The Right To Bear Arms

[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.

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.

Sure the leading clause means something, but not what you claim it means.
The militia is not defined ahead of need like the National Guard is.
So for the militia to be available if an emergency comes up that needs an armed force, you can't allow any federal gun control laws.
Federal gun control could prevent there from being a well armed militia when it became necessary.
So clearly that is why the 2nd amendment was specifically put in.
It makes no sense for the 2nd amendment to mean a force that is already federal and armed by the federal government, like the National Guard.
Clearly the founders were hedging their bets on this new federal government they were going to try out, and wanted a means of rebellion in case things did not work out.

 

[danielpalos]

Sure the leading clause means something, but not what you claim it means.
The militia is not defined ahead of need like the National Guard is.

Yes, it is. You can't appeal to ignorance.

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

 

[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.

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

Well a person who was wrong in 1788 does not help your position now, because they are still wrong.
The militia is not the whole people but only a subset.
For example, infants, the insane, and those incarcerated are part of the People, but not acceptable in the militia.
Where you draw the line depends upon immediate circumstances.
For example, if we were attacked and losing, we might consider emptying the prisons if they promise to defend.
Which is why you have to maintain control over firearms on the local level and not federal.
Never federal, as the federal government is always the least responsive, equitable, adaptive, or reliable.
It we ever need a rebellion, it is likely to be against the federal government, not state or local.

 

[hadit]

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)

Again, you're making it up. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the citizens of Wyoming are bound by the police power of the state of Illinois. Let me know when you're ready to talk about the 2nd Amendment and what the plain language means. Just so you're clear, the law as it stands today is that individuals may own weapons.

 

[hadit]

Same then with the First. What registered protest group are you in?

Where does it say that in the "prefatory clause"?

There are no individual terms in the 1st Amendment, therefore it's not an individual right. That is your standard, correct?

 

[danielpalos]

Well a person who was wrong in 1788 does not help your position now, because they are still wrong.
The militia is not the whole people but only a subset.

Link?

How is this in a State Constitution:

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.

If, that is not true?

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

 

[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?

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.

I'm not saying they were wrong. I'm not saying my legal expertise is greater than theirs. That's all you. Now, since I'm sure you served notice to the Supreme Court that an internet keyboard jockey has said they are wrong and he is right, what did they say in reply and how long will it be before they issue a proclamation declaring you to be the ultimate source of legal expertise?

Where is Your argument and notice before the Court?

Again, I don't need one. You are claiming they are wrong and your legal expertise is obviously higher than theirs, so what did they say when you told them they were wrong?

 

[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)

Again, you're making it up. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the citizens of Wyoming are bound by the police power of the state of Illinois. Let me know when you're ready to talk about the 2nd Amendment and what the plain language means. Just so you're clear, the law as it stands today is that individuals may own weapons.

I am making the Point that it is a Sovereign power of a free State of our Union. Why is it that right wingers only seem to understand unitary forms of Government better than our own federal form of Constitutional Government?

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

 

[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.

I'm not saying they were wrong. I'm not saying my legal expertise is greater than theirs. That's all you. Now, since I'm sure you served notice to the Supreme Court that an internet keyboard jockey has said they are wrong and he is right, what did they say in reply and how long will it be before they issue a proclamation declaring you to be the ultimate source of legal expertise?

Where is Your argument and notice before the Court?

Again, I don't need one. You are claiming they are wrong and your legal expertise is obviously higher than theirs, so what did they say when you told them they were wrong?

They can't tell I am wrong until it goes before that Court. Put up the capital under our form of Capitalism or you have no point and no argument.

 

[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.

Yes, it is.

No, it says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. You know this, yet keep yammering on.

No, it says well regulated militia of the People have a right to keep and bear Arms for the security needs of their State (or the Union).

You're obviously not reading the text of the 2nd Amendment, because it doesn't say that. Check your law book. If it's written in crayon, throw it away because it's no good. Here's a hint, it actually says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It does NOT say what you are claiming. So when you tell the SC they are wrong, be sure to quote what you think the 2nd says, because that will make everything clear to them. It won't stop them from laughing as you are dragged away, but it will make things clear.

