Yes, it is simple ignorance of the law. The Intent and Purpose must mean something, it cannot be ignored as DC v. Heller does. Also, there are No Individual Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, only collective terms; thus, no Individual rights can be established. The Court cannot appeal to ignorance of the law, either since our Ninth and Tenth Amendments apply in this specific case.
I say anything is better than being alone and helpless in the face of an intruder who has already tried to pass himself off as a policeman. Quite scary. If I trusted myself more, I would get a gun. I am not really suitable for gun ownership. I would probably get a little trigger happy. If I would have had a gun that night though, I probably would have opened the door for him and let him come in
The Bill of Rights are individual rights. The militia of the United States would not need individual rights.
Then I suggest you go back and learn what the Bill of Rights were for. Theres plenty of information and night classes on the subject. Dear.
It means that anything not specifically given to the federal government, is given to the states, and to the people. You see, the people in the state have the individual power to vote for their representatives, and to have an equal say in state decisions. Every single amendment in the Bill of Rights deals with individual rights. Are you suggesting there are amendments in the Bill of Rights that have nothing to do with individual rights?
Specifically why would a collective right be included in a list of individual rights that government is required to recognize and respect? What is the logical reasoning behind such a move during the drafting phase?
States are not Individuals. You need to keep that in mind. - - - Updated - - - quite simple; a well regulated militia is what is necessary to the security of a free State, not gun lovers without a clue or a Cause.
Yeah that's why states are mentioned. Once. In order to clarifiy that any rights not specifically given to the federal government belong to the people and....hm....whats left here....oh yeah, the states. No but the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed, is necessary to the creation of A militia.
no, dear; it has to do with the literal meaning of the words employed. You may have notice that our Founding Fathers were not so unwise as our Judicature by claiming a well regulated militia is UnNecessary to the security of a free State to safely ignore the first clause.
It has to do with the literal meaning of the words employed. What did the literal meaning of the words mean when the BoR was written? Oh thanks again Google. Well-regulated meant "working correctly". Thank you for reminding us that the literal words employed was the important point there.
no, dear; there is no appeal to ignorance on wellness of regulation; it is stipulated in Article 1, Section 8. any thing else is merely a diversion and that form of fallacy.
Oh, is this the Scooby Doo defense? How about answer the questions I asked instead of mad-libbing me to death.
Then you, like countless others, are making the argument that the framers who drafted the bill of rights explicitly meant for the first amendment to be an individual right, took an entirely different course in the drafting of the second amendment and intended for it to be a collective right, before going back to their original way of doing things and drafted the third through tenth amendments to be purely individual rights?
dude, it is in Article 1, Section 8. Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States. - - - Updated - - - yes, dear; the security of a free State requires it.
Article 1 section 8 covers THE militia of the United States. The 2nd Amendment covers "A" militia, ANY militia, that is composed of any of the people in this country. The Bill of Rights was written specifically to protect INDIVIDUAL rights. The 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment was written to protect individual rights. Case closed.
No, it doesn't; it Only covers the Militia of the United States, well regulated--10USC311 applies. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
Quit being ignorant. The entire BOR was written to protect individual rights. Why would the 2nd be any different than the other amendments in the BOR?
nope; the law is the law; you Only have hearsay and soothsay to support your contention. you have to read each word of the law or run the risk of appealing to ignorance of it, like usual for the right.
The Bill of Rights trumps your feeble US codes and regulations. Do you disagree the Bill of Rights is there to protect individual rights? Why don't you address that question so it will become even more obvious how wrong you are? Then again, I don't think it could be any more obvious.
