The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

There was both a right and a duty.

The duty was the state needed you.

However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.

What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.

The right to be in an ad-hoc, citizen formed militia is not claimable / actionable for as long as the Constitution is in force -- there can be no militia organized except that as set-out in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16.

Yes, the people retain the right to throw off a tyrannical government, but the first step in that is taking back the powers granted to government (including the power to organize and call-up the militia) and invalidating any protections afforded to government by the Constitution (supremacy, preemption, prosecuting sedition and treason). So, until the people have rescinded their consent to be governed there is no right to be in a militia because the people have conferred that power/right to the federal government.

If the people are exercising this right to form a militia and are fighting a tyrannical government, that means the organized militia is no more, the armed forces are no more, the government, as it existed is no more . . . Simply because that government is no longer "the government established by the Constitution", it is something else, something foreign and dangerous -- which is why we are fighting it.

Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. .

Yes. Once enrolled and notified a man was required to "provide himself" with an appropriate firearm. The Militia Act of 1792 mandates:

• "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . "

Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia

The right to keep and bear arms has no relationship with militia duty or service. The pre-existing right is recognized and secured because an armed citizenry affords the state a body of properly-situated citizens, (with arms in their hands), able to be called up at a moments notice to aid the civil government in time of need -- while the government is operating properly. Again there is no right for citizens to form their own militia and train and drill.

You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.

I understand it and I understand how the Constitution works. There can not be a power granted like federal militia powers (a power that enjoys near field preemption) and then say that a concurrent "right" exists to do the same thing . . . That's just not how it works and Presser explains it.

• "The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."

There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.

This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.

"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;"

This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.

This is the Militia you have a right to be in.

SMH . . . Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia to fight a tyrannical government to now saying the people have a right to be in the organized §8 cl. 15 & 16 militia . . .

You seem to get -here- that the ONLY militias allowed under law are those organized by Congress (which sets the rules of discipline and conduct and the regimen for training) and commanded by officers chosen by the state governments, . . . and now you say there is a right to be in that militia?

Not sure how this ridiculous premise would work, especially with the complete lack of attention and concern the states and federal government exhibited towards the organized militia. Surely some citizen or group of citizens would have brought action against the federal and state governments for disregarding the militia and depriving the citizens this "right". Can you point to one instance of this right being claimed and argued to compel the federal and state governments to fulfill their constitutional militia obligations?

The actual situation of being enrolled in the militia alters the status of the citizen; when one is called up some circumstances change. Being in actual service works to roll back rights; a private citizen's 5th Amendment rights are not extended to a militia member. If one commits a crime when an enrolled militia member in time of danger, the UCMJ is the applicable justice system. Are you claiming a right to be court martialed?

The whole text is about that, read it.

I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate.

SCOTUS has been affirming this principle for going on over 140 years:

• "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (Cruikshank, 1876)
  
  " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (Presser, 1886)
  
  "the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .” (Heller, 2008)

This principle also means that the right to arms can not be argued to have any militia conditioning or qualification placed on it. The right can't in any manner depend on something (like the militia structure that cl. 15 & 16 sets-out) that is itself, entirely, completely dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.

In 24 years of debating gun rights on-line, I thought I saw it all.

The Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia. It also answered unequivocally any question . . . that there are no "militia rights" for anyone (states or citizens) to claim.

Im sure you’ll continue to be surprised in the future. Just when you though you’ve seen it all...

Yes, he might actually learn something if he keeps his mind open.

Those who have an agenda however, will just mock and insult.

 

[sakinago]

There was both a right and a duty.

The duty was the state needed you.

However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.

What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.

The right to be in an ad-hoc, citizen formed militia is not claimable / actionable for as long as the Constitution is in force -- there can be no militia organized except that as set-out in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16.

Yes, the people retain the right to throw off a tyrannical government, but the first step in that is taking back the powers granted to government (including the power to organize and call-up the militia) and invalidating any protections afforded to government by the Constitution (supremacy, preemption, prosecuting sedition and treason). So, until the people have rescinded their consent to be governed there is no right to be in a militia because the people have conferred that power/right to the federal government.

If the people are exercising this right to form a militia and are fighting a tyrannical government, that means the organized militia is no more, the armed forces are no more, the government, as it existed is no more . . . Simply because that government is no longer "the government established by the Constitution", it is something else, something foreign and dangerous -- which is why we are fighting it.

Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. .

Yes. Once enrolled and notified a man was required to "provide himself" with an appropriate firearm. The Militia Act of 1792 mandates:

• "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . "

Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia

The right to keep and bear arms has no relationship with militia duty or service. The pre-existing right is recognized and secured because an armed citizenry affords the state a body of properly-situated citizens, (with arms in their hands), able to be called up at a moments notice to aid the civil government in time of need -- while the government is operating properly. Again there is no right for citizens to form their own militia and train and drill.

You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.

I understand it and I understand how the Constitution works. There can not be a power granted like federal militia powers (a power that enjoys near field preemption) and then say that a concurrent "right" exists to do the same thing . . . That's just not how it works and Presser explains it.

• "The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."

There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.

This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.

"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;"

This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.

This is the Militia you have a right to be in.

