The fact is danielpalos, it does not matter how you interpret the 2nd amendment (or lack thereof!) because the way the Supreme court interprets it, and the way our founding fathers made it gives us the right to possess, aquire, keep, bear and use firearms. No matter how much you dispute from what your understanding is, the people who actually matter interpret it correctly.
I guess you aren't in it for the moral of true witness bearing (value) simply for the sake of a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.
Erroneous! I am a realist, your arguments are foul and I stand for what this great nation was made for.
the supreme court called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on your argument. and you don't know what special pleading mean. - - - Updated - - - that has no effect on our argument in any way
by definition, Special Pleading is a Fallacy unto itself. You don't know what a special pleading is, much less a Writ of Satori
That you would find the use of fallacy in any number as acceptable is offensive. Your Cause, whatever that might be, is corrupted by your deliberate deceit...unless corruption is the Cause, well then, soldier on traveler. Do you have sympathy for the entity Alinsky gave props to in his infamous dedication? Fallacy subscribers usually do. Gotta be be willing to corrupt oneself for his people and the Cause, eh? Of course, that would make you corrupt and a fallacy too.
You mean the people who actually matter interpreted in your favor instead of the most accurately, don't you? Not feeling any need to discover sublime Truth (value) through argumentation or having valid arguments is one, objective and "market" based clue. In any case, that ruling merely overturned an outright ban on one class of Arms; Prohibition cannot be Regulation since it is not a power delegated under our Constitutional form of government. Here is what the second paragraph of the ruling you claim does what you say, actually says:
I already know that special pleading is usually considered a fallacy; it is one reason I bring it up; unlike those of the opposing view who don't seem to care what words mean, as long as those words are in their favor. The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed is special pleading when taken out of context of the first clause.
Your point of view would inspire so much more confidence in your sincerity, if you actually had an argument instead of mere commentary. Why do you believe the Second Amendment does what you claim, instead of simply exempting a well regulated militia from State laws regarding gun control in favor of federal regulation prescribed by our federal Congress?
You keep quoting the same thing over and over again. Its kinda funny, you quote it when its not even relevant while trying to refute someones post. While the interpretation is in my favor, it is also correct in accordance to what was originaly written. They needed to interpret it for people like you who fail to understand the simple meaning, people who think it is some kind of coded phraise with underlying meanings even though it clearly states the people having the rights. Now please.... post another repetitive quote again.... I don't think we have fully seen the irrelevance to this conversation yet....
You still haven't explained how the delegated power of our federal Congress to provide for Arming the militia, creates or establishes rights in private property.
Light enters a prism unseen but whole yet exits exposed and stratified, without elevation changes the mountain and valley lose their significance and uniquely shared synergistic vantage, a setting sun is a limited perspective of the cosmic continuum and the man who stalks with a disciplined patience and soundless stealth surprises his heretofore blissful prey. Please to meet you...think I know your name.
The rights for the common people to own a firearm is in the second amendment, we have gone over this...
I'll give him this...he is insistent, way wrong, but insistent. He cannot say these words.."OK, guess I'm wrong..." It is not on his copy/paste list
It isn't in our Second Amendment and appealing to ignorance is no excuse when dealing with our supreme law of the land.
you don't know what appeal to ignorance means. it is of course in our second amendment. and the supreme court agrees. you lost.
I think you are both right and wrong since neither of you are looking at the historical context and state laws governing who was to be in the militia.
Because the power to direct the means and manner of the private citizen to keep and bear personal arms was never conferred to Congress. Only the power to "provide for arming the militia" was granted to Congress. The power to provide for arming the private citizen for private purposes / uses was fully retained by the citizen. You say you are only reading the words of the Constitution but you are inventing actions that are not commanded by the words . . . actually, if one were to follow one of the most fundamental standards of interpretation, Art. I, § 8, cl 16 forbids your reading, extending clause 16 to the act upon the private citizen and his private arms (expressio unius est exclusio alterius). Let's examine what the Constitution says about the militia and how and when they fall under Congressional / governmental control: Art I, sec 8: 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;. . . It seems to me that the authority of Congress "to provide for arming" only impacts a citizen enrolled and the arm he intends to use for militia duty. Congress' power to "to govern/," if further restrained and only begins when a state's militia are formally called for service by Congress for duty to the nation. That power is limited further to only the part in actual service. That would stop Congress calling to service only Boston's militia and having the entire Massachusetts falling under the control of Congress. So a question to you (who only reads the Constitution and binds his arguments to exactly and precisely what it says (and thus also to what it doesn't say): What constitutional authority does Congress possess to dictate to the unorganized militia (i.e., "the people" / private individual citizens not enrolled in any militia) that only certain weapons are permitted by law? The unorganized militia (i.e., "the people" / private individual citizens not enrolled in any militia) are immune by direct exclusion (expressio unius est exclusio alterius) from control by Congress. They are only directly addressed in the 2nd Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." .
Wow great and well written post. There are parts that I do agree with. However the issue of who was in the militia was usually defined at the state level. Many times men of certain age were required. So I don't know about a unorganized militia would be considered a militia. Anyway something to think about and ponder.
The Militia Act of 1792 (linked above) was a federal law executing Art I, § 8, cl 16 constitutional powers conferred to Congress. The pertinent paragraph states: I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes. Under law they are not considered "militia", they are private citizens, i.e., "the people". They have no impressment of duty nor do they fall under the action of any militia powers (federal or state). That was my point in my reply to the automaton.
