The Right To Bear Arms

[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)

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)

I don't get what you are trying to say here at all.
The point is no one should like a unitary, centralized, single form of government.
The closer to the people, the more responsive, adaptive, flexible, and accurate the government.
So then that is an argument against federal gun control.
That is what the 2nd amendment also says, no federal gun laws.
That that is also what your quoted state constitution says, no federal gun laws, and only local police powers.
So then what is it you are arguing about?
Since everything you post says there should be no federal gun laws.

 

[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.

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.

Well said, but that will go in one ear and out the other. Some people are simply not equipped to live free. They should change or the fuck out.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I don't get what you are trying to say here at all.

Welcome to Daniel Palos.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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?

It is the exclusive sovereign power of a free state to enact any laws or regulations related to the purchase, ownership, use/possession of arms, right?

How is that ANY different than, saying the FedGov has no authority?

Why are we all saying the same thing, but not saying the same thing?

All Fed gun laws are unconstitutional. That's it. You just admitted it.

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

Illinois has the police power authority to enact laws related to the purchase, ownership, use/possession of arms. The FedGov does not. WHICH IS THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF THE 2A.

You admitted it.

 

[dblack]

I don't get what you are trying to say here at all.

Welcome to Daniel Palos.

It's a fool's errand to try.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I don't get what you are trying to say here at all.

Welcome to Daniel Palos.

It's a fool's errand to try.

And I should know better. I am a fool for trying.

 

[Concerned American]

the FedGov has no authority?

Is that why every gun dealer in the US has to have a federal firearms license. The state is free to make any law they choose as long as it is not contrary to the US constitution. State constitutions are no different.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

the FedGov has no authority?

Is that why every gun dealer in the US has to have a federal firearms license. The state is free to make any law they choose as long as it is not contrary to the US constitution. State constitutions are no different.

Exactly. All federal gun laws are unconstitutional, which is what Scalia SHOULD HAVE DONE in Heller. He knew what he should have done but was too scared of the consequences (people selling machine guns to anyone else, no questions asked). It was gutless, yet here we are.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Article 1, § 23 of the Texas Constitution:

"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

As opposed to the 2A which has ZERO qualification. FedGov has NO AUTHORITY!!!! PERIOD!!! The 1934 NFA is unconstitutional.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

All you or they need to do is show me how I am wrong. Simply claiming what you do is equivalent to me claiming I am Right, simply because I say so.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

All you or they need to do is show me how I am wrong. Simply claiming what you do is equivalent to me claiming I am Right, simply because I say so.

True or false:

The 2nd Amendment says: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[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)

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?

Because it is a States' right. All States have that right. I use that example because it is simple and to the point.

Did you forget your own limited Government rhetoric for your special pleading argument?

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

There is nothing Implied in our Second Amendment. If you have to Imply, you are moving toward the slippery slope of resorting to fallacy.

There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment; by express and intelligent design.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

I am the one using my real name on a debate site. Why don't You get someone who knows more than You about the law to come here and argue it with me?

 

[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?

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.

That is just You making stuff up because in Right Wing fantasy, you are Always Right.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I got it right before. Why do You still not understand the simple concept?

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are Necessary to the security of our free States and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

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!!!!

Neither can You.

Can criminals of the People keep and bear Arms or well regulated Militia of the People?

 

[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

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.

The People means everybody.

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 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.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You understand even less.

There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment and our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual liberty. It says so in the first clause.

 

[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)

I don't get what you are trying to say here at all.
The point is no one should like a unitary, centralized, single form of government.
The closer to the people, the more responsive, adaptive, flexible, and accurate the government.
So then that is an argument against federal gun control.
That is what the 2nd amendment also says, no federal gun laws.
That that is also what your quoted state constitution says, no federal gun laws, and only local police powers.
So then what is it you are arguing about?
Since everything you post says there should be no federal gun laws.

Our Second Amendment cannot do what you claim since it would have to be a Constitution unto itself instead of merely, the Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

It is the exclusive sovereign power of a free state to enact any laws or regulations related to the purchase, ownership, use/possession of arms, right?

Not in the federal districts.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-And