SMH . . . Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia to fight a tyrannical government to now saying the people have a right to be in the organized §8 cl. 15 & 16 militia . . .

You seem to get -here- that the ONLY militias allowed under law are those organized by Congress (which sets the rules of discipline and conduct and the regimen for training) and commanded by officers chosen by the state governments, . . . and now you say there is a right to be in that militia?

Not sure how this ridiculous premise would work, especially with the complete lack of attention and concern the states and federal government exhibited towards the organized militia. Surely some citizen or group of citizens would have brought action against the federal and state governments for disregarding the militia and depriving the citizens this "right". Can you point to one instance of this right being claimed and argued to compel the federal and state governments to fulfill their constitutional militia obligations?

The actual situation of being enrolled in the militia alters the status of the citizen; when one is called up some circumstances change. Being in actual service works to roll back rights; a private citizen's 5th Amendment rights are not extended to a militia member. If one commits a crime when an enrolled militia member in time of danger, the UCMJ is the applicable justice system. Are you claiming a right to be court martialed?

The whole text is about that, read it.

I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate.

SCOTUS has been affirming this principle for going on over 140 years:

• "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (Cruikshank, 1876)
  
  " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (Presser, 1886)
  
  "the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .” (Heller, 2008)

This principle also means that the right to arms can not be argued to have any militia conditioning or qualification placed on it. The right can't in any manner depend on something (like the militia structure that cl. 15 & 16 sets-out) that is itself, entirely, completely dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.

In 24 years of debating gun rights on-line, I thought I saw it all.

The Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia. It also answered unequivocally any question . . . that there are no "militia rights" for anyone (states or citizens) to claim.

Im sure you’ll continue to be surprised in the future. Just when you though you’ve seen it all...

Yes, he might actually learn something if he keeps his mind open.

Those who have an agenda however, will just mock and insult.

Please tell me you aren’t honestly trying to say you have no agenda...this feels like I’m on some sort of internet candy camera.

I have an agenda, the difference between my agenda and yours is that I wish to add freedom to the world. I want you to have more freedom, I want myself to have more freedom. I want you to have a government that you don’t have to be concerned about what policy they’re passing here or there, because they are staying out of your business. My agenda is also in line with our constitution as it was intended.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.

Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.

I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.

However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.

Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.

Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.

Um, her position is a little more than simply "not liking guns." And why should only "important" people be protected? That statement shows the hypocrisy of liberals who talk about "equality." All people are equal, so I hope you're not actually saying that only important people (i.e. your dear leaders) deserve protection.

Pure idiocy.

No one is advocating that only important people be protected; consequently there is no ‘hypocrisy’ of liberals concerning equality.

Liberals support current Second Amendment jurisprudence, take no issue with citizens lawfully possessing firearms, and acknowledge the right of citizens to engage in lawful self-defense.

Indeed, it’s conservatives who are hostile to current Second Amendment jurisprudence, claiming that the Second Amendment is ‘unlimited,’ when the Heller Court reaffirmed that it is not, arguing that there should be no restrictions on possessing firearms although the courts have upheld those restrictions as Constitutional, and opposing firearm regulatory measures the Supreme Court has never ruled to be in violation of the Second Amendment.

Joe Biden Says Hero Who Took Down Texas Church Shooter Shouldn’t Have Had AR-15

Joe Biden would certainly be surprised to hear you consider him "no one".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Time for you to leave the U.S. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

That ain't how it works, sparky. We use the ballot box and laws.

That we do, dunce boy and the ballot box is why the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches of government.

And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.

"Republicans attempt to violate the rights of the people". When, precisely, would that be? Could you cite an example? Would help even more if your cited example wasn't of the left's most cherished right of being an unmitigated jackass whenever and wherever they please.

Not saying you don't have the right to be an asshole. Just suggesting that maybe that's not the one you should exercise and defend the most vigorously.

Dear Cecilie1200

1. Republicans in Tennessee sought to ban Mosques, which was discrimination against Muslims not treated equally as Christians under Constitutional laws. (Democrats similarly push to ban the choice of reparative therapy, and don't treat ex-gay and LGBT beliefs equally but discriminate against ex-gays while complaining about discrimination against transgender as a minority)

2. Republicans voted and defended unconstitutional bans on same sex marriage, that led to the opposite backlash and equal unconstitutional move to endorse and establish the right to marriage. BOTH involve faith based beliefs and biases regarding "marriage"; where NEITHER should be decided by govt but left to the people's free choice of beliefs.

3. Republicans continue to push prolife views and policies through govt, in violation of the equal protection of prochoice beliefs. While Democrats continue to do the same pushing right to health care through govt, in violation of Constitutional beliefs in free market choices that govt is not authorized to coerce people into under threat of penalty.
Both are unconstitutional.

So what I'm hearing is exactly what I expected: Republicans "violation of rights" is really just that they're opposing your opinions, and having the unmitigated gall to think they should be allowed to do so publicly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There was both a right and a duty.

The duty was the state needed you.

However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.

What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.

The right to be in an ad-hoc, citizen formed militia is not claimable / actionable for as long as the Constitution is in force -- there can be no militia organized except that as set-out in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16.

