John Paul Stevens' essay on the 2nd Amendment: Congress should change the wording

[TurtleDude]

Hey Daniel...actually answer ANY of the questions I've posted to you and then perhaps I'll actually care about your continued repeating of the same point. However, if you're to dishonestly refuse to answer any questions or counters to your tired parade of repeated lines then spare me if I don't give two ****s about your belief of whether or not my argument is based off a falacy, as falacies matter in a debate....and unless you demonstrate ANY desire to actually have your arguments challenged and debated, then it doesn't seem like that's what we're engaging in.

HOpe springs eternal I suppose. :mrgreen:

 

[VanceMack]

Not at all; you simply don't have a clue or a Cause as to the concepts. Only, a well regulated militia, is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State, not just Any militia.

I'll tell you what I do have. I have thre Constitution. I have the direct words of those that wrote said document on their intent. I have 200 plus years of precedent. I have 120 million legal law abiding citizens owning firearms just as the founders envisioned. I have at least 2 SCOTUS rulings that back up the founding fathers opinion that Stevens is a ****ing moron.

You have...fear. And ideology. But mostly...fear.

 

[danielpalos]

Hey Daniel...actually answer ANY of the questions I've posted to you and then perhaps I'll actually care about your continued repeating of the same point. However, if you're to dishonestly refuse to answer any questions or counters to your tired parade of repeated lines then spare me if I don't give two ****s about your belief of whether or not my argument is based off a falacy, as falacies matter in a debate....and unless you demonstrate ANY desire to actually have your arguments challenged and debated, then it doesn't seem like that's what we're engaging in.

Not at all; it Only seems that way because of all of the appeals to ignorance found on this allegedly serious debate site. By the way, simply claiming what you do without posting the relevant argument(s) is also, usually considered a fallacy.

Only one Body politic of The People is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State. The first clause cannot be null and void from Inception and therefore, cannot be ignored without an Appeal to Ignorance.

Why do you believe that is not the case?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

 

[Zyphlin]

Yes, it must be true because Only States have militias. Counties have posses.

1. And your evidence for this assertion is.....? what exactly?

2. Can't help but notice you didn't answer my first question. If only states have militias and the Constitution recognizes it them as something that exists without giving the Federal Government the power to create them, then why are you quoting me FEDERAL law as to what constitutes "The Militia"

3. Can't help but notice you didn't answer my second question. With regards to the US code for militias, how do you respond to the notion that it's an Equal Protection Clause violation?

4. Can't help but notice you didn't answer my third question. Are you claiming it's youre belief/opinion/understanding that the keeping and bearing of arms shall not be infringed for able bodied male citizens between 17 and 45 and women who are part of the national guard?

Please Daniel...if you want to keep bitching about "ignorance" and acting like you're engaged in some kind of debate, then debate. I've asked you clear and concrete questions in relation to your arguments. Are you actually here to debate and discuss, or are you just here to repeat the same tired lines over and over again while refusing to actually address legitimate counters or concerns raised. Are you here to debate, or are you here to simply spew propoganda and insult?

 

[Zyphlin]

Only one Body politic of The People is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State. The first clause cannot be null and void from Inception and therefore, cannot be ignored without an Appeal to Ignorance.

Oh look, you repeat the same line yet again which I've already addressed. So let me simply use your own method until such time that you actually engage in debate.

2. Can't help but notice you didn't answer my first question. If only states have militias and the Constitution recognizes it them as something that exists without giving the Federal Government the power to create them, then why are you quoting me FEDERAL law as to what constitutes "The Militia"

3. Can't help but notice you didn't answer my second question. With regards to the US code for militias, how do you respond to the notion that it's an Equal Protection Clause violation?

4. Can't help but notice you didn't answer my third question. Are you claiming it's youre belief/opinion/understanding that the keeping and bearing of arms shall not be infringed for able bodied male citizens between 17 and 45 and women who are part of the national guard?

