View Full Version : The militia of the Constitution was to be well organized, well armed and well trained
Joe Steel
12-26-2008, 07:26 PM
can you link to the law which says i can not own a gun......
Are you a convicted felon?
manu1959
12-26-2008, 07:27 PM
Are you a convicted felon?
nope.....
Joe Steel
12-26-2008, 07:38 PM
You and JS have been pummeled with proof that both of your claims are incorrect,[quote]
Only if you define "pummeled with proof" as "debunking nonsense."
[QUOTE=Mr. P;334180] but so far, neither you nor JS have offered any "proof" to the contrary.
In fact, the citations I've offered have been more than sufficient to make my point; "the People" means collective sovereign. Refusal to accept it is the manifestation of a stubborn ignorance and willful delusion.
You both can twist an turn every which way you can, but the second is very clear in intent and meaning, both literally and historically.
Utter nonsense. The mere fact the gun control debate has raged so long is in proof of the Second Amendment's lack of clarity and ambiguity. If it were clear, the arguing wouldn't have gone-on as long as it has.
I know this anti-gun ownership argument with the second amendment "twist" of meaning by you and JS won't go away, it's been around for a long time.
My suggestion for both of you is: Take it to court, cuz yer just spinning yer wheels here..my guess is you'll be out more time with your baseless arguments and the filing fee though. Have fun.
If you think the RATS and Kennedy actually would give such a suit fair consideration, you're stupid...or think we are.
Joe Steel
12-26-2008, 07:39 PM
nope.....
Known to be emotionally unstable or prone to violence?
manu1959
12-26-2008, 07:46 PM
Known to be emotionally unstable or prone to violence?
nope....
emmett
12-26-2008, 07:54 PM
Known to be emotionally unstable or prone to violence?
And who would make this determination?
The Second Amendment has always been ambiguous . . .Nonsense.
. . . and highly susceptible to unprincipled interpretations.Not unless you're considering yours an "unprincipled interpretations."
Actually, not then either.
You despicable right wing anti-American Satan Worshiping communistic conservatives don't fool me with your crap about an individual right to keep weapons.Retard lolz.
We both know it's just a way to disguise for your true objective which is to pave the way to tyranny by depriving the several states of of their power to establish and maintain well regulated militias which are essential for the security of the states.Utterly fabricated bullshit.
Many Americans interpreted the proposed Constitution to deprive the states of power to provide for their own militias.Oh?
I quoted your own posting. Read it if you can.No you didn't. I never asserted that "The People" means "The State."
Utter nonsense. Other than autocrats, individuals are not sovereign.Not nonsense. Individulas are MOST CERTAINLY sovereign; they just may not be "The Sovereign." No "Collective Soveriegn" is in ANY WAY possible unless each meber of the "collective is sovereign.
Sorry about your retarded luck, you're substantially WRONG.
You're confused. I've never said that.Does "Collective Sovereign" ring a fucking bell for you?
You're hopelessly confused.You are. I am unreservedly, and without ambiguity, correct in this. "Collective rights" are a fiction. I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.
You're wrong. I've given you the citations. Read them.You haven't. Certainly not at term of art to mean "collective sovereign. "The People" as the "Collective Sovereign" is a colloquialism used by Communists to distinguish themselves from Autocrats and Aristocracy.
The collective sovereign comprises individuals who may not be searched, personally or in their papers, etc.The People, are also individuals who may not be searched, personally or in their papers, etc., and are not limited to any "Collective Sovereign."
Exactly. That's why I won't let you interpret "the People" as anything other than "the People."I'm not. Unlike your dumbass insistence that "the People" means "Collective Soverign."
That the term "the people" wasn't a term of art or technical term.Well, in the Constitution, it was--just not the way you or Joe Steel insist it was.
In the U.S. Consitiution, "The People" was a term of art meaning "The People of The United States of America", i.e. citizens of The United States of America.
In fact, they do. They clearly show the use of the term "the People" as meaning the collective sovereign.
:lol:
we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case.
--Patrick Henry
The founding fathers knew from experience that relying on the members of the militia to provide their own arms would result in a poorly armed militia.Irrelevent.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: . . .
Since the aim of the Second Amendment is a well armed militia for the security of a free state, . . . It wasn't. The aim of the Second Amendment was to decalre that, ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
. . . it should be interpreted to grant the states broad power to provide for their own militias.No. It should be construed to decalre that, ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", consitent with the desire to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers.
The reason for the Second Amendment is actually stated in the Amendment. It says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.No. The reason for the Second Amendment is to to prevent misconstruction or abuse of Congressional powers, by declaring that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The reason for the Second Amendment is stated in the Amendment. It says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.No. The reason for the Amendment--FOR ALL THE AMENDMENTS--is to prevent misconstruction or abuse of Federal powers.
The preamble to the Second Amendment declares Congress' interst in enumeratinf a RIGHT; it's NOT about granting more powers to be misconstures or abused.
Congress knew that relying on the members of the militia to provide their own arms would result in a very poorly armed militia. Irrelevent.
we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case.
--Patrick Henry (1788)See? IRRELEVENT!
The point of the Second Amendment was that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state.No. The point of the Second Amendment was to prevent misconstruction or abuse of Federal powers.
There were already no laws prohibiting an individual from owning arms suitable for military duty.And the Second Amendment was to prevent misconstruction or abuse of Federal powers in such a way that laws prohibiting an individual from owning arms suitable for military duty could be passed.
However, in 1789, the state militias were very poorly armed.IRRELEVENT.
That means that either the lawmakers were not being straightforward and didn't really want well armed state militias, or, they wanted the states to have the power to provide for their own militias but were moron's who didn't know how to make the parts of a legal phrase coincide.Utter nonsense.
The rules of construction dictate that we interpret the Amendment to grant the states the power to keep and bear arms for the security of the state.No. The rules of construction dictate that we interpret the Amendment to prohbit the government from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
emmett
12-26-2008, 11:01 PM
Ah...... Somehow I don't think he is going to understand man!
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal gun ownership . . . Sure it does. In so far as each and every one of "The People" are persons, and their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the Second Amendment is very much about personal gun ownership.
Oh, and BTW, "The People IS NOT a term of art meaning anything but, the Citizens of the United States of America; your retarded assertions of "Collective Soveriegn notwithstanding.
. . . and outside of a few very fundamental rights, no right exists without explicit declaration.Substanitally wrong.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Second Amendment is statement of political philosophy which also declares for the People, the collective sovereign, the right to control the military.Nope.
"The Congress shall have power . . . To declare War; . . . To raise and support Armies; . . . To provide and maintain a Navy; . . . To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; and . . . 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"You see dumbass, the right of the People to control the military is presumed in their right to empower Congress with organizing and supporting it. The Second amendment is an explict restriction upon the powers of the federal government to infringe upon the right of people to keep and bear their own arms.
Joe Steel
12-27-2008, 09:56 AM
nope....
Does you jurisdiction restrict ownership to persons who have attained a particular age? Are you old enough?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.