SCOTUS said that the 2nd amendment allowed people to use guns for self defense

[noonereal]

Let's think your argument through.

ROTFLMAO

The irony.

God Bless you.

 

[danielpalos]

"To ensure a separation of powers, the U.S. Federal Government is made up of three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. To ensure the government is effective and citizens' rights are protected, each branch has its own powers and responsibilities, including working with the other branches."


LOL - whenever you can't answer, you revert to type and post some meaningless phrase


To remind you, the questions you attempted to dodge were:

1. Would not a 24/7/365 mustering of the militia damage the economy like COVID-19 has or worse as people can't conduct business ?
2. Would all militia men be expected to muster with their own guns of the same caliber etc - so re-supply is possible ?
3. What is the differences between guarding oneself and no militia at all - (or do you assume that every militiaman stands over his neighbor) ?
4. Does the Constitution still apply - like the 5th amendment ?
5. What would happen if a jogger just ignored the armed militia - can they shoot him ?
6. Would the militia detain the jogger ? (you know that requires an arrest right ? Or is that another suspension of citizen rights you propose)
7. If they arrest him, what would be the charge, and would it be a felony or a misdemeanor ?

Tough questions your bats**t suggestion can't answer.


So why don't you just ignore it and spout out some nonsensical reply about the defense clause being common and the welfare clause being general or something like that ?

Our welfare clause is General to promote the general welfare and we have a Common defense clause to ensure the conservatism of Tradition when necessary and proper.

 

[Cordelier]

I think the right to keep and bear arms is both a collective and an individual right. If you just take the Second Amendment on it's own, I don't think there's any question that the right to keep and bear arms was tied to the necessity of forming a well-regulated militia. So, in that sense, it is a collective right. However, if you take the penumbras of the 2nd Amendment's right to keep and bear arms and combine it with the 4th Amendment's right for people to be secure in their homes and their persons, I think there is a solid argument to be made that an individual 9th Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense does exist. If I were on the Court, that's how I would have decided in Heller.

 

[danielpalos]

I think the right to keep and bear arms is both a collective and an individual right. If you just take the Second Amendment on it's own, I don't think there's any question that the right to keep and bear arms was tied to the necessity of forming a well-regulated militia. So, in that sense, it is a collective right. However, if you take the penumbras of the 2nd Amendment's right to keep and bear arms and combine it with the 4th Amendment's right for people to be secure in their homes and their persons, I think there is a solid argument to be made that an individual 9th Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense does exist. If I were on the Court, that's how I would have decided in Heller.

Not if we have to quibble. There are no singular or Individual terms in our Second Amendment. And, it would have to be a Constitution unto itself to do what the right wing fantasizes not merely the Second Article of Amendment.

 

[Cordelier]

Not if we have to quibble. There are no singular or Individual terms in our Second Amendment. And, it would have to be a Constitution unto itself to do what the right wing fantasizes not merely the Second Article of Amendment.

I agree with you completely... But I think you do have to acknowledge that the collective right to keep and bear arms enshrined within the 2nd does lend creedence to a 9th Amendment argument that there is also an individual component to the underlying right, at least in the realm of self-defense. We have a right to keep and bear arms... just like we have a right to be secure in our persons and our homes. Put the two of those rights together, then don't we have an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense?

 

[Rich2018]

Our welfare clause is General to promote the general welfare and we have a Common defense clause to ensure the conservatism of Tradition when necessary and proper.

LOL, whenever you can't answer, you post some meaningless phrase. How about a definition of an "appeal to ignorance" now ?


To remind you of your dodge:

1. Would not a 24/7/365 mustering of the militia damage the economy like COVID-19 has or worse as people can't conduct business ?
2. Would all militia men be expected to muster with their own guns of the same caliber etc - so re-supply is possible ?
3. What is the differences between guarding oneself and no militia at all - (or do you assume that every militiaman stands over his neighbor) ?
4. Does the Constitution still apply - like the 5th amendment ?
5. What would happen if a jogger just ignored the armed militia - can they shoot him ?
6. Would the militia detain the jogger ? (you know that requires an arrest right ? Or is that another suspension of citizen rights you propose)
7. If they arrest him, what would be the charge, and would it be a felony or a misdemeanor ?