Yes, the people retain the right to throw off a tyrannical government, but the first step in that is taking back the powers granted to government (including the power to organize and call-up the militia) and invalidating any protections afforded to government by the Constitution (supremacy, preemption, prosecuting sedition and treason). So, until the people have rescinded their consent to be governed there is no right to be in a militia because the people have conferred that power/right to the federal government.

If the people are exercising this right to form a militia and are fighting a tyrannical government, that means the organized militia is no more, the armed forces are no more, the government, as it existed is no more . . . Simply because that government is no longer "the government established by the Constitution", it is something else, something foreign and dangerous -- which is why we are fighting it.

Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. .

Yes. Once enrolled and notified a man was required to "provide himself" with an appropriate firearm. The Militia Act of 1792 mandates:

• "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . "

Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia

The right to keep and bear arms has no relationship with militia duty or service. The pre-existing right is recognized and secured because an armed citizenry affords the state a body of properly-situated citizens, (with arms in their hands), able to be called up at a moments notice to aid the civil government in time of need -- while the government is operating properly. Again there is no right for citizens to form their own militia and train and drill.

You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.

I understand it and I understand how the Constitution works. There can not be a power granted like federal militia powers (a power that enjoys near field preemption) and then say that a concurrent "right" exists to do the same thing . . . That's just not how it works and Presser explains it.

• "The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."

There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.

This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.

"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;"

This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.

This is the Militia you have a right to be in.

SMH . . . Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia to fight a tyrannical government to now saying the people have a right to be in the organized §8 cl. 15 & 16 militia . . .

You seem to get -here- that the ONLY militias allowed under law are those organized by Congress (which sets the rules of discipline and conduct and the regimen for training) and commanded by officers chosen by the state governments, . . . and now you say there is a right to be in that militia?

Not sure how this ridiculous premise would work, especially with the complete lack of attention and concern the states and federal government exhibited towards the organized militia. Surely some citizen or group of citizens would have brought action against the federal and state governments for disregarding the militia and depriving the citizens this "right". Can you point to one instance of this right being claimed and argued to compel the federal and state governments to fulfill their constitutional militia obligations?

The actual situation of being enrolled in the militia alters the status of the citizen; when one is called up some circumstances change. Being in actual service works to roll back rights; a private citizen's 5th Amendment rights are not extended to a militia member. If one commits a crime when an enrolled militia member in time of danger, the UCMJ is the applicable justice system. Are you claiming a right to be court martialed?

The whole text is about that, read it.

I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate.

SCOTUS has been affirming this principle for going on over 140 years:

• "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (Cruikshank, 1876)
  
  " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (Presser, 1886)
  
  "the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .” (Heller, 2008)

This principle also means that the right to arms can not be argued to have any militia conditioning or qualification placed on it. The right can't in any manner depend on something (like the militia structure that cl. 15 & 16 sets-out) that is itself, entirely, completely dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.

In 24 years of debating gun rights on-line, I thought I saw it all.

The Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia. It also answered unequivocally any question . . . that there are no "militia rights" for anyone (states or citizens) to claim.

Im sure you’ll continue to be surprised in the future. Just when you though you’ve seen it all...

Yes, he might actually learn something if he keeps his mind open.

Those who have an agenda however, will just mock and insult.

Please tell me you aren’t honestly trying to say you have no agenda...this feels like I’m on some sort of internet candy camera.

I have an agenda, the difference between my agenda and yours is that I wish to add freedom to the world. I want you to have more freedom, I want myself to have more freedom. I want you to have a government that you don’t have to be concerned about what policy they’re passing here or there, because they are staying out of your business. My agenda is also in line with our constitution as it was intended.

You have no idea what I think.

No, I have no agenda. I take the issue, I look at the facts and I come to a conclusion.

Yes, I have an agenda in other things.

Go look up on the search next to my name with "proportional representation" and then we'll see who's for more freedom or not.

Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.

As for your agenda being as the Constitution intended. That's bullshit, I know this because I present EVIDENCE that clearly shows how the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted, and you IGNORE IT. Says a lot.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.

They don't equal freedom, true. They can guarantee freedom if people who have them are willing to use them when necessary. They probably have prevented a Bolshevik revolution in the U.S.

Guns are tools. Nothing more.

We shouldn't ban tools because a very small minority of people abuse them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.

They don't equal freedom, true. They can guarantee freedom if people who have them are willing to use them when necessary. They probably have prevented a Bolshevik revolution in the U.S.

Guns are tools. Nothing more.

We shouldn't ban tools because a very small minority of people abuse them.

No, they don't equal freedom, and often people forget what makes freedom because they think "we have guns". Well, the UK without many guns didn't have a Bolshevik revolution either. The UK has more or less the same freedoms of the US does.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.

They don't equal freedom, true. They can guarantee freedom if people who have them are willing to use them when necessary. They probably have prevented a Bolshevik revolution in the U.S.

Guns are tools. Nothing more.

We shouldn't ban tools because a very small minority of people abuse them.

No, they don't equal freedom, and often people forget what makes freedom because they think "we have guns". Well, the UK without many guns didn't have a Bolshevik revolution either. The UK has more or less the same freedoms of the US does.

