The Right To Bear Arms

[Rigby5]

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?

Makes no sense at all.
The People is everyone. The superset of all living humans within the borders, including women and children.
For everyone has rights, even if they are infants and can't bear arms.
The national guard are a very small subset of the people, who not only decide they are willing to accept the rank, but are also found to be acceptable and necessary to the government.
And the militia are a middle group who might include neighbors who would act to protect others when the need arises, such as volunteering for a posse to catch bank robbers.
The People, National Guard, and Militia are 3 distinct and different groups.

But going back to the 2nd amendment, listing 1 reason why something is true, does not imply there are not other reasons. The Constitution continually admits it does not try to enumerate, since justifications could be infinite and impossible to enumerate.

 

[danielpalos]

Makes no sense at all.
The People is everyone.

Why mention what is Necessary to the security of a free State, if that is not what was Intended?

 

[Rigby5]

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;

It seems you are assuming that legal authority comes from and originates with legislation, and that is incorrect.
Legal authority has to come first, BEFORE you have the delegated authority to be able to write legislation.
This is not an authoritarian dictatorship, so the only source of any legal authority comes from the inherent rights of all individuals.

The fact congress can pen legislation allowing for tax money to be spent on defensive arms, comes from the fact we all as individuals have that defensive individual rights, so then can delegate some of that inherent authority to a government to do it for us. It does not come from government or those who pen legislation for us. It comes from us as individuals, and those acting under the authority we delegate to them, can not then interfere at all in the primary source, our individual right of defense.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This is NOT claiming the Constitution is the source of legal authority.
This is saying the Constitution is the supreme legislation, meaning attempt at defining and defending inherent individual rights, which are the actual source of legal authority.

Go back to the Declaration of Independence.
It says that inherent individual rights are the only source of legal authority, and that is where the authority to rebel, to be able to form a new government, and to write a constitution came from.
So the constitution is not the source.
Inherent individual rights are the source.
So then it is totally wrong to claim wording in a document subordinate to inherent individual rights, is the only source of individual rights.

The individual right to arms does not come from the 2nd amendment, but if the right to arms was considered so important by the founders, that they had to prevent infringement by the federal government, then clearly the shadow of the individual right cast by this federal restriction indicates no one should infringe upon it.
Use the same penumbra argument used by the SCOTUS to define what the individual right to privacy is.
It also is not enumerated and well defined.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.
The militia is a subset of the People.

Wrong. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People is a subset of the whole and entire People.

But the 2nd amendment says that the right of the whole People to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It did not just say that a subset was only to be protected.
That is the whole point of the argument, in that you seem to keep getting this backwards.

I agree that the first clause of the 2nd amendment refers only to a subset of the People, the militia.
But it implies that is not the only reason or need, because the main clause clearly makes no implication of a limited subset.
It says the right of the whole People to be armed shall not be infringed upon.
Another reason for this is likely that a militia likely can not even be identified before hand, and is created spontaneously as needed. Therefore you have to have an well armed general population in order to effectively be able to call up a militia when needed.
It can't be referring to a federal force like the National Guard because the 2nd amendment makes no sense then.
It would be like saying, "A federal National Guard being necessary for a free state, the right of the federal National Guard to bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government".

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The word "People" is all inclusive.
It leaves no one out.
Therefore has to imply it is an individual rights.
And we know it has to be because in a democratic republic, no legislation can be penned at all unless it is authorized by inherent individual rights.
There can not be a collective right because there would not be any authority to create a collective entity unless there was an inherent individual right preceding its creation.

Yes, it is all inclusive. The people are the militia, all inclusively.

No it is not.
The militia can not include all the People.
Does it include infants?
Clearly not, as you would not allow infants near firearms under any circumstances.

The People are the larger superset, of which the militia is a smaller subset.
All People have inherent rights.
But you would not likely include convicted criminals serving sentences, in the militia.

 

[Rigby5]

Makes no sense at all.
The People is everyone.

Why mention what is Necessary to the security of a free State, if that is not what was Intended?

For several reasons.
One is that if you can give a good argument or justification for something, that is likely to get more people to accept it, without any intent of it being the ONLY reason or justification for it.
Another is that since they just came through a bloody rebellion against a corrupt central government, they likely were saying that it was important to be able to ensure such a rebellion was always possible whenever it becomes necessary again in the future.
Any democratic republic is ultimately dependent upon the ability of the people to rebel against government corruption and injustice.
That will always be the case.
Its a universal truth.
The inherent rights of individual has to always have superior means of force in democratic republic.

 

[danielpalos]

This is NOT claiming the Constitution is the source of legal authority.
This is saying the Constitution is the supreme legislation, meaning attempt at defining and defending inherent individual rights, which are the actual source of legal authority.

