The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.

Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.

Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?

If not,

Amendment X
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.

To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.

I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing. You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.

Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

You just made that up. It's not in the Second Amendment.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[danielpalos]

And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.

Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.

Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?

If not,

Amendment X
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 did they say when you notified them they got it wrong?

You are welcome to start a gofundme page to purchase some quality time before the Court.

I don't need to. You think they got it wrong, so what did they say when you told them?

Start a gofundme account so we can find out.

 

[Rigby5]

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

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.

Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.

The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.

This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.

There's nothing genius about the constitution. No government has ever tried to stop gun ownership. Its fully automatics which are the problem.
No one can argue with the unnecessary deaths associated with guns. Thise deaths are not collateral damage for gun ownership. That's absurd.
Trump the tyrant reigned for 4 years and not one shot fired in anger. So much for that justification.

No, fully automatic weapons are rare, expensive, and highly restricted.
All the mass shootings were done with semi auto, which means one bullet for each trigger pull only.
The only times automatic weapons were used in crimes was back in Prohibition days with cheap Thompson machine guns, the LA bank robbery that has full auto Chinese AK-47s, and the Las Vegas concert shooting what Paddock used a bump stock that simulates a high rate of fire by flopping around.

 

[Rigby5]

First of all, it is the states that define and provide the militia, so it is not up to the federal constitution, which only defines what the feds can and can not do.

How did you reach that conclusion?

Article 1, Section 8: 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;

What you are quoting from the Constitution is about the ability of the federal government to be ABLE to call up and finance the Organized Militia out of each state's unorganized volunteer militias.
The intent was to not have a standing army, and instead have the states encourage personal firearm ownership and group training so that the feds could call upon them when necessary.

Go look at the Civil War history and you will see that each state used different uniforms, firearms, etc.
The US army was sustained by the states and not the federal government, and the federal government simply had the authority to draft from the unorganized state militias as needed.

For example, the Zouaves of Indiana.

 

[Rigby5]

I think Rigby5 is iron-clad proof that this is not a right v. left issue.

It's rather an up v. down issue.

(up being authoritarian and down being libertarian).

No government should have authority and power that the citizens themselves do not have. That is repugnant by all measures.

Not at all. You simply don't understand the function of Government and why power is delegated to our representatives.

We can't delegate that which we do not have.
So if we can be restricted on firearms, then we don't have the authority to arm a military.
We are the source of all legal authority, in the defense of our inherent rights.
We then can delegate from our inherent authority to create and armed military.
But then there is no way in hell that we can be restricted more than the subordinates we delegate to.
If we can be restricted, then no one has the authority to have it.

 

[Rigby5]

And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.

Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.

Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?

If not,

Amendment X
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.

To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.

I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing. You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.

Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

That is silly because the 2nd amendment is not at all the source of individual gun rights.
The 2nd amendment is only a strict and total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
Sure it gives a reason why, but clearly it is not the only reason why, and why does not really even matter, since the point is still that the federal government shall make no law at all infringing on gun rights of anyone.

 

[danielpalos]

The intent was to not have a standing army, and instead have the states encourage personal firearm ownership and group training so that the feds could call upon them when necessary.

Not sure how you reached your conclusion. GI stands for general issue; that includes Arms.

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

 

[danielpalos]

So if we can be restricted on firearms, then we don't have the authority to arm a military.

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.

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

 

[danielpalos]

And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.

Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.

Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?

If not,

Amendment X
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.

To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.

I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing. You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.

Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

That is silly because the 2nd amendment is not at all the source of individual gun rights.
The 2nd amendment is only a strict and total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
Sure it gives a reason why, but clearly it is not the only reason why, and why does not really even matter, since the point is still that the federal government shall make no law at all infringing on gun rights of anyone.

No, it doesn't. It says well regulated militia of the People shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That is still true today.

 

[hadit]

And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.

Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.

Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?

If not,

Amendment X
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.

To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.

I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing. You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.

Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

That is silly because the 2nd amendment is not at all the source of individual gun rights.
The 2nd amendment is only a strict and total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
Sure it gives a reason why, but clearly it is not the only reason why, and why does not really even matter, since the point is still that the federal government shall make no law at all infringing on gun rights of anyone.

No, it doesn't. It says well regulated militia of the People shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That is still true today.

You're just making that up. It says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the militia.

 

[hadit]

And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.

Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.

Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?

If not,

Amendment X
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.

To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.

I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing. You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.

Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

You just made that up. It's not in the Second Amendment.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

That's not what it says.

 

[hadit]

And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.

Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.

Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?

If not,

Amendment X
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 did they say when you notified them they got it wrong?

You are welcome to start a gofundme page to purchase some quality time before the Court.

I don't need to. You think they got it wrong, so what did they say when you told them?

Start a gofundme account so we can find out.

You told them they were wrong, tell us what they said. Or couldn't you hear because they were laughing too hard?

 

[hadit]

None of that is constitutional. The government neither owes me weapons nor does it have to regulate me if I choose to own them. That's the law.

This is a State's right secured by our Tenth Amendment:

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

Why are you pretending the Illinois constitution means anything anywhere other than Illinois? And again, 14th Amendment. Read it, learn it.

 

[hadit]

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

I see no such qualification in the 2A. That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.

Quit making up fake requirements.

Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition. Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way. The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.

That is correct. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's very clear.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Dan Palos sees this when he reads the 2A:

A well-regulated national guard is the militia and only the right of members of the national guard to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed while they are members of the national guard.

Yes. It is literally that stupid.

 

[danielpalos]

And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.

Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.

Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?

If not,

Amendment X
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.

To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.

I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing. You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.

Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

That is silly because the 2nd amendment is not at all the source of individual gun rights.
The 2nd amendment is only a strict and total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
Sure it gives a reason why, but clearly it is not the only reason why, and why does not really even matter, since the point is still that the federal government shall make no law at all infringing on gun rights of anyone.

No, it doesn't. It says well regulated militia of the People shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That is still true today.

You're just making that up. It says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the militia.

You are just making that stuff up. The People are the Militia. Thus, the Militia are the People. They are not seperate.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

I see no such qualification in the 2A. That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.

Quit making up fake requirements.

Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition. Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way. The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.

That is correct. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's very clear.

Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia and thus Necessary to the security of a free State. All terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.

 

[danielpalos]

Dan Palos sees this when he reads the 2A:

A well-regulated national guard is the militia and only the right of members of the national guard to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed while they are members of the national guard.

Yes. It is literally that stupid.

The People who are the national guard are the militia. See how that works. Why mention the militia at all if it means nothing to right wingers?

 

[danielpalos]

And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.

Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.

Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?

If not,

Amendment X
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.

To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.

I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing. You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.

Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.

You just made that up. It's not in the Second Amendment.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

That's not what it says.

Yes, it is.

 

[danielpalos]

And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.

Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.

Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?

If not,

Amendment X
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 did they say when you notified them they got it wrong?

You are welcome to start a gofundme page to purchase some quality time before the Court.

I don't need to. You think they got it wrong, so what did they say when you told them?

Start a gofundme account so we can find out.

You told them they were wrong, tell us what they said. Or couldn't you hear because they were laughing too hard?

All it takes is capital to purchase justice under our form of Capitalism. Start a gofundme page or simply be "too chicken" because you are full of fallacy.