Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

The right to bare arms..... questioning the understanding.

Discussion in 'United States' started by Mr Stefan Downey, Jun 11, 2012.

Page 11 of 14
  1. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    like I said, the SCOTUS has called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on that. the right to keep and bear arms is not tied to or dependant upon any militia.

    I can keep correcting you if you want, but I would stop if I were you. You have nothing to back your argument, while I have case law to back mine.
     
    rahl, Jul 5, 2012
    #251
  2. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    SCOTUS does not have the authority to deny or disparage the supreme law of the land.

    Your argument only works in a vacuum of special pleading since only a well regulated militia is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State and exempted from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws) for the purpose of specifically infringing on persons who are not in a well regulated militia and who may be engaged in insurrection or rebellion, or merely not abiding by the laws of the Union or of the several States.

    You are welcome to cite any examples that refute that contention.
     
    danielpalos, Jul 5, 2012
    #252
  3. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
    rahl, Jul 5, 2012
    #253
  4. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Where does DC vs Heller claim that Rebels of the People, Insurrectionists of the People, or even individual and private persons of the People who disturb the domestic tranquility or security of a free State; are exempted from State gun control (laws) or from federal gun control (laws), and therefore may not be infringed upon in their right to keep and bear Arms. Only special pleading of the literal enumeration of the words in our Second Amendment would claim that those persons of the People would have the right to not be infringed in their right to keep and bear Arms.
     
    danielpalos, Jul 5, 2012
    #254
  5. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    The Federalist Papers covered the federal doctrine pretty well.
     
    danielpalos, Jul 5, 2012
    #255
  6. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Strawman
     
    rahl, Jul 5, 2012
    #256
  7. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    federalist papers are irrelevant. SCOTUS case law is not. and SCOTUS case law says the individuals right to keep and bear arms is not dependant upon or tied to a militia.
     
    rahl, Jul 5, 2012
    #257
  8. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    What straw man argument are you referring to?

    It is why only a well regulated militia (of the United States) is specifically exempted from State gun control (laws) which are meant for every other Citizen who is not part of a well regulated militia; in favor of federal gun control (laws).

     
    danielpalos, Jul 5, 2012
    #258
  9. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the one you keep making.

    this has nothing to do with anything I've said. The individuals right to keep and bear arms is not dependant upon, or tied to any militia.
     
    rahl, Jul 5, 2012
    #259
  10. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Simply appealing to ignorance is no way to inspire any confidence in your sincerity. Are you allegedly a conservative as well?

    Where does DC vs Heller claim that Rebels of the People, Insurrectionists of the People, or even individual and private persons of the People who disturb the domestic tranquility or security of a free State; are exempted from State gun control (laws) or from federal gun control (laws), and therefore may not be infringed upon in their right to keep and bear Arms. Only special pleading of the literal enumeration of the words in our Second Amendment would claim that those persons of the People would have the right to not be infringed in their right to keep and bear Arms.
     
    danielpalos, Jul 6, 2012
    #260
  11. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Strawman
     
    rahl, Jul 6, 2012
    #261
  12. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Can you explain how my argument is a straw man, if I am not claiming your argument? Only you are resorting to special pleading in a vacuum since rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions without any militia requirement. Our Second Amendment specifically enumerates the reason and End for the right to keep and bear Arms.

    Here is an example of what I mean by rights in private property being secured in a State Constitution with no militia requirement being Necessary.

    Here is an example from the Minnesota State Constitution:

    Again, no militia service is a requirement for that State to secure those rights and privileges in private property which may include Arms.

    Where does DC vs Heller claim that Rebels of the People, Insurrectionists of the People, or even individual and private persons of the People who disturb the domestic tranquility or security of a free State; are exempted from State gun control (laws) or from federal gun control (laws), and therefore may not be infringed upon in their right to keep and bear Arms. Only special pleading of the literal enumeration of the words in our Second Amendment would claim that those persons of the People would have the right to not be infringed in their right to keep and bear Arms.
     
    danielpalos, Jul 6, 2012
    #262
  13. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yes.


    this is your strawman.

    my argument is that the right of the individual to keep and bear arms is not tied to nor dependant upon any militia. this argument is backed by the supreme court.

    you keep trying to reframe the debate, by attributing an arument to me that I am not making, which is why I keep pointing out you are inventing strawmen.

