What does it mean to INFRINGE upon the Right to Keep and Bear arms

[danielpalos]

that has been rejected by every person who has any standing. the operative part of Heller is that the individual right is NOT dependent on militia service. If your moronic interpretation was correct, HELLER WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE BAN ON HANDGUNS TO REMAIN because the plaintiffs were citizens NOT PART of a well regulated militia and the DC BAN did not apply to members of the federal army or national guard

that alone destroys your dishonest moronic nonsense

That is obviously a form of incompetence on the part of subscribers to that point of view; rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms; acquire and possess. And, not only that, under our Constitutional form of government, the social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce must be expressly delegated or it doesn't exist, but for those exigencies specifically enumerated in our supreme law of the land.

 

[TurtleDude]

That is obviously a form of incompetence on the part of subscribers to that point of view; rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms; acquire and possess. And, not only that, under our Constitutional form of government, the social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce must be expressly delegated or it doesn't exist, but for those exigencies specifically enumerated in our supreme law of the land.

LOL you just proved to everyone your garbage has been destroyed. If your interpretation of Heller and the 2A was correct, the plaintiffs would have LOST because they were not in the "well regulated militia" and therefore they would have no right that was abrogated by the DC gun ban

The fact that they won flushes the idiotic crap you have contaminated this thread with for days.

and your moronic response which again is the gibberish of someone who seeks to obfuscate proves I am right

 

[danielpalos]

LOL you just proved to everyone your garbage has been destroyed. If your interpretation of Heller and the 2A was correct, the plaintiffs would have LOST because they were not in the "well regulated militia" and therefore they would have no right that was abrogated by the DC gun ban

The fact that they won flushes the idiotic crap you have contaminated this thread with for days.

and your moronic response which again is the gibberish of someone who seeks to obfuscate proves I am right

There is no delegated Power to Prohibit the class of Commerce called Arms.

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions, with rights in private property secured with the express terms, Acquire and Possess.

There is already existing federal precedent regarding rights in even controversial forms of private property. Due Process applies.

Our Second Amendment cannot do what is claimed by those of the opposing view, simply because our Second Amendment would need to be a Constitution unto itself, instead of merely the Second Article of Amendment.

 

[TurtleDude]

There is no delegated Power to Prohibit the class of Commerce called Arms.

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions, with rights in private property secured with the express terms, Acquire and Possess.

There is already existing federal precedent regarding rights in even controversial forms of private property. Due Process applies.

Our Second Amendment cannot do what is claimed by those of the opposing view, simply because our Second Amendment would need to be a Constitution unto itself, instead of merely the Second Article of Amendment.

This is the kind of crap we get when someone knows that the 2A was intended to prevent Liberal/Democrat anti gun schemes and he has a burning desire to allow such infringements

 

[danielpalos]

This is the kind of crap we get when someone knows that the 2A was intended to prevent Liberal/Democrat anti gun schemes and he has a burning desire to allow such infringements

The only crap around here, is the line of reasoning of those of the opposing view. Your fallacies, prove it.

 

[TurtleDude]

The only crap around here, is the line of reasoning of those of the opposing view. Your fallacies, prove it.

I love you defend your crappy arguments with a silly term you can neither prove nor understand

 

[danielpalos]

I love you defend your crappy arguments with a silly term you can neither prove nor understand

Not at all; I have a valid line of reasoning. It is you who insists on resorting to fallacy for your Cause.

 

[alsos]

Not at all; I have a valid line of reasoning. It is you who insists on resorting to fallacy for your Cause.

I have read your drivel for a little while now and it occurred to me that definitions need to be established.

First of all… Is there any merit to the fact that a bunch of old white men 237 years ago wrote our constitution and the BoR? I have provided their accompanying quotes regarding the 2nd, and seem to disregard them. So, devoid of any merit given to our founder’s, what regard do you have for the 2nd amendment at all?

If you place any merit on the 2nd amendment, please define these terms:

The people:

Right:

Keep:

Bear:

Arms:

Infringe:

For the sake of discussion, your own definitions are fine. I’m just trying to establish your frame of mind, because your rhetoric is mostly obscure.

 

[danielpalos]

Here is the simple answer: Only the People who are a well regulated Militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I don't need to quibble established words in our Second Amendment. You are welcome to use any online dictionary, for your ease and convenience.

 

[TurtleDude]

Here is the simple answer: Only the People who are a well regulated Militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I don't need to quibble established words in our Second Amendment. You are welcome to use any online dictionary, for your ease and convenience.

More horse excrement. The words say the right of the PEOPLE

Not the militia

Not the state

and not your moronic interpretation (the right of the federal government's own army)

 

[Dittohead not!]

Here it is; only you can fail at having a valid rebuttal; the first time.

