The Right To Bear Arms

[hunarcy]

According to Scalia...who supposedly was an "originalist" and ....wasn't

Scalia was just one vote. However, of course, he was correct.

 

[danielpalos]

i am not the inferior one with nothing but fallacy.

Yes, yes you are. You haven't produced a valid argument yet.

i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.

A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.

All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?

The right of the people. You can't have people without persons. You do understand that, correct?

I understand that the terms are express not implied if we have to quibble.

And, if you merely want to imply, the people may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union whenever the security of our free States should require it, makes much more rational and Constitutional sense under the common law for the common defense.

 

[hunarcy]

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.

It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU FUCKING MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!

SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLL!!!

.

The People not the Persons. It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.

Given that the first amendment specifies that the right of the people to assemble is protected, does that mean you have the right to get together with anyone you choose, or must you be a part of an organized group to get together on a street corner?

Our Second Amendment declares which subset of the People have literal recourse.

"Our Second Amendment"? I don't believe you are a citizen of this nation, so "Our Second Amendment" would not apply to you.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; organize sufficient militia to make that happen, don't make excuses, right wingers. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

Don't you remember? I told you that we already did that, so now we can go back to ordinary people owning guns if they want to.

too lazy to muster but like to be hypocritical about the Poor, allegedly mooching?

Now you're talking about the poor? Pick a subject and stay with it.

no valid rebuttals, only fallacy; i got it, right wingers.

If you have a relevant comment, you'll get a rebuttal. Diversions, however, not so much.

Natural rights including the natural right to defense of self and property is recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.

It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU FUCKING MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!

SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLL!!!

.

The People not the Persons. It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.

Given that the first amendment specifies that the right of the people to assemble is protected, does that mean you have the right to get together with anyone you choose, or must you be a part of an organized group to get together on a street corner?

Our Second Amendment declares which subset of the People have literal recourse.

"Our Second Amendment"? I don't believe you are a citizen of this nation, so "Our Second Amendment" would not apply to you.

too bad you only have an inferior argument. you need more than fallacy for your bigotry to work with me, right wingers. i really do have a superior, left wing position.

 

[hadit]

Yes, yes you are. You haven't produced a valid argument yet.

i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.

A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.

All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?

The right of the people. You can't have people without persons. You do understand that, correct?

I understand that the terms are express not implied if we have to quibble.

And, if you merely want to imply, the people may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union whenever the security of our free States should require it, makes much more rational and Constitutional sense under the common law for the common defense.

It doesn't say anything about "for their state or the Union". That's another thing you keep tossing in there that doesn't belong.

 

[danielpalos]

i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.

A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.

All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?

The right of the people. You can't have people without persons. You do understand that, correct?

I understand that the terms are express not implied if we have to quibble.

And, if you merely want to imply, the people may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union whenever the security of our free States should require it, makes much more rational and Constitutional sense under the common law for the common defense.

It doesn't say anything about "for their state or the Union". That's another thing you keep tossing in there that doesn't belong.

I understand our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

 

[hadit]

Don't you remember? I told you that we already did that, so now we can go back to ordinary people owning guns if they want to.

too lazy to muster but like to be hypocritical about the Poor, allegedly mooching?

Now you're talking about the poor? Pick a subject and stay with it.

no valid rebuttals, only fallacy; i got it, right wingers.

If you have a relevant comment, you'll get a rebuttal. Diversions, however, not so much.

Natural rights including the natural right to defense of self and property is recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.

Based on what? And no, I won't just take your word for it.

 

[hadit]

A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.

All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?

The right of the people. You can't have people without persons. You do understand that, correct?

I understand that the terms are express not implied if we have to quibble.

And, if you merely want to imply, the people may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union whenever the security of our free States should require it, makes much more rational and Constitutional sense under the common law for the common defense.

It doesn't say anything about "for their state or the Union". That's another thing you keep tossing in there that doesn't belong.

I understand our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Which is meaningless, again.

 

[danielpalos]

too lazy to muster but like to be hypocritical about the Poor, allegedly mooching?

Now you're talking about the poor? Pick a subject and stay with it.

no valid rebuttals, only fallacy; i got it, right wingers.

If you have a relevant comment, you'll get a rebuttal. Diversions, however, not so much.

Natural rights including the natural right to defense of self and property is recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.

Based on what? And no, I won't just take your word for it.

LOL. Based on Constitutional law. You don't have to take my word for it.

natural rights recognized in State Constitutions are secured via Due Process in federal venues.

 

[danielpalos]

All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?

The right of the people. You can't have people without persons. You do understand that, correct?

I understand that the terms are express not implied if we have to quibble.

And, if you merely want to imply, the people may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union whenever the security of our free States should require it, makes much more rational and Constitutional sense under the common law for the common defense.

It doesn't say anything about "for their state or the Union". That's another thing you keep tossing in there that doesn't belong.

I understand our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Which is meaningless, again.

your appeals to ignorance are even more meaningless.

 

[hadit]

Now you're talking about the poor? Pick a subject and stay with it.

no valid rebuttals, only fallacy; i got it, right wingers.

If you have a relevant comment, you'll get a rebuttal. Diversions, however, not so much.

Natural rights including the natural right to defense of self and property is recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.

Based on what? And no, I won't just take your word for it.

LOL. Based on Constitutional law. You don't have to take my word for it.

natural rights recognized in State Constitutions are secured via Due Process in federal venues.

Natural rights are secured in the federal Constitution.

 

[hadit]

The right of the people. You can't have people without persons. You do understand that, correct?

I understand that the terms are express not implied if we have to quibble.

And, if you merely want to imply, the people may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union whenever the security of our free States should require it, makes much more rational and Constitutional sense under the common law for the common defense.