Please Daniel...if you want to keep bitching about "ignorance" and acting like you're engaged in some kind of debate, then debate.

 

[danielpalos]

1. And your evidence for this assertion is.....? what exactly?

2. Can't help but notice you didn't answer my first question. IF only states have militias, then why are you quoting me FEDERAL law as to what constitutes "The Militia"

3. Can't help but notice you didn't answer my second question. With regards to the US code for militias, how do you respond to the notion that it's an Equal Protection Clause violation?

4. Can't help but notice you didn't answer my third question. Are you claiming it's youre belief/opinion/understanding that the keeping and bearing of arms shall not be infringed for able bodied male citizens between 17 and 45 and women who are part of the national guard?

Please Daniel...if you want to keep bitching about "ignorance" and acting like you're engaged in some kind of debate, then debate. I've asked you clear and concrete questions in relation to your arguments. Are you actually here to debate and discuss, or are you just here to repeat the same tired lines over and over again while refusing to actually address legitimate counters or concerns raised. Are you here to debate, or are you here to simply spew propoganda and insult?

You keep forgetting that I don't need to appeal to ignorance for my Cause.

States existed before our republic. It should, therefore, be a self-evident Truth. Here is one example from a State Constitution:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Oh look, you repeat the same line yet again which I've already addressed. So let me simply use your own method until such time that you actually engage in debate.

Oh look, you keep resorting to diversions, instead of providing a rebuttal.

Only one Body politic of The People is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State. The first clause cannot be null and void from Inception and therefore, cannot be ignored without an Appeal to Ignorance.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Why do you believe that is not the Case.

 

[Zyphlin]

You keep forgetting that I don't need to appeal to ignorance for my Cause.

States existed before our republic. It should, therefore, be a self-evident Truth. Here is one example from a State Constitution:

Daniel, daneil, daniel.

You made a claim. In this very thread. You claimed the militia was as defined by the US code. YOU MADE AN ASSERTION. I've asked you questions regarding your assertion and countering it. You've refused to address those, instead falling back to your argument ad nauseam in your effort to create proof by assertion. You refuse to actually address the counters to your assertion and instead simply repeating your same argument over as if that makes it correct.

You laughable cast stones of fallacies towards others as you sit here giving a master class on a number of debate fallacies yourself.

Indeed, you are creating an argument from fallacy, suggesting that simply based on the notion that a fallacy is (supposedly) present in the persons argument that their conclussion must be incorrect. If you actually had an argument other than your idiotic continued attempts to declare people are using fallacies as you repeat the same tired line ad nauseam then you'd make it and roundly defend your assertion from those such as I who are CLEARLY and PLAINLY putting forth counter points to it. But you're not, because your only argument is that there's a fallacy present in your mind; which is, in and of itself, a fallacy.

So again, as it relates to your assertion I once more ask these questions

2. Can't help but notice you didn't answer my first question. If only states have militias and the Constitution recognizes it them as something that exists without giving the Federal Government the power to create them, then why are you quoting me FEDERAL law as to what constitutes "The Militia"

3. Can't help but notice you didn't answer my second question. With regards to the US code for militias, how do you respond to the notion that it's an Equal Protection Clause violation?

4. Can't help but notice you didn't answer my third question. Are you claiming it's youre belief/opinion/understanding that the keeping and bearing of arms shall not be infringed for able bodied male citizens between 17 and 45 and women who are part of the national guard?

Please Daniel...if you want to keep bitching about "ignorance" and acting like you're engaged in some kind of debate, then debate.

 

[Zyphlin]

Oh look, you keep resorting to diversions, instead of providing a rebuttal.

I've given a rebuttle. Multiple times. You've simply ignored it, as a propogandist is want to do as opposed to someone looking for honest debate. Additionally, there are a number of either logical issues inherent within your argument OR ambiguous issues with your claim that can't be properly rebutted unless you clarify your murky position. This is because your position is hollow, built upon fallacies itself and attempting to survive on the singular defense of "You all are making a fallacy" without any actual defense or substance to your own position.

