The Right To Bear Arms

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.

No right to free speech or religion.

Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument. Because it is bullshit.

And forget about that pesky 9A. It doesn't mean what it says. Right, Dan?

You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.

You can't misuse the term "appeal to ignorance" like you have repeatedly and be taken seriously. You don't know what it means, but I digress...

You have mistakenly read meaning into the first clause that is not there. No reasonable interpretation of the 2A creates any meaning other than a preservation of the individual right to keep weapons. The first clause is nothing more than stating a purpose for what they ACTUALL DID, which is preserve the right of the people. Any interpretation to the contrary is pure repugnance.

Don't like it???? AMEND!!!!!

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Not at all. The general government of the Union has the delegated authority to fix Standards for the Union.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Gun laws are not fixing an arbitrary standard, but instead are attempting to modify individual rights, which does not fall under federal authority.
Basically the constitution divided jurisdiction, and the federal government is only authorized to do that which states can not do themselves, like national defense, immigration, interstate commerce, etc.
It was never intended for the federal government to ever make any weapons legislation at all.

 

[Rigby5]

So, when the constitution says no federal authority, it means....federal authority?

No.

Show us where our federal Constitution says no federal authority.

That is easy.

{...

The text of the Second Amendment reads in full: “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 framers of the Bill of Rights adapted the wording of the amendment from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions.

During the Revolutionary War era, “militia” referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states, once the United States declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776

Many people in America at the time believed governments used soldiers to oppress the people, and thought the federal government should only be allowed to raise armies (with full-time, paid soldiers) when facing foreign adversaries. For all other purposes, they believed, it should turn to part-time militias, or ordinary civilians using their own weapons.

...}

httpsL//www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/2nd-amendment

 

[Rigby5]

So, DC and the territories? Not Texas, right

You miss the point about our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

This is what it amends:

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Now you are getting me confused again.
The Articles of the Constitution are not amendments and the amendment don't have articles.

Here is Article 1 of the constitution, Section 8, Clause 15 and 16:

{...

• Clause 15
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  • ArtI.S8.C15.1 Power to Call Forth the Militia
• Clause 16
• 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;
  • ArtI.S8.C16.1 Power to Organize Militias

...}

That only allows for the federal government to use the militia if the country needs them, such as if we were invaded.
It does not mean the federal government owns, creates, or arms the militia.
And because there is state, local, and individual need for a militia, that is why the 2nd Amendment prohibits any federal weapons laws at all.

 

[Rigby5]

According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.

No right to free speech or religion.

Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument. Because it is bullshit.

And forget about that pesky 9A. It doesn't mean what it says. Right, Dan?

You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.

Sure it means that an armed population is necessary for a free state.

 

[Esdraelon]

The second amendment was put into the consitution to fight fascist like you bastards. Our founders knew what big government dictators were all about.

Hell no it isn't out dated or obsolete.

They were highly educated men and they intimately understood the Enlightenment philosophy of the base, power-hungry nature of human beings. The very concept of a constitution that specifically LIMITED the power of government was radical at the time. 2A was never about hunting, sports or even personal self-defense as much as it was about keeping the power to rebel against tyrannical government available to citizens.
Anyone who doubts their intent need only take the time to read some of the Federalist essays of the time. The attempt to gut 2A or to compel the surrender of weapons or be imprisoned will set this nation on fire. These coward bastards so depend on a projection, that they cannot grasp that their reaction to government might not be the reaction of everyone else. They truly cannot understand that millions of us would fight and risk death for the preservation of our rights.
States that want to be governed under our Constitution need to begin negotiations and strive to build a new confederacy that will defend the Constitution and each other from the tyrants that occupy DC. At their heart, they are fools and cowards and even our military will fracture and go to war with itself over divided loyalties. Since NO American will win in that scenario...QUI BONO?

 

[justinacolmena]

And because there is state, local, and individual need for a militia, that is why the 2nd Amendment prohibits any federal weapons laws at all.

States and localities aren't allowed to infringe the right to bear arms either, dumbass.

 

[hadit]

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.

That's not the Second Amendment, no matter how much you wish it was.

 

[danielpalos]

You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.

>>> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

= Seeing as how the regular armed forces, national guard, and homeland security and all that are necessary and all, NEVERTHELESS,​

>>> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

= The universal human right to possess and carry firearms and other weapons, shall not be violated or questioned in any way or subjected to registration or government regulation or any other infringements.​

That is not what our Second Amendment clearly expresses, just your fantastical, right wing view. If what you allege is true, then all police State regulation is justified for those not associated with, "all that are necessary". Deadly weapons must be regulated to some extent as part of the police power of any State.