 

[hadit]

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)

Again, you're making it up. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the citizens of Wyoming are bound by the police power of the state of Illinois. Let me know when you're ready to talk about the 2nd Amendment and what the plain language means. Just so you're clear, the law as it stands today is that individuals may own weapons.

I am making the Point that it is a Sovereign power of a free State of our Union. Why is it that right wingers only seem to understand unitary forms of Government better than our own federal form of Constitutional Government?

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

And a state cannot write laws that are unconstitutional, therefore the 2nd Amendment applies them as well. And why don't you ever quote a different state's constitution?

 

[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?

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.

I'm not saying they were wrong. I'm not saying my legal expertise is greater than theirs. That's all you. Now, since I'm sure you served notice to the Supreme Court that an internet keyboard jockey has said they are wrong and he is right, what did they say in reply and how long will it be before they issue a proclamation declaring you to be the ultimate source of legal expertise?

Where is Your argument and notice before the Court?

Again, I don't need one. You are claiming they are wrong and your legal expertise is obviously higher than theirs, so what did they say when you told them they were wrong?

They can't tell I am wrong until it goes before that Court. Put up the capital under our form of Capitalism or you have no point and no argument.

Yet you claim that they are wrong. Why haven't you told them yet? Afraid they'll laugh you out of the building in shame?

 

[hadit]

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?

That's not what you've been endlessly regurgitating. You keep saying that the militia is the whole people, thus negating your own argument. Please pick a horse and stay on it.

That is your straw man argument.

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

It's not a straw man to note that you contradicted yourself.

 

[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.

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.

So then when you assert ad nauseum that the militia has the right to keep and bear arms, you're really saying that the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, thus making it an individual right, not a collective one. Good-bye, you ARE the weakest link, do not pass GO, do not collect $200, make sure to pay the receptionist on the way out.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Thus, the right of the people (or the militia, because they are the same) shall not be infringed....PERIOD!!!!!

You can't have it both ways, DAN.

Either the people are the militia, and the militia are the people, and the people's right shall not be infringed, or militia's right shall not be infringed, but they are one in the same, and therefore THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So then when you assert ad nauseum that the militia has the right to keep and bear arms, you're really saying that the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, thus making it an individual right, not a collective one. Good-bye, you ARE the weakest link, do not pass GO, do not collect $200, make sure to pay the receptionist on the way out.

/thread

It's over.

 

[hadit]

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

Thus, the right of the people (or the militia, because they are the same) shall not be infringed....PERIOD!!!!!

You can't have it both ways, DAN.

Either the people are the militia, and the militia are the people, and the people's right shall not be infringed, or militia's right shall not be infringed, but they are one in the same, and therefore THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!

As usual, he did not think beyond the first layer of argument and did not realize he was contradicting himself.

 

[Rigby5]

Well a person who was wrong in 1788 does not help your position now, because they are still wrong.
The militia is not the whole people but only a subset.

Link?

How is this in a State Constitution:

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.

If, that is not true?

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

But that just means the state has the authority to call up a militia for state or national defense when needed.
And that clearly is not the National Guard, but everyone who is capable of bearing arms.
So then clearly that is why the founders pass the 2nd amendment, to prevent the federal government from denying arms to the People, which would make it impossible for the state to then be able to call up an armed militia.

You can't have and armed militia and federal gun control at the same time.
They are contradictory.
And while there are clear needs for an armed militia, there is absolutely no reason at all for any federal gun control.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, it is. You can't appeal to ignorance.

You have no fucking idea what the appeal to ignorance fallacy even is, do you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Nobody is claiming that their position must be true because there is no evidence to the contrary. The plain language of the 2A requires nothing more.

But, your arguments seem to be nothing but appeals to gibberish:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-by-Gibberish
Repeating the same bullshit over and over again and demanding we accept your interpretation of the bullshit is the very definition.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well a person who was wrong in 1788 does not help your position now, because they are still wrong.
The militia is not the whole people but only a subset.

Followed by:

Link?

How is this in a State Constitution:

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.

If, that is not true?

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

except for a few public officials.