UK and the US are only the same compared to NK, but that's not the issue.

Guns are tools. They don't create freedom. They don't rise up and defeat tyranny. They are nothing but tools. WE create freedom. WE rise up. WE act. We just need our tools to do so, when necessary.

That's all I am saying.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.

They don't equal freedom, true. They can guarantee freedom if people who have them are willing to use them when necessary. They probably have prevented a Bolshevik revolution in the U.S.

Guns are tools. Nothing more.

We shouldn't ban tools because a very small minority of people abuse them.

No, they don't equal freedom, and often people forget what makes freedom because they think "we have guns". Well, the UK without many guns didn't have a Bolshevik revolution either. The UK has more or less the same freedoms of the US does.

UK and the US are only the same compared to NK, but that's not the issue.

Guns are tools. They don't create freedom. They don't rise up and defeat tyranny. They are nothing but tools. WE create freedom. WE rise up. WE act. We just need our tools to do so, when necessary.

That's all I am saying.

Okay, and surely it would be better to have people thinking about who they vote for, to get politicians who will protect things. You want to rise up against a tyrannical govt, it'll probably be too late anyway, no matter whether you have guns or not.

 

[Abatis]

Problem with your argument is that the Founding Fathers protected the right to be in the militia.

How is this right exercised?

The obligation to perform militia duty was not impressed on everyone in the nation (only free White men); there were plenty of people excluded from simply being eligible to perform militia duty. Do you argue that people other than free white men possessed this right, or was the right restricted to only those citizens who were already obligated to perform militia duty? If the latter, how is doing what one is legally obligated to do, in any definition familiar to the founders / framers, a right? In your world is there a right to pay your taxes?

How is this right violated?

Who would be the violator? You can only be talking about a right that exists federally since states were not bound by the 2nd Amendment. What actions by the federal government would you consider a violation of this right?

How is this right enforced?

Who in the federal government would a citizen bring action against to remedy an injury of this right? Would Congress be the defendant, for not allowing certain people to be included in the class obligated to perform militia duty?

If this right really existed there would have been hundreds if not thousands of examples of actions being brought against the federal government, especially in the abolitionist movement. States like Massachusetts would have certainly tested every possible interpretation, trying to extend this right to Blacks -- especially after Dred Scott v Sandford since the federal exclusion from the militia was such an important part of Justice Taney's reasoning.

After Dred Scott, Massachusetts proposed allowing non-Whites to serve in the Militia; the legislature passed laws in 1859 and 1860 allowing Blacks to serve; after advisory opinions from the state AG and supreme court, the governor vetoed it, not wanting a fight with the feds. Had Blacks been enrolled, their names would have been sent to the feds in the Return of Militia. It could be argued then that they are then liable to federal service - a powerful argument for standing to be granted in federal court, and possibly undermining the Dred Scott decision. Had your imagined right really been thought to exist, it would have been the perfect vehicle for such action, BUT . . . Nothing????

The only thing that is more believable than your militia right fantasy is if you said you saw Jesus Christ riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting unicorn waving a pink dildo.

 

[Abatis]

You're twisting things.

I'm trying to untwist them.

The Militia Act of 1792 was just that, an ACT of CONGRESS. Meaning it's not something required by the Constitution.
You have Constitutional law, and then you have normal law. Two different things. Don't pretend that because in 1792 they made a law for something, that this was a requirement of the Constitution. In fact, if they had to make a law about it, it clearly WAS NOT in the Constitution.

Really, you can't be serious.

The Militia Act of 1792 was Congress exercising its constitutional powers to "provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia".

The Militia Act of 1792 set-out who was liable to perform militia service, how they would be armed, the command structure of the militia etc . . .

Yes, the Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the militia. Why?

Why did they make the Dick Act? Why did they make the "unorganized militia"?

I've told you why. And you've just come back at me with nothing. As if they just decided "hey, I know, let's make the unorganized militia because it's my birthday tomorrow".

Oh, please. They did it for A REASON.

LOL. The Congress didn't create the unorganized militia.

Those private citizens, not enrolled in any militia and not encumbered by any militia regulations, but just citizens simply capable of bearing arms, are the reserve "unorganized" militia . . . Presser acknowledged this as being an unquestionable truth of the US:

• "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states,"

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Problem with your argument is that the Founding Fathers protected the right to be in the militia.

How is this right exercised?

The obligation to perform militia duty was not impressed on everyone in the nation (only free White men); there were plenty of people excluded from simply being eligible to perform militia duty. Do you argue that people other than free white men possessed this right, or was the right restricted to only those citizens who were already obligated to perform militia duty? If the latter, how is doing what one is legally obligated to do, in any definition familiar to the founders / framers, a right? In your world is there a right to pay your taxes?

How is this right violated?

Who would be the violator? You can only be talking about a right that exists federally since states were not bound by the 2nd Amendment. What actions by the federal government would you consider a violation of this right?

How is this right enforced?

Who in the federal government would a citizen bring action against to remedy an injury of this right? Would Congress be the defendant, for not allowing certain people to be included in the class obligated to perform militia duty?