 

[danielpalos]

I agree with you completely... But I think you do have to acknowledge that the collective right to keep and bear arms enshrined within the 2nd does lend creedence to a 9th Amendment argument that there is also an individual component to the underlying right, at least in the realm of self-defense. We have a right to keep and bear arms... just like we have a right to be secure in our persons and our homes. Put the two of those rights together, then don't we have an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense?

I would agree with you for something under purely federal jurisdiction and not something a State should be in charge of.

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

There are expressly and specifically, no Individual and singular terms in our Second Article of Amendment.

Well regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

LOL, whenever you can't answer, you post some meaningless phrase. How about a definition of an "appeal to ignorance" now ?


To remind you of your dodge:

1. Would not a 24/7/365 mustering of the militia damage the economy like COVID-19 has or worse as people can't conduct business ?
2. Would all militia men be expected to muster with their own guns of the same caliber etc - so re-supply is possible ?
3. What is the differences between guarding oneself and no militia at all - (or do you assume that every militiaman stands over his neighbor) ?
4. Does the Constitution still apply - like the 5th amendment ?
5. What would happen if a jogger just ignored the armed militia - can they shoot him ?
6. Would the militia detain the jogger ? (you know that requires an arrest right ? Or is that another suspension of citizen rights you propose)
7. If they arrest him, what would be the charge, and would it be a felony or a misdemeanor ?

Even a corporal would know how to accomplish it. Why don't You?

 

[Cordelier]

I would agree with you for something under purely federal jurisdiction and not something a State should be in charge of.

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

There are expressly and specifically, no Individual and singular terms in our Second Article of Amendment.

Well regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The only problem with that argument is that it doesn't square with the 14th Amendment...."No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

 

[danielpalos]

The only problem with that argument is that it doesn't square with the 14th Amendment...."No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

In what way are you trying to apply the amendment?

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union.

 

[Rich2018]

Even a corporal would know how to accomplish it. Why don't You?

So why don't you have any answers?

1. Would not a 24/7/365 mustering of the militia damage the economy like COVID-19 has or worse as people can't conduct business ?
2. Would all militia men be expected to muster with their own guns of the same caliber etc - so re-supply is possible ?
3. What is the differences between guarding oneself and no militia at all - (or do you assume that every militiaman stands over his neighbor) ?
4. Does the Constitution still apply - like the 5th amendment ?
5. What would happen if a jogger just ignored the armed militia - can they shoot him ?
6. Would the militia detain the jogger ? (you know that requires an arrest? Or is that another suspension of citizen rights you propose?)
7. If they arrest him, what would be the charge, and would it be a felony/misdemeanor ?

 

[Cordelier]

In what way are you trying to apply the ammendment?

I'm arguing that individuals have a 9th Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense. If you agree that there is solid constitutional ground for this right to exist, then what right to States have to abridge it? I would suggest that the 14th Amendment gives them no right to do so.

 

[danielpalos]

So why don't you have any answers?

1. Would not a 24/7/365 mustering of the militia damage the economy like COVID-19 has or worse as people can't conduct business ?
2. Would all militia men be expected to muster with their own guns of the same caliber etc - so re-supply is possible ?
3. What is the differences between guarding oneself and no militia at all - (or do you assume that every militiaman stands over his neighbor) ?
4. Does the Constitution still apply - like the 5th amendment ?
5. What would happen if a jogger just ignored the armed militia - can they shoot him ?
6. Would the militia detain the jogger ? (you know that requires an arrest? Or is that another suspension of citizen rights you propose?)
7. If they arrest him, what would be the charge, and would it be a felony/misdemeanor ?

Why should You care, militia private second class. Just do what you are told.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm arguing that individuals have a 9th Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense. If you agree that there is solid constitutional ground for this right to exist, then what right to States have to abridge it? I would suggest that the 14th Amendment gives them no right to do so.

No one is arguing that Individual Persons don't have a natural right to defense of self and property. Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not the Whole and Entire concept of natural and individual rights.

 

[Cordelier]

No one is arguing that Individual Persons don't have a natural right to defense of self and property. Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not the Whole and Entire concept of natural and individual rights.

