I agree to that extent; however, there is some aversion by the left to accepting reality and I think we let it slide too many times with the certain individual here who has maligned me many times. There needs to be more outrage at the left for pretending that Rights are given to us, secured, etc. by a state government. It matters where your Rights come from. If everybody really realized that it would be much easier to have productive discussions so that we knew HOW to approach those who make the laws. Most of the time they find a way here to suppress my coup de grace when a liberal gets on the ropes the way the troll is right now. Many here may have pieces of the puzzle, but if we had all the answers, there would not be so many people intimidated and defensive about that one individual. Some of us have talked in private and sometimes on this board about this issue. It's a major distraction not to be able to discuss facts without the mindless drivel of cheap shot attacks. When I say that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms guaranteed in the Constitution and not subject to any state granting, securing. allowing, etc. the Right, that's a fact. It's no different than saying the federal courts have decided a woman has a "right" to an abortion. In neither of those facts does it include my personal opinion; in neither of them is it wrong, fallacious, etc. as liars would contend. The truth is the truth - whether you agree with it or not. BTW, since analogies become the topic, I am pro - life... that's why I'm also pro-gun.
Why not actually, cite the federal statutory rules of construction, if you don't want to believe me. I have already cited an encyclopedia, and a legal article in a legal encyclopedia. You still have nothing but right wing fantasy and are unable to advance your Cause, by citing the actual, federal rules of statutory construction; why Only, continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacy for your (alleged "gospel Truth") Cause?
"Any question of statutory interpretation begins with looking at the plain language of the statute to discover its original intent. To discover a statute's original intent, courts first look to the words of the statute and apply their usual and ordinary meanings." Let us do exactly that... See my next post
More Proof That The Resident Minister of Propaganda For The Socialist Left Is WRONG In 2004, the United States Attorney General was tasked with a job. Here are excerpts from his work: "Specifically, you have asked us to address the question whether the right secured by the Second Amendment belongs only to the states, only to persons serving in state-organized militia units like the National Guard, or to individuals generally. This memorandum memorializes and expands upon advice that this Office provided to you on this question in 2001. As relevant to the question addressed herein, courts and commentators have relied on three different interpretations of the Second Amendment. Under the “individual right” view, the Second Amendment secures to individuals a personal right to keep and to bear arms, whether or not they are members of any militia or engaged in military service or training. According to this view, individuals may bring claims or raise challenges based on a violation of their rights under the Second Amendment just as they do to vindicate individual rights secured by other provisions of the Bill of Rights. 1 Under the “collective right” view, the Second Amendment is a federalism provision that provides to states a prerogative to establish and maintain armed and organized militia units akin to the National Guard, and only states may assert this prerogative. 2 Finally, there is a range of intermediate views according to which the Amendment secures a right only to select persons to keep and bear arms in connection with their service in an organized state militia such as the National Guard. Under one typical formulation, individuals may keep arms only if they are “members of a functioning, organized state militia” and the state has not provided the necessary arms, and they may bear arms only “while and as a part of actively participating in” that militia’s activities. 3 In essence, such a view would allow a private cause of action (or defense) to some persons to vindicate a state’s power to establish and maintain an armed and organized militia such as the National Guard. 4 We therefore label this group of intermediate positions the “quasi-collective right” view. The Supreme Court has not decided among these three potential interpretations, and the federal circuits are split. ...In sum, the question of who possesses the right secured by the Second Amendment remains open and unsettled in the courts and among scholars. Accordingly, we turn to the Amendment’s text, as commonly understood at the time of its adoption and interpreted in light of other provisions of the Constitution and the Amendment’s historical antecedents, to discern its proper meaning. {Note: this was in 2004 before the Heller and McDonald decisions[/I]} "…II. Textual and Structural Analysis ...the text of the Second Amendment points to a personal right of individuals: A “right of the people” is ordinarily and most naturally a right of individuals, not of a state and not merely of those serving the state as militia-men. The phrase “keep arms” at the time of the Founding usually indicated the private ownership and retention of arms by individuals as individuals, not the stockpiling of arms by a government or its soldiers, and the phrase certainly had that meaning when used in connection with a “right of the people.” While the phrase “bear arms” often referred to carrying of arms in military service, it also sometimes denoted carrying arms for private purposes. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2004/08/31/op-olc-v028-p0126.pdf If you take the time to read that opinion, the history of the right becomes apparent. We're talking textual analysis. What does the Second Amendment mean? The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government! The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase "well-regulated” means well-trained and disciplined — not “regulated” as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.] The Third Amendment: Expressly restrains the federal government from building a standing army and infiltrating it among the people ...and at the people’s expense ... in times of peace. The Third Amendment runs against the idea of a permanent standing army or federalized National Guard in principle, if not by its words. None of this supports the contention of a state militia who cannot be infringed on. It can only refer to the people. And so, the courts listened – and they considered what the United States Attorney General said... and they applied the law in view of textual analysis, historical precedents, and the intent of the Second Amendment. In 2008 (only four years after the U.S. Attorney General sorted this mess out, the United States Supreme Court ruled: "[I]Held*) (*)(*)(*)(*)1.(*)The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. (a)(*)The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. (b)(*)The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."