 

[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.

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

If the militia is the people and the people are the militia (as you have said), and the Second says that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed, then you have no leg to stand on when you claim only the militia can bear arms and not the people.

 

[hadit]

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?

Not my problem. You clearly do not understand the law at all, you just glom onto a phrase or two and insist you understand it. You don't.

 

[danielpalos]

According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.

No right to free speech or religion.

Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument. Because it is bullshit.

And forget about that pesky 9A. It doesn't mean what it says. Right, Dan?

You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.

You can't misuse the term "appeal to ignorance" like you have repeatedly and be taken seriously. You don't know what it means, but I digress...

You have mistakenly read meaning into the first clause that is not there. No reasonable interpretation of the 2A creates any meaning other than a preservation of the individual right to keep weapons. The first clause is nothing more than stating a purpose for what they ACTUALL DID, which is preserve the right of the people. Any interpretation to the contrary is pure repugnance.

Don't like it???? AMEND!!!!!

You misuse logic to attempt to mean what it doesn't. See how easy that is.

And, the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US, only with the organized and well regulated Militia.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Not at all. The general government of the Union has the delegated authority to fix Standards for the Union.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Gun laws are not fixing an arbitrary standard, but instead are attempting to modify individual rights, which does not fall under federal authority.
Basically the constitution divided jurisdiction, and the federal government is only authorized to do that which states can not do themselves, like national defense, immigration, interstate commerce, etc.
It was never intended for the federal government to ever make any weapons legislation at all.

There is no individual right to misuse deadly weapons. Criminals of the People are routinely, not only denied and disparaged, but also Infringed in their alleged right to keep and bear Arms.

 

[danielpalos]

So, when the constitution says no federal authority, it means....federal authority?

No.

Show us where our federal Constitution says no federal authority.

That is easy.

{...

The text of the Second Amendment reads in full: “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 framers of the Bill of Rights adapted the wording of the amendment from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions.

During the Revolutionary War era, “militia” referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states, once the United States declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776

Many people in America at the time believed governments used soldiers to oppress the people, and thought the federal government should only be allowed to raise armies (with full-time, paid soldiers) when facing foreign adversaries. For all other purposes, they believed, it should turn to part-time militias, or ordinary civilians using their own weapons.

...}

httpsL//www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/2nd-amendment

Unfortunately for your point of view, our federal Constitution superceded the Article of Confedation.

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]

So, DC and the territories? Not Texas, right

You miss the point about our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

This is what it amends:

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Now you are getting me confused again.
The Articles of the Constitution are not amendments and the amendment don't have articles.

Here is Article 1 of the constitution, Section 8, Clause 15 and 16:

{...

• Clause 15
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  • ArtI.S8.C15.1 Power to Call Forth the Militia
• Clause 16
• 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;
  • ArtI.S8.C16.1 Power to Organize Militias

...}

That only allows for the federal government to use the militia if the country needs them, such as if we were invaded.
It does not mean the federal government owns, creates, or arms the militia.
And because there is state, local, and individual need for a militia, that is why the 2nd Amendment prohibits any federal weapons laws at all.

The Amendments are Articles.

 

[danielpalos]

According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.

No right to free speech or religion.

Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument. Because it is bullshit.

And forget about that pesky 9A. It doesn't mean what it says. Right, Dan?

You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.

Sure it means that an armed population is necessary for a free state.

No, it doesn't.

This is what it means:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

 

[danielpalos]

And because there is state, local, and individual need for a militia, that is why the 2nd Amendment prohibits any federal weapons laws at all.

States and localities aren't allowed to infringe the right to bear arms either, dumbass.

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)

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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You misuse logic to attempt to mean what it doesn't. See how easy that is.

They, why don't you explain what you think "appeal to ignorance" means. (this should be fun)

And, the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US, only with the organized and well regulated Militia.

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Why didn't they just leave it at that, if that is all the 2A is?

The rules of interpretation are very much against your retarded position.

A well-regulated colon, being necessary for proper digestion, the right of the people to grow and eat high-fiber vegetables shall not be infringed.

No serious person with any command of the English language would interpret the above to mean anything but preservation of individual rights. IT IS THE SAME!!!!

If you insist on your bullshit interpretation, you will cause a war.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Alright. Dan is back on ignore. He is clearly not an American and English is his second language.