 

[danielpalos]

I've given a rebuttle. Multiple times. You've simply ignored it, as a propogandist is want to do as opposed to someone looking for honest debate. Additionally, there are a number of either logical issues inherent within your argument OR ambiguous issues with your claim that can't be properly rebutted unless you clarify your murky position. This is because your position is hollow, built upon fallacies itself and attempting to survive on the singular defense of "You all are making a fallacy" without any actual defense or substance to your own position.

Well, can you re-state your position and any support for your position on this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Only one Body politic of The People is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State. The first clause cannot be null and void from Inception and therefore, cannot be ignored without an Appeal to Ignorance.

Why do you believe that is not the Case.

You may not have been very clear or concise in your previous posts.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, daneil, daniel.

You made a claim. In this very thread. You claimed the militia was as defined by the US code. YOU MADE AN ASSERTION. I've asked you questions regarding your assertion and countering it. You've refused to address those, instead falling back to your argument ad nauseam in your effort to create proof by assertion. You refuse to actually address the counters to your assertion and instead simply repeating your same argument over as if that makes it correct.

You laughable cast stones of fallacies towards others as you sit here giving a master class on a number of debate fallacies yourself.

Indeed, you are creating an argument from fallacy, suggesting that simply based on the notion that a fallacy is (supposedly) present in the persons argument that their conclussion must be incorrect. If you actually had an argument other than your idiotic continued attempts to declare people are using fallacies as you repeat the same tired line ad nauseam then you'd make it and roundly defend your assertion from those such as I who are CLEARLY and PLAINLY putting forth counter points to it. But you're not, because your only argument is that there's a fallacy present in your mind; which is, in and of itself, a fallacy.

So again, as it relates to your assertion I once more ask these questions

You cannot ignore a State Constitution under our republican form of government with its separation of powers which includes, States' rights.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Can you cite where the specific Terms; Acquire and Possess are to be found expressed in our Second Amendment?

 

[Zyphlin]

You cannot ignore a State Constitution under our republican form of government with its separation of powers which includes, States' rights.

Where have I done so? You're the one that claimed "The Militia" was defined by the US code. Not a state constitution or a state code.

So I ask again, if you believe that the states define what the militia are, why did you quote the US code?

If you believe it's the US code that defines a militia, then answer my question as to your opinion/belief of whether or not able bodied male citizens in that age range and female national guard members shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed?

If you beleive it's either the US code that defines militias or the states, which are still subject to the constitution, how do you counter my assertion that there's a potential Equal Protection Clause issue with regards to how militias are being defined.

Why do you keep strawmanning me over the militia thing. I've not made a claim in this thread as to whether or not the second applies only to those of "the militia" so repeating that as an argument against me is...well, your favorite thing: A fallacy.

You're racking up the amount of debate fallacies. I just wish you'd rack up actual posts that address my questions.

So, are you going to answer my questions...or are you going to post another variation of the exact same statement yet again in an effort to truly and sufficiently destroy that strawman?



Can you cite where the specific Terms; Acquire and Possess are to be found expressed in our Second Amendment?[/QUOTE]

 

[danielpalos]

Where have I done so? You're the one that claimed "The Militia" was defined by the US code. Not a state constitution or a state code.

Only to address the issue of that pre-existing condition of the existence of a Militia, that you brought up. However, the gun lover position seems to have some basis at Only the county level and should have never become a federal issue.

 

[danielpalos]

So I ask again, if you believe that the states define what the militia are, why did you quote the US code?

States don't define what the Militia of the United States is, Only our federal Congress can do that for the Union. I refer to US Code simply due to our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you keep strawmanning me over the militia thing. I've not made a claim in this thread as to whether or not the second applies only to those of "the militia" so repeating that as an argument against me is...well, your favorite thing: A fallacy.

