep, run along.

Nothing but diversion, right wingers?

The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.

It really is that simple, except to the right wing.

No, it's pretty obvious that it is you who are the defective one. Like I stated previously, if it were your opinion that was correct the ruling elite would have disarmed us decades ago. As they haven't I think it is safe to say that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

why do y'all waste your time with politics; gossip girls is what y'all are best at.

Well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

But no person may have a weapon when they are at home? That's funny. Truly funny. Especially in light of the US v Miller decision I gave you.

The unorganized militia is Infringed all the time. Gun control laws are for them, not the organized militias.

 

[danielpalos]

Dear, Only Congress can prescribe "well regulated" to the Militia of the United States.

So R2D2-you are claiming the second amendment grants congress powers?

These powers are delegated to Congress:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[danielpalos]

Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.

Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.

wrong R2D2. the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and is a blanket negative restriction on the federal government to interfere with that

A well regulated militia is necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared necessary in our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.

Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.

And the Supreme Court. Don't forget them. They disagree with you too.

that ruling was in error. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not. Nobody is unconnected with the militia; only militia service, well regulated.

 

[hadit]

Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.

Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.

And the Supreme Court. Don't forget them. They disagree with you too.

that ruling was in error. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not. Nobody is unconnected with the militia; only militia service, well regulated.

Right. Your legal opinion is better, sharper, more educated and weightier then theirs is.

 

[danielpalos]

Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.

Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.

And the Supreme Court. Don't forget them. They disagree with you too.

that ruling was in error. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not. Nobody is unconnected with the militia; only militia service, well regulated.

Right. Your legal opinion is better, sharper, more educated and weightier then theirs is.

All they did was appeal to ignorance, not the law.

The People are the Militia.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

New York State Constitution.

Well regulated militia is also a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.

 

[hadit]

Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.

Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.

And the Supreme Court. Don't forget them. They disagree with you too.

that ruling was in error. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not. Nobody is unconnected with the militia; only militia service, well regulated.

Right. Your legal opinion is better, sharper, more educated and weightier then theirs is.

All they did was appeal to ignorance, not the law.

The People are the Militia.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

New York State Constitution.

Well regulated militia is also a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.

And, if course, your opinion is superior to theirs. I'd like to see you say exactly that.

 

[turtledude]

Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.

And the Supreme Court. Don't forget them. They disagree with you too.

that ruling was in error. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not. Nobody is unconnected with the militia; only militia service, well regulated.

Right. Your legal opinion is better, sharper, more educated and weightier then theirs is.

All they did was appeal to ignorance, not the law.

The People are the Militia.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

New York State Constitution.

Well regulated militia is also a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.

And, if course, your opinion is superior to theirs. I'd like to see you say exactly that.

R2D2 has admitted several times he doesn't have any legal training. HE just makes stuff up because he's a left wing bannerrhoid and pretends that the second amendment doesn't prevent such things

 

[westwall]

Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.

Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.

wrong R2D2. the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and is a blanket negative restriction on the federal government to interfere with that

A well regulated militia is necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared necessary in our Second Amendment.

The unorganized militia is the only militia we had back then. Historically you are wrong. Factually you are wrong, philosophically you are wrong, and philologically you are wrong. Basically you haven't got a rope to even piss up, you are so wrong.