The Role of Government in Maintaining a Well Regulated Militia!?!

[progressive hunter]

YA.............I've been here for 27 hours...............Like you..............Q-NUT.

not talking about now dumbass,,

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

quit your lying bitch,,

you said it was illegal and they didnt exist,,

NO ONE fucking recognizes them, you fucking moron.
Just because you CLAIM to be in a militia, doesn't make it so.
Like teabaggers, CLAIMING they're conservative.
It's a Rambo wanna-be club.

 

[progressive hunter]

NO ONE fucking recognizes them, you fucking moron.
Just because you CLAIM to be in a militia, doesn't make it so.
Like teabaggers, CLAIMING they're conservative.
It's a Rambo wanna-be club.

not what you said dumbass,, you said it was illegal and they didnt exist,,

so quit your lying bitch,,

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a declaratory, absolute, dependent clause.

The restrictive clause, the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is an independent clause that stands on it's own without any dependency.

NO, it doesn't, it's the last part of a sentence, the first part of that sentence is a precondition for the last part.

It is absurd to argue an absolute, dependent clause directs any rigid conclusion about the independent clause.

The teacher being ill, class is cancelled today.​

Can the class only be canceled if the teacher is sick?
What if he is lying about being sick and is actually out playing golf; is class still canceled?
Must class always be canceled if the teacher is ill?
What if the teacher is ill but toughs it out and comes in, can the class be held?

That's a precondition, why was the class cancelled?
Why did they bother to include that bit of information?
The same with a bomb scare.
Why bother?

A well maintained road system being necessary to efficiently commute to and from work, the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed.​

Automobiles were NOT intended to kill something............GUNS are.

Can the people only use automobiles to commute to and from work?
Are retired persons or housewives or the independently wealthy to be "deautoed" because they do not commute to and from a job?
Can the people only drive on a governmentally maintained road system?
Can they only drive on those specific roads deemed by the government to be necessary for commuting?
Are the people barred from taking a scenic route to and from work, is the most efficient route the only one deemed "legal?"

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

not what you said dumbass,, you said it was illegal and they didnt exist,,

so quit your lying bitch,,

They are illegal you stupid fuck.

Fact Sheets on Unlawful Militias for All 50 States Now ...​

Georgetown University
https://www.law.georgetown.edu › our-press-releases
Sep 22, 2020 — “Local officials, law enforcement, and voters need to know that groups of armed individuals have no legal authority under federal or state law ...

 

[progressive hunter]

They are illegal you stupid fuck.

Fact Sheets on Unlawful Militias for All 50 States Now ...​

View attachment 790423
Georgetown University
https://www.law.georgetown.edu › our-press-releases
Sep 22, 2020 — “Local officials, law enforcement, and voters need to know that groups of armed individuals have no legal authority under federal or state law ...

and yet they still exist,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

NO, it doesn't, it's the last part of a sentence, the first part of that sentence is a precondition for the last part.

That's a precondition, why was the class cancelled?
Why did they bother to include that bit of information?
The same with a bomb scare.
Why bother?

Automobiles were NOT intended to kill something............GUNS are.

no its not, or it would have said the right of militia members to keep and bear arms,,

so quit your lying bitch,,

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

and yet they still exist,,,

They're fucking clubs, you ignorant moron.
Wanna-be Rambo clubs.

 

[progressive hunter]

They're fucking clubs, you ignorant moron.
Wanna-be Rambo clubs.

now whos moving the goal posts??

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

no its not, or it would have said the right of militia members to keep and bear arms,,

so quit your lying bitch,,

The orange kool-aid has taken it's toll.
THAT'S what the constitution says, you fucking moron.

 

[progressive hunter]

The orange kool-aid has taken it's toll.
THAT'S what the constitution says, you fucking moron.

quit lying bitch,,

it doesnt say that,,

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

now whos moving the goal posts??

WTF?
RETARD?
Just because the Buffalo Saber Rattlers CLAIM to be in the NFL, doesn't make them PART of the NFL.

 

[progressive hunter]

WTF?
RETARD?
Just because the Buffalo Saber Rattlers CLAIM to be in the NFL, doesn't make them PART of the NFL.

youre still moving the goal post,,

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

quit lying bitch,,

it doesnt say that,,

OMG.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
I'm done with your dumb ass, TOO STUPID to converse with.