And I fully agree with you.... but it seems to me, then, that it is incumbent on the Congress - given their Article I §8 powers to "organize, arm, and discipline" the militia to decide what firearms fall under the scope of militia weaponry and regulate them accordingly. Any weapons not falling under this categorization must necessarily then fall into the territory of the 9th Amendment right to self defense.

 

[danielpalos]

And I fully agree with you.... but it seems to me, then, that it is incumbent on the Congress - given their Article I §8 powers to "organize, arm, and discipline" the militia to decide what firearms fall under the scope of militia weaponry and regulate them accordingly. Any weapons not falling under this categorization must necessarily then fall into the territory of the 9th Amendment right to self defense.

This is a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment and an obligation.

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.

We should have no security problems in our free States.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 

[Rich2018]

Why should You care, militia private second class. Just do what you are told.

Because I think what you say is a pile of pooh.

As shown by your refusal to answer:


1. Would not a 24/7/365 mustering of the militia damage the economy like COVID-19 has or worse as people can't conduct business ?
2. Would all militia men be expected to muster with their own guns of the same caliber etc - so re-supply is possible ?
3. What is the differences between guarding oneself and no militia at all - (or do you assume that every militiaman stands over his neighbor) ?
4. Does the Constitution still apply - like the 5th amendment ?
5. What would happen if a jogger just ignored the armed militia - can they shoot him ?
6. Would the militia detain the jogger ? (you know that requires an arrest? Or is that another suspension of citizen rights you propose?)
7. If they arrest him, what would be the charge, and would it be a felony/misdemeanor ?

 

[danielpalos]

Because I think what you say is a pile of pooh.

As shown by your refusal to answer:


1. Would not a 24/7/365 mustering of the militia damage the economy like COVID-19 has or worse as people can't conduct business ?
2. Would all militia men be expected to muster with their own guns of the same caliber etc - so re-supply is possible ?
3. What is the differences between guarding oneself and no militia at all - (or do you assume that every militiaman stands over his neighbor) ?
4. Does the Constitution still apply - like the 5th amendment ?
5. What would happen if a jogger just ignored the armed militia - can they shoot him ?
6. Would the militia detain the jogger ? (you know that requires an arrest? Or is that another suspension of citizen rights you propose?)
7. If they arrest him, what would be the charge, and would it be a felony/misdemeanor ?

it may take you a while to make private first class.

 

[Rich2018]

it may take you a while to make private first class.

Dodge noted

You cannot answer any of the following:

1. Would not a 24/7/365 mustering of the militia damage the economy like COVID-19 has or worse as people can't conduct business ?
2. Would all militia men be expected to muster with their own guns of the same caliber etc - so re-supply is possible ?
3. What is the differences between guarding oneself and no militia at all - (or do you assume that every militiaman stands over his neighbor) ?
4. Does the Constitution still apply - like the 5th amendment ?
5. What would happen if a jogger just ignored the armed militia - can they shoot him ?
6. Would the militia detain the jogger ? (you know that requires an arrest? Or is that another suspension of citizen rights you propose?)
7. If they arrest him, what would be the charge, and would it be a felony/misdemeanor ?

 

[Cordelier]

This is a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment and an obligation.



We should have no security problems in our free States.

The only powers reserved to the States over the militia are training and the appointment of it's officers. Aside from those functions, the only powers States have over it are those that Congress chooses to the delegate.

 

[Rich2018]

The only powers reserved to the States over the militia are training and the appointment of it's officers. Aside from those functions, the only powers States have over it are those that Congress chooses to the delegate.

Are you doubting the assertion that the militia could be mustered and so end the war on crime and the war on drugs ?

 

[danielpalos]

The only powers reserved to the States over the militia are training and the appointment of it's officers. Aside from those functions, the only powers States have over it are those that Congress chooses to the delegate.

Our Second Amendment is clear.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you doubting the assertion that the militia could be mustered and so end the war on crime and the war on drugs ?

No. Empty our expensive jails and muster the militia.

 

[Cordelier]

Are you doubting the assertion that the militia could be mustered and so end the war on crime and the war on drugs ?

Technically, they could be... Article I §8 provides for "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union"... but it would have to be through specific Congressional authorization.

 

[Cordelier]

Our Second Amendment is clear.

So too are our Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.