If this right really existed there would have been hundreds if not thousands of examples of actions being brought against the federal government, especially in the abolitionist movement. States like Massachusetts would have certainly tested every possible interpretation, trying to extend this right to Blacks -- especially after Dred Scott v Sandford since the federal exclusion from the militia was such an important part of Justice Taney's reasoning.

After Dred Scott, Massachusetts proposed allowing non-Whites to serve in the Militia; the legislature passed laws in 1859 and 1860 allowing Blacks to serve; after advisory opinions from the state AG and supreme court, the governor vetoed it, not wanting a fight with the feds. Had Blacks been enrolled, their names would have been sent to the feds in the Return of Militia. It could be argued then that they are then liable to federal service - a powerful argument for standing to be granted in federal court, and possibly undermining the Dred Scott decision. Had your imagined right really been thought to exist, it would have been the perfect vehicle for such action, BUT . . . Nothing????

The only thing that is more believable than your militia right fantasy is if you said you saw Jesus Christ riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting unicorn waving a pink dildo.

Militia duty was considered just for men. However they made the protection for the right, and it includes all people. The reality was that they probably wouldn't have expected women to join up, but in reality they couldn't have stopped them. However society would probably have stopped them.

I mean, they said "all men are created equal" in 1776 and there was slavery in 1860 and segregation in 1950. Come on.

The clause they wanted to put into the future 2A was that people who were religiously scrupulous couldn't be compelled to be in the militia, but everyone else could be. They feared this would mean the feds could declare who was religiously scrupulous and prevent them being in the militia, and thereby preventing ALL PEOPLE being in the militia, or at least making it ineffective.

Does this sound like the sort of argument for preventing people from carrying guns around? Would they have required those who refused to carry guns around in the streets on a normal day to "pay an equivalent"?

No.

A violation of the right to bear arms would be to prevent an individual from being in the militia before due process.

The whole point would be that if tyranny had not taken over, then they would go through the court system, just like everyone else.

Look, I'm happy to debate with someone. If you want to go off on one talking about fantasy, then I'm not going to respond.

I can back up everything I say with evidence. You've backed up nothing. Don't tell me that all my evidence is fantasy while your lack of evidence is what?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You're twisting things.

I'm trying to untwist them.

The Militia Act of 1792 was just that, an ACT of CONGRESS. Meaning it's not something required by the Constitution.
You have Constitutional law, and then you have normal law. Two different things. Don't pretend that because in 1792 they made a law for something, that this was a requirement of the Constitution. In fact, if they had to make a law about it, it clearly WAS NOT in the Constitution.

Really, you can't be serious.

The Militia Act of 1792 was Congress exercising its constitutional powers to "provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia".

The Militia Act of 1792 set-out who was liable to perform militia service, how they would be armed, the command structure of the militia etc . . .

Yes, the Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the militia. Why?

Why did they make the Dick Act? Why did they make the "unorganized militia"?

I've told you why. And you've just come back at me with nothing. As if they just decided "hey, I know, let's make the unorganized militia because it's my birthday tomorrow".

Oh, please. They did it for A REASON.

LOL. The Congress didn't create the unorganized militia.

Those private citizens, not enrolled in any militia and not encumbered by any militia regulations, but just citizens simply capable of bearing arms, are the reserve "unorganized" militia . . . Presser acknowledged this as being an unquestionable truth of the US:

• "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states,"

.

The militia act of 1792 was indeed the US Congress exercising its power to arm and discipline the militia. However the Constitution merely gave that power to Congress. It did NOT say in the Constitution how this arming and disciplining must be done and the Constitution DID NOT say who was in the militia.

Unless of course you can prove a shred of evidence to back this up.

But you can't, and we both know it.

Congress didn't create the "unorganized militia"? I'm shocked.

The quote you have provided says "reserve militia" not "unorganized militia". Come on.

The Dick Act created the "unorganized militia" and the Dick Act was made in Congress, the legislature, where LEGISLATION is made.

Dick Act of 1902

"The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army."

Seems I have more evidence, you have nothing relevant.

 

[sakinago]

There was both a right and a duty.

The duty was the state needed you.

However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.

What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.

The right to be in an ad-hoc, citizen formed militia is not claimable / actionable for as long as the Constitution is in force -- there can be no militia organized except that as set-out in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16.

Yes, the people retain the right to throw off a tyrannical government, but the first step in that is taking back the powers granted to government (including the power to organize and call-up the militia) and invalidating any protections afforded to government by the Constitution (supremacy, preemption, prosecuting sedition and treason). So, until the people have rescinded their consent to be governed there is no right to be in a militia because the people have conferred that power/right to the federal government.

If the people are exercising this right to form a militia and are fighting a tyrannical government, that means the organized militia is no more, the armed forces are no more, the government, as it existed is no more . . . Simply because that government is no longer "the government established by the Constitution", it is something else, something foreign and dangerous -- which is why we are fighting it.

Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. .

Yes. Once enrolled and notified a man was required to "provide himself" with an appropriate firearm. The Militia Act of 1792 mandates:

• "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . "

Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia

The right to keep and bear arms has no relationship with militia duty or service. The pre-existing right is recognized and secured because an armed citizenry affords the state a body of properly-situated citizens, (with arms in their hands), able to be called up at a moments notice to aid the civil government in time of need -- while the government is operating properly. Again there is no right for citizens to form their own militia and train and drill.