[/I] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (2008) (Note: This is the law of the land. It is not dicta nor opinion. This is the holding of the court. It is law that no state can over-rule) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html Wikipedia also had this: "The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up the Heller's findings and reasoning: In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200, the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"(id. at 62; that "the home" is "where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" (id. at 62; and that, "above all other interests," the second amendment elevates "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home" (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller According to Wikipedia on yet ANOTHER United States Supreme Court ruling after Heller: "McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago Included in the Wikipedia article, you will find this: Thirty-three amici curiae ("friends of the court") briefs for this case were filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.[17] "One of these briefs was filed by U.S. senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R, TX) and Jon Tester (D, MT) and U.S. representatives Mark Souder (R, IN) and Mike Ross (D, AR) asking the Supreme Court to find in favor of the petitioners and rule that the Second Amendment does apply to the states.[18] The brief was signed by 58 senators and 251 representatives, more members of Congress than any amicus curiae brief in history.[19] Moreover, thirty-two states under the aegis of Texas (and California independently) also filed amici curiae." Also see this link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html It is an established point of law, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual Right to keep and bear Arms for self protection / defense and that Right is unconnected to militia service. The above articles constitute the law AND all the "Rules of Statutory Construction" were considered; the legal arguments underwent strict scrutiny for textual and structural analysis. Great pains were taken in the briefs (as well as oral arguments) to address the history and the original intent of the Second Amendment. The bottom line is that the left wing cow dung spewed by NEW WORLD ORDER advocates was brought to the table by the left in the arguments before the United States Supreme Court. The left lost. Their opinions are included for the record, but the bottom line is that the left lost. Those on this board, trying to spew socialist / communist cow dung were addressed in the above cases and they LOST!
Our Second Amendment clearly states that Only well regulated militia of the entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
No it says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it doesn't say "the militia."
Only well regulated militia of the entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. There is a Second Amendment reason, Intent, and Purpose, for that.
The supreme court has stated otherwise. That is the long, the short, and the end of the discussion. You have nothing more to say from this point on. Stop wasting the time of others who do not believe in your clue or cause. You are wasting their time and yours.
Most of these people have never bothered to read the federalist papers, obviously. If they had, it would be very clear to them that the founders intended for the people to have the right to bear arms for not only to fight against government tyranny, but for self defense, hunting, etc.
>>>MOD EDIT Quoted Post Deleted<<< The syllabus has no bearing on what is found within the ruling, but is rather a summary for those who are either too impatient, or too ignorant to read everything that was said. The united states supreme court has stated, in no unsimple terms, that the second amendment recognizes the right of firearms ownership for all legal and lawful purposes. There is no requirement that one serve in a state militia before being allowed to own a firearm. There is no limitation stating that firearms may only be owned and used for sanctioned militia purposes. >>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<
What disproven lies? Only the right wing is that fantastical, while claiming to be for the alleged, "gospel Truth".
And you guys that won't even come out and identify the real YOU pretend to have a monopoly on truth. You haven't told the truth a single time since you've been on this board. Even pretending to be a regular poster is a joke. The fantastical right (sic) - That is a deliberate insult to a group since it's being done to evoke an emotional response. No point having a rule if you aren't going to follow it "danielpalos" But I digress. You can make the charges and maybe I cannot respond to the facts. It would do not good. You have already proven to be lying each time you post.
Even honest Injeuns can't go, "honest Injeun" on the Union while resorting to fallacy. You merely need, a superior argument, that is all.
Nobody can beat you, Honest Injeun. You're the man... well not really. But, do yourself a favor. Don't keep up the charade. Nobody with an IQ higher than their shoe size can't figure out who and what you are with no other purpose than to insult people on the "right" it becomes apparent. Your filthy rotten stinking lies and political propaganda you spew are enough to make the rest of us vomit. The cowardice of pretending to be a regular poster are equally offensive. Trying to convince people that Wikipedia articles, United States Supreme Court rulings, lower court rulings and statutes - not to mention the words of the founding fathers are right wing fantasy is insulting to every person in America - left, right or in between. There is no great fantastical right wing arguments - only the babblings of someone with a little displaced power that can insult people, lie about them, lie to them and disrupt threads on PF.
You can make all the insults you like. As I said, the charade is over. If you cannot make your point without the insults - not to mention the LIES, you really have no case, do you? BTW, your quote has exactly ZERO to do with the insults you've made over the last half dozen of your posts.
Like i said; I don't have to resort to fallacy, like those with nothing but fantasy must do, since they have no sound reasoning in support.
Only well regulated militia of the whole People (a few public officials excepted), are necessary to the security of a free State.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Seems we got a long way off from the topic. I need a firearm for home protection, self defense and, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government. Our laws clearly state that the police cannot protect the individual citizen and the police only protect society at large. That being the case, I and I alone determine what is the appropriate level of protection that I need. If that happens to be an AR, then AR it is. If it happens to be a Glock pistol, an M1A or Mossberg shotgun... or anything else that merits my attention, that is what I'll use. Americans are masters of their own destiny; they are responsible for themselves; they have the unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and that incorporates all that is necessary to those ends.