    I have not resorted to any fallacy in any way. I've simply shown you what the supreme court has said the second amendment means to the individual, and that it is currently the law of the land.
     
    rahl, Jul 6, 2012
    #263
  14. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    How do you explain the fact that only a well regulated militia (of the United States) may be called upon to execute the Laws of the Union and which may require infringing on the right of persons of the People who keep and bear Arms and who are not part of a well regulated militia of the United States; since, only a well regulated militia is specifically exempted from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws), for that purpose?
     
    danielpalos, Jul 6, 2012
    #264
  15. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    strawman

    you aren't fooling anyone.
     
    rahl, Jul 6, 2012
    #265
  16. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I would like to thank those of the opposing view for ceding their position since their argument is only based on special pleading in a vacuum; and the decision of the judicature was similarly reached in that same vacuum and must only apply in that special pleading circumstance.
     
    danielpalos, Jul 7, 2012
    #266
  17. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    who's conceded anything? I'm simply pointing out to you wha the law of the land is regarding the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

    you keep inventing strawmen, and I keep calling you on it.
     
    rahl, Jul 7, 2012
    #267
  18. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Uncle Ferd says, "Yea...

    ... but dat may not work in some o' dem Mooslamic countries...

    ... but he all for the right to bare arms...

    ... he says he favors dat bra-less look...

    ... anna 'panties optional' too.
    :drool:
     
    waltky, Jul 7, 2012
    #268
  19. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You have yet to point out why my argument is a straw man.

    According to the special pleading argument of gun lovers, we should end our War on Terror because those persons of the People have a right to keep and bear Arms.
     
    danielpalos, Jul 7, 2012
    #269
  20. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have done so repeatedly. just a few posts ago in fact.............http://www.politicalforum.com/unite...stioning-understanding-27.html#post1061417529

    another strawman
     
    rahl, Jul 7, 2012
    #270
  21. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    This is what you have claimed and is consistent with most gun lovers who have claimed something similar:

    How is this argument a straw man according to your own line of reasoning? If you really don't have a valid argument, you are welcome to resort to another fallacy for your Cause.

    According to the special pleading argument of gun lovers, we should end our War on Terror because those persons of the People have a right to keep and bear Arms since being in a well regulated militia of the United States is not a requirement for them to keep and bear Arms.
     
    danielpalos, Jul 7, 2012
    #271
  22. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yes, that is my argument, and one supported by the supreme court of the united states.


    strawman. I have made no such argument, and you are making it up and attributing it to me.

    that is the textbook definition of a strawman.

    you aren't fooling anyone.
     
    rahl, Jul 7, 2012
    #272
  23. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you claiming that persons of the People have right to keep and bear Arms regardless of militia service or not?

    According to the special pleading argument of gun lovers, we should end our War on Terror because those persons of the People have a right to keep and bear Arms since being in a well regulated militia of the United States is not a requirement for them to keep and bear Arms

    For the record, I would like this to be considered anecdotal evidence of the tactics employed by gun lovers regarding being moral enough to bear true witness to our very own, supreme law of the land. Since they do not inspire any confidence in their sincerity, how can they mean what they say or say what they mean regarding something as important as something Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.
     
    danielpalos, Jul 7, 2012
    #273
  24. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not claiming anything. I'm explaining to you what the law of the land is. the individuals right to keep and bear arms is not tied to or dependant upon any militia.

    strawman
    this drivel has nothing to do with anything I've said, nor the fact that the invididuals right to keep and bear arms is not tied to or dependant upon any militia.
     
    rahl, Jul 7, 2012
    #274
  25. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    151,290
    Likes Received:
    63,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    many Americans do not have that right, are they not a free folk?
     
    FreshAir, Jul 7, 2012
    #275
Page 11 of 14

Share This Page