You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.

I understand it and I understand how the Constitution works. There can not be a power granted like federal militia powers (a power that enjoys near field preemption) and then say that a concurrent "right" exists to do the same thing . . . That's just not how it works and Presser explains it.

• "The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."

There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.

This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.

"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;"

This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.

This is the Militia you have a right to be in.

SMH . . . Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia to fight a tyrannical government to now saying the people have a right to be in the organized §8 cl. 15 & 16 militia . . .

You seem to get -here- that the ONLY militias allowed under law are those organized by Congress (which sets the rules of discipline and conduct and the regimen for training) and commanded by officers chosen by the state governments, . . . and now you say there is a right to be in that militia?

Not sure how this ridiculous premise would work, especially with the complete lack of attention and concern the states and federal government exhibited towards the organized militia. Surely some citizen or group of citizens would have brought action against the federal and state governments for disregarding the militia and depriving the citizens this "right". Can you point to one instance of this right being claimed and argued to compel the federal and state governments to fulfill their constitutional militia obligations?

The actual situation of being enrolled in the militia alters the status of the citizen; when one is called up some circumstances change. Being in actual service works to roll back rights; a private citizen's 5th Amendment rights are not extended to a militia member. If one commits a crime when an enrolled militia member in time of danger, the UCMJ is the applicable justice system. Are you claiming a right to be court martialed?

The whole text is about that, read it.

I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate.

SCOTUS has been affirming this principle for going on over 140 years:

• "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (Cruikshank, 1876)
  
  " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (Presser, 1886)
  
  "the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .” (Heller, 2008)

This principle also means that the right to arms can not be argued to have any militia conditioning or qualification placed on it. The right can't in any manner depend on something (like the militia structure that cl. 15 & 16 sets-out) that is itself, entirely, completely dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.

In 24 years of debating gun rights on-line, I thought I saw it all.

The Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia. It also answered unequivocally any question . . . that there are no "militia rights" for anyone (states or citizens) to claim.

Im sure you’ll continue to be surprised in the future. Just when you though you’ve seen it all...

Yes, he might actually learn something if he keeps his mind open.

Those who have an agenda however, will just mock and insult.

Please tell me you aren’t honestly trying to say you have no agenda...this feels like I’m on some sort of internet candy camera.

I have an agenda, the difference between my agenda and yours is that I wish to add freedom to the world. I want you to have more freedom, I want myself to have more freedom. I want you to have a government that you don’t have to be concerned about what policy they’re passing here or there, because they are staying out of your business. My agenda is also in line with our constitution as it was intended.

You have no idea what I think.

No, I have no agenda. I take the issue, I look at the facts and I come to a conclusion.

Yes, I have an agenda in other things.

Go look up on the search next to my name with "proportional representation" and then we'll see who's for more freedom or not.

Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.

As for your agenda being as the Constitution intended. That's bullshit, I know this because I present EVIDENCE that clearly shows how the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted, and you IGNORE IT. Says a lot.

What exactly did I ignore? I’ve posted a shit ton of the writings from the founders about the second amendment/armed population/standing armies/etc, all in context, in this post. As well as a shit ton of historical references to how the 2nd was practiced, what was the militia and why it was important, the philosophy all this is based on...it’s very clear what was intended. Ivy League pro-gun control contstitutional law professors agree that if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The right to be in an ad-hoc, citizen formed militia is not claimable / actionable for as long as the Constitution is in force -- there can be no militia organized except that as set-out in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16.

Yes, the people retain the right to throw off a tyrannical government, but the first step in that is taking back the powers granted to government (including the power to organize and call-up the militia) and invalidating any protections afforded to government by the Constitution (supremacy, preemption, prosecuting sedition and treason). So, until the people have rescinded their consent to be governed there is no right to be in a militia because the people have conferred that power/right to the federal government.

If the people are exercising this right to form a militia and are fighting a tyrannical government, that means the organized militia is no more, the armed forces are no more, the government, as it existed is no more . . . Simply because that government is no longer "the government established by the Constitution", it is something else, something foreign and dangerous -- which is why we are fighting it.

Yes. Once enrolled and notified a man was required to "provide himself" with an appropriate firearm. The Militia Act of 1792 mandates:

• "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . "

The right to keep and bear arms has no relationship with militia duty or service. The pre-existing right is recognized and secured because an armed citizenry affords the state a body of properly-situated citizens, (with arms in their hands), able to be called up at a moments notice to aid the civil government in time of need -- while the government is operating properly. Again there is no right for citizens to form their own militia and train and drill.

I understand it and I understand how the Constitution works. There can not be a power granted like federal militia powers (a power that enjoys near field preemption) and then say that a concurrent "right" exists to do the same thing . . . That's just not how it works and Presser explains it.

• "The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."

SMH . . . Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia to fight a tyrannical government to now saying the people have a right to be in the organized §8 cl. 15 & 16 militia . . .

You seem to get -here- that the ONLY militias allowed under law are those organized by Congress (which sets the rules of discipline and conduct and the regimen for training) and commanded by officers chosen by the state governments, . . . and now you say there is a right to be in that militia?