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.

The People are the Militia of the United States.

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]

Wrong.
The militia is a subset of the People.

Wrong. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People is a subset of the whole and entire People.

But the 2nd amendment says that the right of the whole People to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It did not just say that a subset was only to be protected.
That is the whole point of the argument, in that you seem to keep getting this backwards.

I agree that the first clause of the 2nd amendment refers only to a subset of the People, the militia.
But it implies that is not the only reason or need, because the main clause clearly makes no implication of a limited subset.
It says the right of the whole People to be armed shall not be infringed upon.
Another reason for this is likely that a militia likely can not even be identified before hand, and is created spontaneously as needed. Therefore you have to have an well armed general population in order to effectively be able to call up a militia when needed.
It can't be referring to a federal force like the National Guard because the 2nd amendment makes no sense then.
It would be like saying, "A federal National Guard being necessary for a free state, the right of the federal National Guard to bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government".

No, it doesn't. It says well regulated militia of the whole and entire people are necessary to the security of our free States.

A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the (well-regulated militia of the) people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

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]

No it is not.
The militia can not include all the People.
Does it include infants?

Your straw man argument is disingenuous. Infants can't keep and bear Arms, either.

 

[danielpalos]

For several reasons.
One is that if you can give a good argument or justification for something, that is likely to get more people to accept it, without any intent of it being the ONLY reason or justification for it.

Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful?

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

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

The organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

 

[Rigby5]

Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People who are subject to the police power of a State.

This is a State's sovereign Right:

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

What do you think "police power" is, considering that police did not really exist in any number until around 1900?
Police power is not a government power, but the right of defense of inherent individual rights.
When you arrest someone for a crime like murder or rape, it is not coming from any authority of government, but the defense of inherent individual rights.
If a member of the US military commits murder, you have the authority to arrest them in order to prevent more murders and punish the one already committed.

And a small side point, but states do not have sovereign Rights really.
Only individuals have rights because rights imply they are inherent.
States only have delegated authority because they are not inherent, but are created, and can be limited in authority as the people decide to.

 

[Rigby5]

Not it does not.
It is clear they are listing a reason why the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it does not at all imply in any way that is the ONLY reason.

Yes, it does and you are simply wrong, like usual for the Right Wing who are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.

The People are the Militia. Our Second Amendment simply specifies which persons of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. A well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, unlike the unorganized militia of the People.

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

Way wrong.
First of all I am far LEFT of anyone here, as a socialist, progressive, liberal, left wing extremist.
Second is that you can't say the People are the militia in one breath and then say the People can have firearm restrictions and while the militia can't in another breath. You clearly are making a contradiction.
While militia may be the main reason why federal firearm laws are to be prohibited, it is clear that the whole People are to be free of any federal firearm laws, not just the militia.
Nor does it matter why.
All the matters is that the 2nd amendment prohibits any and all federal firearms legislation.

Quoting Mason does not help your case, because it likely was intended to be humor, but if not, could simply be wrong.
As an example of a big historical mistake, I refer you to the Dred Scott Decision.
Quoting a mistake by a historical figure does not make something more right.

 

[Rigby5]

No it is not.
The militia can not include all the People.
Does it include infants?

Your straw man argument is disingenuous. Infants can't keep and bear Arms, either.

Correct, that you can not let infants keep or bear arms.
But that is NOT due to federal law.
That rightfully and legally is legislated by the states.

Obviously gun laws should always only be by state and municipality.
For example, I would legislate it to be legal for those as young as 15 to be able to bear arms in bear or snake country, but a total ban on unregistered firearms might be understandable in a place like NYC or DC.
The federal government obviously has no authority, business, or need to make any firearm laws.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The word "People" is all inclusive.
It leaves no one out.
Therefore has to imply it is an individual rights.
And we know it has to be because in a democratic republic, no legislation can be penned at all unless it is authorized by inherent individual rights.
There can not be a collective right because there would not be any authority to create a collective entity unless there was an inherent individual right preceding its creation.

Yes, it is all inclusive. The people are the militia, all inclusively.

Impossible for the people to be the militia, all inclusively.
The militia is who can legally bear arms for defense.
And clearly those incarcerated can not, even though they still have rights and are part of the People as a whole.

 

[danielpalos]

Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People who are subject to the police power of a State.

This is a State's sovereign Right:

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

What do you think "police power" is, considering that police did not really exist in any number until around 1900?
Police power is not a government power, but the right of defense of inherent individual rights.
When you arrest someone for a crime like murder or rape, it is not coming from any authority of government, but the defense of inherent individual rights.
If a member of the US military commits murder, you have the authority to arrest them in order to prevent more murders and punish the one already committed.

