The Right To Bear Arms

[Rigby5]

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

The whole Bill of Rights is just absolute guarantees.

The 9th and 10th amendments sum it up the best.
{...
Amendment 9
- Other Rights Kept by the People

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

Amendment 10
- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
...}
What they essentially say is that only what has been expressly granted federal jurisdiction comes under federal authority, but everything is open ended state, local, and individual authority.

The Bill of Rights is entirely a guarantee on limits to federal jurisdiction.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Natural rights can never be enumerated anywhere.
There are infinite.
But they are alluded to everywhere.
The whole point of a democratic republic is to codify natural rights as being the only valid source of any authority, and for that to be the basis from which any legislation of executive action has to be justified.

 

[hadit]

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.

Please explain how the First Amendment does not protect natural rights.

 

[hadit]

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.

Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.

 

[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?

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.

You confuse natural rights with our Second Article of Amendment.

You have a natural right to defense of self and property through the use of Arms.

that natural right has always been tempered by the Police power of a State for the "good of the State" over the Individual.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And remember, a jury can trump the Supreme Court.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

You confuse natural rights with our Second Article of Amendment.

You have a natural right to defense of self and property through the use of Arms.

that natural right has always been tempered by the Police power of a State for the "good of the State" over the Individual.

Several mistakes.
I agree that you have a natural right to defense of self and property.
That implies the individual use of arms.

I agree that natural right has always been tempered, but NOT at all by any police power especially when there were ZERO police back in the founder's days.
(in fact there were insignificant police until around 1900.)

Nor can any inherent natural right ever be abridged in any way, "for the good of the State".
In a democratic republic, essentially there is supposed to be no state, but only the extensions of the rights of individuals who collectively ARE the state.
So what you should have written, if you wanted to be accurate, is that natural rights can always be compromised when necessary in order to protect and defend the rights of others.
No state is supposed to ever have any authority of its own over any inherent rights.
Other individuals can need their rights defended, and the state can be the vehicle by which those rights are defended.
But it can never be done in the name of or for the good of the state, in a democratic republic, because the state has no standing in a democratic republic.

 

[Rustic]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The whole Bill of Rights is just absolute guarantees.

The 9th and 10th amendments sum it up the best.
{...
Amendment 9
- Other Rights Kept by the People

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

Amendment 10
- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
...}
What they essentially say is that only what has been expressly granted federal jurisdiction comes under federal authority, but everything is open ended state, local, and individual authority.

The Bill of Rights is entirely a guarantee on limits to federal jurisdiction.

Wrong.

The states and local jurisdictions are likewise subject to the Bill of Rights, placing limits on the authority of state and local governments.

Selective Incorporation - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Indeed, the doctrine of Selective Incorporation was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court when it incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010.

And you’re also wrong about the Tenth Amendment:

“From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth] amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

United States v. Darby

 

[Rustic]

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

The whole Bill of Rights is just absolute guarantees.

The 9th and 10th amendments sum it up the best.
{...
Amendment 9
- Other Rights Kept by the People

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

Amendment 10
- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
...}
What they essentially say is that only what has been expressly granted federal jurisdiction comes under federal authority, but everything is open ended state, local, and individual authority.

The Bill of Rights is entirely a guarantee on limits to federal jurisdiction.

Wrong.

The states and local jurisdictions are likewise subject to the Bill of Rights, placing limits on the authority of state and local governments.

Selective Incorporation - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Indeed, the doctrine of Selective Incorporation was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court when it incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010.

And you’re also wrong about the Tenth Amendment:

“From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth] amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

United States v. Darby

Lol
No doubt you’re a collectivist

 

[Aponi]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

No its not .
It may be more revelent then ever before.
With the rise of democrats socialist neo communists ideas and crime having a gun is more important then ever .

 

[Aponi]

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

The whole Bill of Rights is just absolute guarantees.

The 9th and 10th amendments sum it up the best.
{...
Amendment 9
- Other Rights Kept by the People

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

Amendment 10
- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
...}
What they essentially say is that only what has been expressly granted federal jurisdiction comes under federal authority, but everything is open ended state, local, and individual authority.

The Bill of Rights is entirely a guarantee on limits to federal jurisdiction.

We have class 2 items obey the law why should we be penalised for obeying the law

 

[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?

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.

You confuse natural rights with our Second Article of Amendment.

You have a natural right to defense of self and property through the use of Arms.

that natural right has always been tempered by the Police power of a State for the "good of the State" over the Individual.

Several mistakes.
I agree that you have a natural right to defense of self and property.
That implies the individual use of arms.

I agree that natural right has always been tempered, but NOT at all by any police power especially when there were ZERO police back in the founder's days.
(in fact there were insignificant police until around 1900.)

Nor can any inherent natural right ever be abridged in any way, "for the good of the State".
In a democratic republic, essentially there is supposed to be no state, but only the extensions of the rights of individuals who collectively ARE the state.
So what you should have written, if you wanted to be accurate, is that natural rights can always be compromised when necessary in order to protect and defend the rights of others.
No state is supposed to ever have any authority of its own over any inherent rights.
Other individuals can need their rights defended, and the state can be the vehicle by which those rights are defended.
But it can never be done in the name of or for the good of the state, in a democratic republic, because the state has no standing in a democratic republic.

Where are you getting your propaganda from?

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

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.

He's trolling you.
Ignore button.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the nine hundred ninety-nine have to troll because they have inferior arguments.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

dan palos is an illegal Mexicans commie troll who NEVER cites to any legal authority backing his stupid "arguments" and only responds with Pete and Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

.

 

[hadit]

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.

Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.

He's trolling you.
Ignore button.

Yes, he is, and I enjoy watching him go down in flames over and over again.

 

[hadit]

dan palos is an illegal Mexicans commie troll who NEVER cites to any legal authority backing his stupid "arguments" and only responds with Pete and Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

.

True dat.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

The whole Bill of Rights is just absolute guarantees.

The 9th and 10th amendments sum it up the best.
{...
Amendment 9
- Other Rights Kept by the People

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

Amendment 10
- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
...}
What they essentially say is that only what has been expressly granted federal jurisdiction comes under federal authority, but everything is open ended state, local, and individual authority.

The Bill of Rights is entirely a guarantee on limits to federal jurisdiction.

Wrong.

The states and local jurisdictions are likewise subject to the Bill of Rights, placing limits on the authority of state and local governments.

Selective Incorporation - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Indeed, the doctrine of Selective Incorporation was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court when it incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010.

And you’re also wrong about the Tenth Amendment:

“From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth] amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

United States v. Darby

This, from Darby:

"The power of Congress over interstate commerce extends to those intrastate activities which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make their regulation an appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end -- the exercise of the granted power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. P. 118."

Is the effective END of constitutional government.

If the Interstate Commerce Clause means also intrastate commerce, it simply means ALL commerce.

Just like the Welfare Clause. If it means ANYTHING to promote the welfare of the people, it means FedGov has all power and authority, and is no longer limited.

Congrats on your constitutional overthrow, commie.


.

 

[Pilot1]

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.

Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.

He's trolling you.
Ignore button.

Yes, he is, and I enjoy watching him go down in flames over and over again.

Many of us have posted the relevant quotes, and information with the links over and over, so, yeah, I agree.