Not sure how this ridiculous premise would work, especially with the complete lack of attention and concern the states and federal government exhibited towards the organized militia. Surely some citizen or group of citizens would have brought action against the federal and state governments for disregarding the militia and depriving the citizens this "right". Can you point to one instance of this right being claimed and argued to compel the federal and state governments to fulfill their constitutional militia obligations?

The actual situation of being enrolled in the militia alters the status of the citizen; when one is called up some circumstances change. Being in actual service works to roll back rights; a private citizen's 5th Amendment rights are not extended to a militia member. If one commits a crime when an enrolled militia member in time of danger, the UCMJ is the applicable justice system. Are you claiming a right to be court martialed?

I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate.

SCOTUS has been affirming this principle for going on over 140 years:

• "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (Cruikshank, 1876)
  
  " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (Presser, 1886)
  
  "the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .” (Heller, 2008)

This principle also means that the right to arms can not be argued to have any militia conditioning or qualification placed on it. The right can't in any manner depend on something (like the militia structure that cl. 15 & 16 sets-out) that is itself, entirely, completely dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

In 24 years of debating gun rights on-line, I thought I saw it all.

The Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia. It also answered unequivocally any question . . . that there are no "militia rights" for anyone (states or citizens) to claim.

Im sure you’ll continue to be surprised in the future. Just when you though you’ve seen it all...

Yes, he might actually learn something if he keeps his mind open.

Those who have an agenda however, will just mock and insult.

Please tell me you aren’t honestly trying to say you have no agenda...this feels like I’m on some sort of internet candy camera.

I have an agenda, the difference between my agenda and yours is that I wish to add freedom to the world. I want you to have more freedom, I want myself to have more freedom. I want you to have a government that you don’t have to be concerned about what policy they’re passing here or there, because they are staying out of your business. My agenda is also in line with our constitution as it was intended.

You have no idea what I think.

No, I have no agenda. I take the issue, I look at the facts and I come to a conclusion.

Yes, I have an agenda in other things.

Go look up on the search next to my name with "proportional representation" and then we'll see who's for more freedom or not.

Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.

As for your agenda being as the Constitution intended. That's bullshit, I know this because I present EVIDENCE that clearly shows how the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted, and you IGNORE IT. Says a lot.

What exactly did I ignore? I’ve posted a shit ton of the writings from the founders about the second amendment/armed population/standing armies/etc, all in context, in this post. As well as a shit ton of historical references to how the 2nd was practiced, what was the militia and why it was important, the philosophy all this is based on...it’s very clear what was intended. Ivy League pro-gun control contstitutional law professors agree that if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd.

A shit ton of stuff that isn't relevant.

I could post Superbowl winning teams for you, and it would have no relevance for this discussion.

As for a "shit ton", I don't remember that much.

You ignore most of the evidence, and then present stuff which I tell you isn't relevant, and then you ignore that too. Oh, great. What a waste of fucking time.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Okay, and surely it would be better to have people thinking about who they vote for, to get politicians who will protect things. You want to rise up against a tyrannical govt, it'll probably be too late anyway, no matter whether you have guns or not.

I agree that who we vote for matters. We need politicians who protect our freedom.

I disagree that it will be too late to rise up against a tyrannical government....until they confiscate our guns. THEN it will be too late.

No government wants to put down massive armed insurrection. They will do just enough to keep people calm, which is all we can hope for, but it's just barely enough.

 

[sakinago]

Im sure you’ll continue to be surprised in the future. Just when you though you’ve seen it all...

Yes, he might actually learn something if he keeps his mind open.

Those who have an agenda however, will just mock and insult.

Please tell me you aren’t honestly trying to say you have no agenda...this feels like I’m on some sort of internet candy camera.

I have an agenda, the difference between my agenda and yours is that I wish to add freedom to the world. I want you to have more freedom, I want myself to have more freedom. I want you to have a government that you don’t have to be concerned about what policy they’re passing here or there, because they are staying out of your business. My agenda is also in line with our constitution as it was intended.

You have no idea what I think.

No, I have no agenda. I take the issue, I look at the facts and I come to a conclusion.

Yes, I have an agenda in other things.

Go look up on the search next to my name with "proportional representation" and then we'll see who's for more freedom or not.

Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.

As for your agenda being as the Constitution intended. That's bullshit, I know this because I present EVIDENCE that clearly shows how the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted, and you IGNORE IT. Says a lot.

What exactly did I ignore? I’ve posted a shit ton of the writings from the founders about the second amendment/armed population/standing armies/etc, all in context, in this post. As well as a shit ton of historical references to how the 2nd was practiced, what was the militia and why it was important, the philosophy all this is based on...it’s very clear what was intended. Ivy League pro-gun control contstitutional law professors agree that if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd.

A shit ton of stuff that isn't relevant.

I could post Superbowl winning teams for you, and it would have no relevance for this discussion.

As for a "shit ton", I don't remember that much.

You ignore most of the evidence, and then present stuff which I tell you isn't relevant, and then you ignore that too. Oh, great. What a waste of fucking time.