And a small side point, but states do not have sovereign Rights really.
Only individuals have rights because rights imply they are inherent.
States only have delegated authority because they are not inherent, but are created, and can be limited in authority as the people decide to.

Link? You are only Always Right, in right wing fantasy.

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

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five.

 

[danielpalos]

Not it does not.
It is clear they are listing a reason why the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it does not at all imply in any way that is the ONLY reason.

Yes, it does and you are simply wrong, like usual for the Right Wing who are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.

The People are the Militia. Our Second Amendment simply specifies which persons of the People are necessary to the security of a free State. A well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, unlike the unorganized militia of the People.

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

Way wrong.
First of all I am far LEFT of anyone here, as a socialist, progressive, liberal, left wing extremist.
Second is that you can't say the People are the militia in one breath and then say the People can have firearm restrictions and while the militia can't in another breath. You clearly are making a contradiction.
While militia may be the main reason why federal firearm laws are to be prohibited, it is clear that the whole People are to be free of any federal firearm laws, not just the militia.
Nor does it matter why.
All the matters is that the 2nd amendment prohibits any and all federal firearms legislation.

Quoting Mason does not help your case, because it likely was intended to be humor, but if not, could simply be wrong.
As an example of a big historical mistake, I refer you to the Dred Scott Decision.
Quoting a mistake by a historical figure does not make something more right.

You don't know what you are talking about and have no rational argument.

You can't ignore the first clause of the Second Amendment. It Must mean something.

 

[danielpalos]

No it is not.
The militia can not include all the People.
Does it include infants?

Your straw man argument is disingenuous. Infants can't keep and bear Arms, either.

Correct, that you can not let infants keep or bear arms.
But that is NOT due to federal law.
That rightfully and legally is legislated by the states.

Obviously gun laws should always only be by state and municipality.
For example, I would legislate it to be legal for those as young as 15 to be able to bear arms in bear or snake country, but a total ban on unregistered firearms might be understandable in a place like NYC or DC.
The federal government obviously has no authority, business, or need to make any firearm laws.

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

 

[Rigby5]

Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People who are subject to the police power of a State.

This is a State's sovereign Right:

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

What do you think "police power" is, considering that police did not really exist in any number until around 1900?
Police power is not a government power, but the right of defense of inherent individual rights.
When you arrest someone for a crime like murder or rape, it is not coming from any authority of government, but the defense of inherent individual rights.
If a member of the US military commits murder, you have the authority to arrest them in order to prevent more murders and punish the one already committed.

And a small side point, but states do not have sovereign Rights really.
Only individuals have rights because rights imply they are inherent.
States only have delegated authority because they are not inherent, but are created, and can be limited in authority as the people decide to.

Link? You are only Always Right, in right wing fantasy.

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

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five.

Again you make the mistake of assuming I am right wing, when in reality I am extreme left wing, liberal, progressive, socialist.

And I don't get the point to the rest, since it says federal powers are to be very limited, and isn't it your position that federal gun control is legal, which is not at all a limited federal power?

 

[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.

The word "People" is all inclusive.
It leaves no one out.
Therefore has to imply it is an individual rights.
And we know it has to be because in a democratic republic, no legislation can be penned at all unless it is authorized by inherent individual rights.
There can not be a collective right because there would not be any authority to create a collective entity unless there was an inherent individual right preceding its creation.

Yes, it is all inclusive. The people are the militia, all inclusively.

Impossible for the people to be the militia, all inclusively.
The militia is who can legally bear arms for defense.
And clearly those incarcerated can not, even though they still have rights and are part of the People as a whole.

This came up for actual debate, right wingers.

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]

Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People who are subject to the police power of a State.

This is a State's sovereign Right:

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

What do you think "police power" is, considering that police did not really exist in any number until around 1900?
Police power is not a government power, but the right of defense of inherent individual rights.
When you arrest someone for a crime like murder or rape, it is not coming from any authority of government, but the defense of inherent individual rights.
If a member of the US military commits murder, you have the authority to arrest them in order to prevent more murders and punish the one already committed.

And a small side point, but states do not have sovereign Rights really.
Only individuals have rights because rights imply they are inherent.
States only have delegated authority because they are not inherent, but are created, and can be limited in authority as the people decide to.

Link? You are only Always Right, in right wing fantasy.

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

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five.

Again you make the mistake of assuming I am right wing, when in reality I am extreme left wing, liberal, progressive, socialist.

And I don't get the point to the rest, since it says federal powers are to be very limited, and isn't it your position that federal gun control is legal, which is not at all a limited federal power?

All you have is Right-Wing arguments.