You're racking up the amount of debate fallacies. I just wish you'd rack up actual posts that address my questions.

So, are you going to answer my questions...or are you going to post another variation of the exact same statement yet again in an effort to truly and sufficiently destroy that strawman?

This part is purely a diversion and usually considered a fallacy, my dear (global) moderator.

Why is it soo difficult for you to re-state your position on this issue in a more concise manner?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Only one Body politic of The People is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State. The first clause cannot be null and void from Inception and therefore, cannot be ignored without an Appeal to Ignorance.

Why do you believe that is not the Case?

 

[vash1012]

I'd like to publicly apologize for starting this thread solely because its given this danielpalos guy an excuse to copy and paste his completely unsupported opinion over and over again.

danielpalos,

The existence of the Militia being necessary to the security of a free state is the REASON that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd amendment is not a right to a state militia. Read literally any supreme court case on the 2nd amendment please. United States vs. Cruikshank would be a great place to start since it says that exactly.

 

[Zyphlin]

Only to address the issue of that pre-existing condition of the existence of a Militia, that you brought up.

Sorry, but this is just factually untrue. Go back and look through the thread, or if that's too difficult I can quote it for you.

You claimed the Militia was defined in the US Code. You made that claim before I ever even responded to you in this thread.

I responded to your use of the US code to put forward some counter points and issues with your usage of it. Namely....asking where the Federal government got the authority to designate who made up the militia (Since you chose to suggest the USC defined it), stating the constitution suggests "The Militia" is an entity that exists outside of the federal government, how the US Code jived with the Equal Protection Clause, and asking you to clarify specifically if you were suggesting your belief/opinion is that able bodied male citizens within that age range and women in the national guard have a right to keep and bear arms that should not be infringed.

You then responded back to me stating that "The Militia" is that of the states. Which was contradictory to your own previous statement that the US code defines the militia.

Are you now claiming/clarifying that your position was prior to the Constitution that the States governed who made up the militia, but NOW the Federal Government does?

IF that is your claim, then I ask again:

1. Under what authority does the Federal Government have to define the militia

2. How does that definition jives with the Equal Protection Clause

3. Do you, specifically, believe/think/have the opinion that this means all able bodied male citizens in that age range, and women in the national guard, have a right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed?

IF that is NOT your claim, then I ask question 2 and 3 and I also ask....why did you quote Federal code if you're still suggesting it's encumbant upon the states to define "The Militia"?

 

[danielpalos]

I'd like to publicly apologize for starting this thread solely because its given this danielpalos guy an excuse to copy and paste his completely unsupported opinion over and over again.

danielpalos,

The existence of the Militia being necessary to the security of a free state is the REASON that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd amendment is not a right to a state militia. Read literally any supreme court case on the 2nd amendment please. United States vs. Cruikshank would be a great place to start since it says that exactly.

Only well regulated Militias are expressly declared as necessary to the security of a free State, and not the entirety of the Militia of the United States. A well regulated militia must be an organized militia.

If it isn't expressly declared in our federal Constitution, it doesn't exist if we have to quibble about it.

Can you cite where the Terms, Acquire and Possess are to be found in our Second Amendment?

 

[danielpalos]

Sorry, but this is just factually untrue. Go back and look through the thread, or if that's too difficult I can quote it for you.

You claimed the Militia was defined in the US Code. You made that claim before I ever even responded to you in this thread.

I responded to your use of the US code to put forward some counter points and issues with your usage of it. Namely....asking where the Federal government got the authority to designate who made up the militia (Since you chose to suggest the USC defined it), stating the constitution suggests "The Militia" is an entity that exists outside of the federal government, how the US Code jived with the Equal Protection Clause, and asking you to clarify specifically if you were suggesting your belief/opinion is that able bodied male citizens within that age range and women in the national guard have a right to keep and bear arms that should not be infringed.