I never saw a lick of evidence from you, you threatened it, but didn’t present. Not to me at least. Only thing I got from you is that you feel like guns exacerbate socioeconomic problems, and I’ve presented evidence that it isn’t at all, and that crimes are going down and down, while guns are going up and up. Your other argument is that our murder rate is higher than it is in Europe or whatever other select country you choose. I presented you with Switzerland, you said it’s not it’s not the same since it isn’t a fair comparison, while you dismiss when I say comparing us to these other countries isn’t a fair comparison either. On top of that, I’ve shown you that in these countries looking at them in a vaccuum (which is the best way to look at them, since they’ve been safer than America even before their strict gun controls/bans) when they have implement gun control their murder rates and gun crime rates skyrocket. Your cherry picking your stats. You only try compare our murder rate to theirs, but ignore everything else.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, he might actually learn something if he keeps his mind open.

Those who have an agenda however, will just mock and insult.

Please tell me you aren’t honestly trying to say you have no agenda...this feels like I’m on some sort of internet candy camera.

I have an agenda, the difference between my agenda and yours is that I wish to add freedom to the world. I want you to have more freedom, I want myself to have more freedom. I want you to have a government that you don’t have to be concerned about what policy they’re passing here or there, because they are staying out of your business. My agenda is also in line with our constitution as it was intended.

You have no idea what I think.

No, I have no agenda. I take the issue, I look at the facts and I come to a conclusion.

Yes, I have an agenda in other things.

Go look up on the search next to my name with "proportional representation" and then we'll see who's for more freedom or not.

Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.

As for your agenda being as the Constitution intended. That's bullshit, I know this because I present EVIDENCE that clearly shows how the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted, and you IGNORE IT. Says a lot.

What exactly did I ignore? I’ve posted a shit ton of the writings from the founders about the second amendment/armed population/standing armies/etc, all in context, in this post. As well as a shit ton of historical references to how the 2nd was practiced, what was the militia and why it was important, the philosophy all this is based on...it’s very clear what was intended. Ivy League pro-gun control contstitutional law professors agree that if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd.

A shit ton of stuff that isn't relevant.

I could post Superbowl winning teams for you, and it would have no relevance for this discussion.

As for a "shit ton", I don't remember that much.

You ignore most of the evidence, and then present stuff which I tell you isn't relevant, and then you ignore that too. Oh, great. What a waste of fucking time.

I never saw a lick of evidence from you, you threatened it, but didn’t present. Not to me at least. Only thing I got from you is that you feel like guns exacerbate socioeconomic problems, and I’ve presented evidence that it isn’t at all, and that crimes are going down and down, while guns are going up and up. Your other argument is that our murder rate is higher than it is in Europe or whatever other select country you choose. I presented you with Switzerland, you said it’s not it’s not the same since it isn’t a fair comparison, while you dismiss when I say comparing us to these other countries isn’t a fair comparison either. On top of that, I’ve shown you that in these countries looking at them in a vaccuum (which is the best way to look at them, since they’ve been safer than America even before their strict gun controls/bans) when they have implement gun control their murder rates and gun crime rates skyrocket. Your cherry picking your stats. You only try compare our murder rate to theirs, but ignore everything else.

The point they will not look at is the fact that up until recently, Europe has had a very different culture than the U.S......they suffered through 2 world wars....the actual pain and suffering of having their societies destroyed.....and they have been top down socieities with kings and queens......we didn't have either one. Their history and culture was decades behind ours because of those wars.......and their social welfare states hadn't managed to destroy the family yet.

Now.....not only have their welfare states destroyed the basic family unit, they now have single teenage girls raising their poor, young males.....(see the book "Life at the bottom" about the destruction to the lower classes in England due to their welfare policies....you can see how they are exactly like our policies now....) They also bring in violent immigrant groups from 3rd world countries.....who do not value the European cultures they are entering, and they are the ones controlling the violent drug gangs in Europe....

Add to that.....they are cutting police manpower and funding...to pay for the welfare state, and they are implementing politically correct police policies that tie the hands of their police when confronting violent minorities...just like here......

Their culture had been able to keep their murder rate low....that is no longer the case.......and the left won't believe it till the bodies start stacking up........

 

[danielpalos]

danielpalos: "Show Ignored Content"

I think I will pass, and just guess at what it might say:

"The Right of the Federal Government to the wellness of regulation of the clueless and causeless people-litia shall not be infringed."

Our Second Amendment is a States right.

Then it would’ve said states instead of people. Again the first phrase of the 2nd was a qualifier to the 2nd phrase of “the RKBA of the people shall not be infringed”

To break that down for you. “Because the militia (made up and controlled by civilians) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

A govenor could call upon the militia, but it was still up to the locally sourced and locally controlled militia to do as they please. If that wasn’t the case, then why did the founders 86 a standing army if it only took a power hungry governor to organize a coup? Most (almost all) coups aren’t carried out by the entire army, usually it’s a general or group of generals or a politician with control of some generals. On top of that a governor could sick his militia onto an uppity portion of the population if he preferred to do so. You’ve just replaced one standing army with another.

The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

danielpalos: "Show Ignored Content"



"the arms to bear rights of the wellness of regulation of the militia shall not be infringed"