It doesn't say anything about "for their state or the Union". That's another thing you keep tossing in there that doesn't belong.

I understand our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Which is meaningless, again.

your appeals to ignorance are even more meaningless.

I'm not appealing to you, so why would you say that?

 

[danielpalos]

no valid rebuttals, only fallacy; i got it, right wingers.

If you have a relevant comment, you'll get a rebuttal. Diversions, however, not so much.

Natural rights including the natural right to defense of self and property is recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.

Based on what? And no, I won't just take your word for it.

LOL. Based on Constitutional law. You don't have to take my word for it.

natural rights recognized in State Constitutions are secured via Due Process in federal venues.

Natural rights are secured in the federal Constitution.

no, they are not. they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in federal venues.

 

[danielpalos]

I understand that the terms are express not implied if we have to quibble.

And, if you merely want to imply, the people may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union whenever the security of our free States should require it, makes much more rational and Constitutional sense under the common law for the common defense.

It doesn't say anything about "for their state or the Union". That's another thing you keep tossing in there that doesn't belong.

I understand our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Which is meaningless, again.

your appeals to ignorance are even more meaningless.

I'm not appealing to you, so why would you say that?

you are the one with the inferior argument.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'm not appealing to you, so why would you say that?

Just hit the ignore button on that filthy illegal Mexican troll.

.

 

[danielpalos]

show us where any Thing other than Due Process is guaranteed in our federal Constitution.

 

[Rigby5]

That's really pathetic. I've seen you try the PeeWee Herman thing before. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

i am not the inferior one with nothing but fallacy.

Yes, yes you are. You haven't produced a valid argument yet.

i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.

A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.

All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?

Because that is what a democratic republic means.
In a democratic republic, inherent individual rights are the ONLY source of any authority at all.
And government only ends up borrowing on this inherent rights of individuals, when it acts collectively to protect them.

For example, where does government get its authority to arms anyone, like police or military?
It comes from the inherent right of individuals to be armed to be able to protect their inherent rights of defense of self and property.
If individuals could not be armed, then they could not delegate being armed to the government, so then you could not have armed police or military.

So whether or not the terms of the 2nd amendment are collective or plural is not relevant.
The Bill of Rights is NOT at all the source of any rights.
Government can never be a source of rights.
People MAKE government, so rights have to already exist, in order for people to be able to make a government.
And the Bill of Rights was not a statement of rights, but of restriction on federal jurisdictions.
The 2nd amendment just says the feds get ZERO weapons jurisdiction, essentially.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

i am not the inferior one with nothing but fallacy.

Yes, yes you are. You haven't produced a valid argument yet.

i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.

A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.

All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?

Because that is what a democratic republic means.
In a democratic republic, inherent individual rights are the ONLY source of any authority at all.
And government only ends up borrowing on this inherent rights of individuals, when it acts collectively to protect them.

For example, where does government get its authority to arms anyone, like police or military?
It comes from the inherent right of individuals to be armed to be able to protect their inherent rights of defense of self and property.
If individuals could not be armed, then they could not delegate being armed to the government, so then you could not have armed police or military.

So whether or not the terms of the 2nd amendment are collective or plural is not relevant.
The Bill of Rights is NOT at all the source of any rights.
Government can never be a source of rights.
People MAKE government, so rights have to already exist, in order for people to be able to make a government.
And the Bill of Rights was not a statement of rights, but of restriction on federal jurisdictions.
The 2nd amendment just says the feds get ZERO weapons jurisdiction, essentially.

I agree with all of this.

If an individual does not have the right to take certain actions, where does government get the authority to do so except through usurpation and tyranny?

There can be no collective rights absent the same rights being held by the individual.

There can be no right of assembly (a collective action) without each individual participating in the assembly having the right independent of all others.


This is a fundamental area of disagreement between me and the now-ignored illegal Mexican communist, danielpalos.

He does not believe in individualism or individual liberty. He believes in the FORCED collective, where rights are basically a myth, because collective rights can never be exercised.

Practical example:

Communist Enforcer: "The People have the right to free speech."

Unwashed Peasant: "I am a person. I have a right to free speech."

Communist Enforcer: "Wrong. The People have the right."

Unwashed Peasant: "So, I can't speak freely?"

Communist Enforcer: "No, you can't speak. Only The People have that right. Now shut up and get out of The People's park. Only the People are allowed to enjoy this space."

Unwashed Peasant: "But, I am one of the people."

Communist Enforcer: "But, you are not The People, so get the fuck out of here before I send you to the salt mines."


Who gets to speak and use the park? Only the powerful.

.

 

[Rigby5]

All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?

All terms in our First Amendment are collective and plural.

Explain that, you communist Mexican illegal fuck.

The term Militia is expressly declared in our Second Amendment.

That does explain it, "you refugee from the mountains of the true Caucasians".

When you want to say something is wrong, just as any federal jurisdiction over something is wrong, you don't have to list ALL the reasons. If you want to give a single sample, that does not at all imply there are not millions of other reasons that may even be better or more important. You simply may list one that is most likely to sway those they want to sign on to the agreement.

Clearly a the effectiveness of a militia is a good reason to forbid all federal gun control.
But clearly that does not imply it is the ONLY reason, nor does it imply federal gun control could possibly be allowed then the reason is for something else.
Clearly the 2nd amendment does not allow for any federal jurisdiction at all, under any circumstances.
And that should be obvious, because the need, uses, and practicality of weapons obviously is going to vary from state to state, like NY to AL.

The ONLY times the federal government is ever allowed any jurisdiction over anything, is essentially when states can't do it alone. Weapons regulation is not one of those. So clearly only states or municipalities can ever have any weapons jurisdiction, at all.