Only the People who are a well regulated Militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You, on the other hand, can fail at having a valid rebuttal over and over again.
Oh, and it isn't people who are or are not "infringed", nor is it the little surrey.

 

[danielpalos]

More horse excrement. The words say the right of the PEOPLE

Not the militia

Not the state

and not your moronic interpretation (the right of the federal government's own army)

The only one spewing horse excrement is the one who is unable to come up with a rational argument and lay some claim to being a political animal.

Only the People who are a well regulated Militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

What part of that do you not understand, as usual?

 

[danielpalos]

You, on the other hand, can fail at having a valid rebuttal over and over again.
Oh, and it isn't people who are or are not "infringed", nor is it the little surrey.

Here it is for your ease and convenience, again. If you can't argue this point, you should be able to recognize an untenable position and withdraw; unless you like repeating historical mistakes, just for fun.

Only the People who are a well regulated Militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[TurtleDude]

The only one spewing horse excrement is the one who is unable to come up with a rational argument and lay some claim to being a political animal.

Only the People who are a well regulated Militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

What part of that do you not understand, as usual?

You are wrong as usual

if your analysis (which has no support in the legal scholarship, the current case law, or the writings of the founders) was correct

THE HELLER PLAINTIFFS WOULD HAVE LOST SINCE they were not members of the "well regulated militia"

YET THEY WON and that means


YOU LOSE

 

[TurtleDude]

You, on the other hand, can fail at having a valid rebuttal over and over again.
Oh, and it isn't people who are or are not "infringed", nor is it the little surrey.

He cannot handle the fact that if his idiotic spewage was correct, the Heller plaintiffs would have lost since they were NOT members of "the well regulated militia"

 

[danielpalos]

You are wrong as usual

if your analysis (which has no support in the legal scholarship, the current case law, or the writings of the founders) was correct

THE HELLER PLAINTIFFS WOULD HAVE LOST SINCE they were not members of the "well regulated militia"

YET THEY WON and that means


YOU LOSE

DC didn't have the social Power to Prohibit a form of Commerce without that social Power being delegated by the People. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller is the operative Part of that decision.

Only the People who are a well regulated Militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union and are not Infringed by paragraph (2).

 

[danielpalos]

He cannot handle the fact that if his idiotic spewage was correct, the Heller plaintiffs would have lost since they were NOT members of "the well regulated militia"

Why not bother yourself to learn more about the concept as it relates to our form of federalism?

 

[alsos]

Here is the simple answer: Only the People who are a well regulated Militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I don't need to quibble established words in our Second Amendment. You are welcome to use any online dictionary, for your ease and convenience.

Well, I’d say there isn’t a simple answer, but okay… let’s go with that. What do these terms mean to you:

Well-regulated:

Militia (as mentioned in Articles 1 and 2):

Militia (as mentioned in the 2nd amendment):

 

[alsos]

Here is the simple answer: Only the People who are a well regulated Militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I don't need to quibble established words in our Second Amendment. You are welcome to use any online dictionary, for your ease and convenience.

Actually, forget that last. Let’s make it even simpler…

Answer this please: Because the 2nd amendment was written roughly 220 years ago, is it valid today?

Simple 'Yes' or 'No'.

 

[TurtleDude]

Why not bother yourself to learn more about the concept as it relates to our form of federalism?

you telling anyone to LEARN more about the subject is really a gut busting bit of idiocy

 

[danielpalos]

Well, I’d say there isn’t a simple answer, but okay… let’s go with that. What do these terms mean to you:

Well-regulated:

Militia (as mentioned in Articles 1 and 2):

Militia (as mentioned in the 2nd amendment):

Let's try it this way; what does this mean to you: Only the People who are a well regulated Militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

Actually, forget that last. Let’s make it even simpler…

Answer this please: Because the 2nd amendment was written roughly 220 years ago, is it valid today?

Simple 'Yes' or 'No'.

Yes.

Because our Founding Fathers did such an excellent job at the convention with our supreme law of the land.

 

[danielpalos]

you telling anyone to LEARN more about the subject is really a gut busting bit of idiocy

Not when they realize all you have is fallacy for your Cause.

 

[What if...?]

Not when they realize all you have is fallacy for your Cause.

Just a drive by, but isn't the constitution clear in delineating between People, States, and the Federal Goggles.

Wouldn't the second say something along the lines of "A well regulated....the right of the states to maintain and arm militias shall not be infringed"?

 

[danielpalos]

Just a drive by, but isn't the constitution clear in delineating between People, States, and the Federal Goggles.

Wouldn't the second say something along the lines of "A well regulated....the right of the states to maintain and arm militias shall not be infringed"?

No, it wouldn't. Why do you believe it should under our form of federalism that includes States' rights?