You then responded back to me stating that "The Militia" is that of the states. Which was contradictory to your own previous statement that the US code defines the militia.

Are you now claiming/clarifying that your position was prior to the Constitution that the States governed who made up the militia, but NOW the Federal Government does?

And, you still haven't addressed my contention regarding Only one Body politic of The People being declared as Necessary to the security of a free State.

IF that is your claim, then I ask again:

1. Under what authority does the Federal Government have to define the militia

2. How does that definition jives with the Equal Protection Clause

3. Do you, specifically, believe/think/have the opinion that this means all able bodied male citizens in that age range, and women in the national guard, have a right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed?

IF that is NOT your claim, then I ask question 2 and 3 and I also ask....why did you quote Federal code if you're still suggesting it's encumbant upon the states to define "The Militia"?

Yes, it must be true if we are still arguing about it. The Militia of the United States must be defined in US Code. It really is that simple.

 

[Zyphlin]

States don't define what the Militia of the United States is, Only our federal Congress can do that for the Union. I refer to US Code simply due to our federal Constitution.

1. Where in the federal constitution does it grant the power to create/raise a militia of the United States? It SPECIFICALLY suggests that the congress can raise an army. It SPECIFICALLY indicates "the militia" is an already existing entity external to that of the federal government.

2. Even if we assume that the federal government can create the designation of the militia....I say again:

The Equal Protection Clause requires federal laws that discriminate upon various criteria to meet a certain standard. The US Code you referenced is grossly discriminatory to women. The discrimination against women, requiring them to join a government entity when it's not required of men, needs to be substantially related to serving an important state interest for it to be constitutional in nature. What state interest is being done by denying them access to the militia compared to their male counter part, and how is it substantially related to serving said interest?

The age discrimination falls under a lower category, but it still applies to the EPC. It would need to be shown that denying those young or older entry into the militia is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.

What is that interest? And how is denying someone whose 50 from being a militia member serving said interest?

 

[danielpalos]

1. Where in the federal constitution does it grant the power to create/raise a militia of the United States? It SPECIFICALLY suggests that the congress can raise an army. It SPECIFICALLY indicates "the militia" is an already existing entity external to that of the federal government.

It is in Article 1, Section 8.

 

[VanceMack]

States don't define what the Militia of the United States is, Only our federal Congress can do that for the Union. I refer to US Code simply due to our federal Constitution.

:lamo

You refer to the US Code...a document that wasnt created for over 100 years AFTER the Constitution to give meaning to the 2nd amendment?

Come on man...you arent even TRYING...

 

[danielpalos]

:lamo

You refer to the US Code...a document that wasnt created for over 100 years AFTER the Constitution to give meaning to the 2nd amendment?

Come on man...you arent even TRYING...

Only our federal Congress can define the Militia of the United States. You may be missing that simple concept.

 

[vash1012]

Only well regulated Militias are expressly declared as necessary to the security of a free State, and not the entirety of the Militia of the United States. A well regulated militia must be an organized militia.

If it isn't expressly declared in our federal Constitution, it doesn't exist if we have to quibble about it.

Can you cite where the Terms, Acquire and Possess are to be found in our Second Amendment?

Well it DOES expressly state that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, does it not? Why are you ignoring that? To keep = possess, Bear = to use. Being that acquiring is a prerequisite of keeping, I don't think that word is necessary.

"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"

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

That is the current Supreme Court interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court, being the body tasked with interpreting the Constitution and Congressional laws IN THE CONSTITUTION, says you are 100% wrong.

 

[Zyphlin]

Why is it soo difficult for you to re-state your position on this issue in a more concise manner?

That's a good question. Perhaps you can answer it as to why you won't clarify your claim since you're the one who initially made the claim.

Why do you believe that is not the Case?

Strawman fallacy.

I've not claimed it's not the case.

My only comment regarding the militia is asking you for clarification and expansion on YOUR initial claim as to what defines "the militia".