Say the Second Amendment is repealed

[danielpalos]

Just that militias are unsuited to policing, you have yet to demonstrate that they are.

Only illegals don't care about the laws for their diversions.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union..;

 

[Rich2018]

Only illegals don't care about the laws for their diversions.

Give an example of such a law.

 

[danielpalos]

Give an example of such a law.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union..;

 

[Rich2018]

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union..;

Which law is that ?

State name and statute number please.

 

[danielpalos]

Which law is that ?

State name and statute number please.

Our supreme law of the land.

 

[noonereal]

If 2/3rds of house say to repeal the Second Amendment, then 2/3rds of Senate agree. Then 38 states agree to repeal the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment is gone. And gone through legal means, as written in our Constitution.

What happens?

the violence in the country goes down considerably

the deplorables cry

 

[Rich2018]

Our supreme law of the land.

You said:

Only illegals don't care about the laws for their diversions.

The supreme law of the land is the Constitution

So what part of it is "for their diversion" ?


And why do only illegals not care for it ?

 

[danielpalos]

You said:



The supreme law of the land is the Constitution

So what part of it is "for their diversion" ?


And why do only illegals not care for it ?

What part of this is not clear?

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union..;

 

[Rich2018]

What part of this is not clear?

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union..;

There is no compulsion in the Constitution for a citizen to ever join a militia

So, are you saying that there is and somehow this is "for their diversion" ? (whatever that is supposed to mean


And why would only illegals oppose militia service - there are probably way more eligible citizens who oppose militia service.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no compulsion in the Constitution for a citizen to ever join a militia

However do you reach your conclusions?

"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

Liability for any draft.

 

[Rich2018]

However do you reach your conclusions?

Because, no citizen can be tried or compelled to do anything based on the Constitution

ie: the Constitution doesn't make individual people do anything

Liability for any draft.

You cited no law
If a citizen refused to join the militia, there is no law under which he/she could be prosecuted.

 

[danielpalos]

Because, no citizen can be tried or compelled to do anything based on the Constitution

ie: the Constitution doesn't make individual people do anything




You cited no law
If a citizen refused to join the militia, there is no law under which he/she could be prosecuted.

Our Second Amendment proclaims it is a State's sovereign right to call for what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[Rich2018]

Our Second Amendment proclaims it is a State's sovereign right to call for what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

No it doesn't

The 2nd amendment just says people have the right to gun so that they can staff a militia (that's necessary to ensure a free state)

It doesn't give the state any powers, duties or responsibilities at all.


And once again, no-one has ever or could be ever prosecuted for violating the Constitution.

 

[Fledermaus]

Because, no citizen can be tried or compelled to do anything based on the Constitution

ie: the Constitution doesn't make individual people do anything


You cited no law
If a citizen refused to join the militia, there is no law under which he/she could be prosecuted.

Like being forced to vote.

:lamo

 

[danielpalos]

No it doesn't

The 2nd amendment just says people have the right to gun so that they can staff a militia (that's necessary to ensure a free state)

It doesn't give the state any powers, duties or responsibilities at all.


And once again, no-one has ever or could be ever prosecuted for violating the Constitution.

I believe our Second Amendment more than I believe You.

 

[Rich2018]

I believe our Second Amendment more than I believe You.

No, you prefer to believe YOUR interpretation of it.

 

[danielpalos]

No, you prefer to believe YOUR interpretation of it.

It is Express not Implied every time this issue comes up. Our Founding Fathers were not ambiguous or vague in any way.

 

[Rich2018]

It is Express not Implied every time this issue comes up. Our Founding Fathers were not ambiguous or vague in any way.

Express or implied,

The 2nd amendment just says people have the right to gun so that they can staff a militia (that's necessary to ensure a free state)

It doesn't give the state any powers, duties or responsibilities at all.


And once again, no-one has ever or could be ever prosecuted for violating the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Express or implied,

The 2nd amendment just says people have the right to gun so that they can staff a militia (that's necessary to ensure a free state)

It doesn't give the state any powers, duties or responsibilities at all.


And once again, no-one has ever or could be ever prosecuted for violating the Constitution.

How did you reach your conclusion? Which clause says that and does not imply what you are claiming?

 

[Rich2018]

How did you reach your conclusion? Which clause says that and does not imply what you are claiming?

See post #168

 

[danielpalos]

See post #168

How did you reach Your biased conclusion?

Our supreme law of the land is not ambiguous or vague in any way, simply because it is express not implied every time this issue comes up.

The first clause of our Second Amendment is the Intent and purpose clause.

 

[Rich2018]

How did you reach Your biased conclusion?

Our supreme law of the land is not ambiguous or vague in any way, simply because it is express not implied every time this issue comes up.

The first clause of our Second Amendment is the Intent and purpose clause.

What "biased" conclusion ?

 

[danielpalos]

What "biased" conclusion ?

Our supreme law of the land is not ambiguous or vague in any way, simply because it is express not implied every time this issue comes up.

 

[Rich2018]

Our supreme law of the land is not ambiguous or vague in any way, simply because it is express not implied every time this issue comes up.

The Constitution is, without doubt, the most ambiguous and vague legal document, written in modern times.

But specifically:


The 2nd amendment just says people have the right to gun so that they can staff a militia (that's necessary to ensure a free state)

It doesn't give the state any powers, duties or responsibilities at all.


And once again, no-one has ever or could be ever prosecuted for violating the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

The Constitution is, without doubt, the most ambiguous and vague legal document, written in modern times.

But specifically:


The 2nd amendment just says people have the right to gun so that they can staff a militia (that's necessary to ensure a free state)

It doesn't give the state any powers, duties or responsibilities at all.


And once again, no-one has ever or could be ever prosecuted for violating the Constitution.

Just your biased opinion. You have no valid argument to substantiate your currently unsubstantiated Opinion.

Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights at all. It is about the security of a free State; it is collective not Individual.