 

[progressive hunter]

OMG.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
I'm done with your dumb ass, TOO STUPID to converse with.

I like how you left out the part you lied about,,

 

[progressive hunter]

OMG.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
I'm done with your dumb ass, TOO STUPID to converse with.

it is for the best you run away now to avoid anymore mocking of your lies about what the 2nd A says

 

[Abatis]

Who knows, at the time, how much regulation was needed, was it just right, or more needed to be added.
AFTER the battle.

The classic instructional philosophies of how humans form and defend "society" is a long story (back to Plato and Aristotle) and deeply studied and quite well understood by the founders / framers . . . They rejected the absolutists Jean Bodin and Sir Robert Filmer who defended the monarchy and endorsed John Locke and Algernon Sidney and Francis Hutcheson for their governmental model based on the consent of the governed and their conception of inherent and unalienable rights. They quite well understood what constitutes a properly functioning militia and how to achieve it, read Federalist 29 and 46.

.

 

[Abatis]

Laws do not grant rights and that is the cornerstone of our governmental philosophy.

YES, they do.
See: US CONSTITUTION.

Well, that there is the bedrock of your fundamental error and the reason for your ridiculous beliefs about the Constitution and rights.

What can you provide that posits that government grants us our rights? The opposite is well established (even called "self evident"), that our rights are inherent and possessed simply by being capable of reason (See Great Enlightenment).

This is also well represented in the determinations of SCOTUS; the Court has never wavered from the principles that government is not the origin of rights; that rights pre-exist the establishment of the Constitution and that they are reservations of powers not granted to government by the people via that compact (with some rights exactingly, expressly reaffirmed and redundantly secured in the Bill of Rights). Look at the damn dates you goofball . . .

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)​

​

"The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, . . ." -- ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1867)​

​

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." -- BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)​

​

"The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. -- UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)​

​

"[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty,. . ." -- DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)​

What the can you provide that rebuts any of that? All you can do is regurgitate this abject ignorance you maintain and nurture out of a robotic need to service your disgusting anti-liberty leftist shithole politics.

Marx wasn't a founding father you traitorous leftist manure spreader.

.

 

[Abatis]

BS.
Teabaggers want to use the original constitution in one instance, the dismiss it in another.

Like what? Explain your passive aggressive bullshit blurbs.

The supreme court ruled, that is the ONLY way the states got their way.
IGNORE.........."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Again, support your bullshit statements. You just writing gibberish doesn't prove anything; try actually supporting your arguments, quote and cite what you think the Court said.

Could be, the founders likely had all kinds of provisions from different representatives from different parts of the colonies.

No, that's how it was . . . That's how Madison began the process, with a multitude of proposed amendment s from the states. Madison's job was to edit and parse them and present representative expressions of those demands to Congress to debate and then present to the states to ratify.

The states, in their right to arms provisions had the intent of binding government in the area of military affairs in multiple ways, these provisions were three pronged.
a) The citizens retained a right to bear arms,
b) standing armies in time of peace were not to be maintained,
c), the military should always be subordinate to the civil authority.

A typical one was my state's:

· 1790 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.​

Again, the framers were very accustomed to inactive declarations of principle in constitutional provisions; nobody believed these provisions really forbade the forming and maintaining of a standing army; these were state constitutional provisions with zero effect beyond the state line. They were merely stating a principle of republican governance . . .

The declaration, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, "as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up." To the framers each represented the same sentiment . . .

The declaratory clause only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).

So without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause is only a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it does not create, qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right, it only tells us a political reason why the fully retained right is being forever shielded from government interference.

Interesting take.

Yes, it is and correct as well . . .

The states demanded and ratified the 2nd Amendment because of distrust of the feds and potential abuse of the powers granted to the feds over the militia in Article I, §8. Had there been even a hint that the federal government was granted new, undefined, nebulous powers through the 2nd to dictate to the states as to who were the state's NON-MILITIA arms keepers and bearers, the 2ndA (well, fourth article really) would not have been ratified.

.

 

[Failzero]

Black Nationalist Militias