would you vote to repeal the 2nd ammendment

[danielpalos]

False. The militia are not required to be organized until mustered by State or Federal authority. Being armed already would mean less training, less expense, and a force ready to fight to some extent.

You simply don't understand the concepts. Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control not the organized and well regulated militia.

 

[Fledermaus]

You simply don't understand the concepts. Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control not the organized and well regulated militia.

Your first sentence is incorrect.

The second is concept stew.

 

[Fledermaus]

lol. lagging indicators are "behind the times." why not get more, current. or, simply admit you are merely a troll simply Because you have no valid arguments. post Any diversion, to Prove my point; "Mr. full of argumentative worth".

The People are the militia. You are either organized and well regulated and therefore necessary to the security of a free State or unorganized and unnecessary and subject to the traditional Police Power of any of our several and sovereign States.

Random concepts and talking points flying in loose formation in search of a point.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You simply don't understand the concepts. Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control not the organized and well regulated militia.

Argument to the stone fallacy rejected. Circumstantial Ad homim rejected. To rebut my argument you have to answer substantially, you have not.

Are you conceding my assertion because you haven't tried to answer it.

 

[danielpalos]

Argument to the stone fallacy rejected. Circumstantial Ad homim rejected. To rebut my argument you have to answer substantially, you have not.

Are you conceding my assertion because you haven't tried to answer it.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control not the organized and well regulated militia.

The People are the whole and entire militia. Only organized and well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary to the security of our free States and shall not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms.

The unorganized militia is unnecessary and subject to the police power of the several States.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control not the organized and well regulated militia.

Assumption of facts not proven.

The People are the whole and entire militia. Only organized and well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary to the security of our free States and shall not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms.

False. The people needed to form the militia need to be able to keep and bear in the event of being needed. The militia is dependent upon people keeping and bearing arms, keeping and bearing arms is not dependent upon the militia, it is a right of a free people to chose how they want to defend themselves---or they aren't free.

The unorganized militia is unnecessary and subject to the police power of the several States.

Yes, but within very specific and defined limits when it comes to gun control, as Chicago has learned when one of their laws was struck down. All of Illinois was affected when a may carry law was struck down and county sheriffs simply started issuing carry permits because the state legislature thought it could drag its feet and not pass a law to deny citizens their rights.

 

[mrdeltoid]

I voted no, that does not mean I believe the 2nd A's. "shall not infringe" is either pragmatic nor was it meant to be as interpreted by the NRA and the firearm Industry.

I believe and I support all sane, sober and law abiding citizens to have the right to own, possess and have in their home or business a defensive firearm***

The only way to determine the sobriety, sanity and law abiding history of someone seeking to own, possess or to have legal access to a firearm is for a thorough background check, and a national data base which collects from all agencies wherein criminal and psychiatric records.

I support CC when there is a reasonable concern of a person seeking a license to carry a loaded firearm in public, said license needs to be provided after the County Sheriff and the city/town/village police chief has completed a thorough background check.

I believe each state should have the right to require (or not) all gun owners to be licensed by the State, and that license not be a legal document in any other state unless the state establishes an agreement with other states via the interstate compact.

I support that each individual state also have the right to require all firearms in the possession of its citizens to be registered in a data base, and all transfers of guns to be sold, gifted or stolen, be reported to the state data base for vetting or placed on a hot sheet.

*** a defensive firearm would be defined by the State Legislature in each state.

Your position is well thought out, and reasonable. The only problem I have with it is having to "prove a reasonable concern" to get a permit. I don't have a problem with a background check, and I believe that each state has the right to put certain regulations in place. The problem with proving a concern or need is it is subjective. I'm a 64 year old man with several injuries from 2 motorcycle accidents. Although I am limited physically by 2 artificial hips and rods and screws in my back and a reconstructed lower right leg, I can handle a firearm well. I have permits that allow me to carry in almost 40 states (I travel extensively with my MC). It's ridiculous that I can't carry in my own state. Although I've been confronted more than once, while armed, I've never pulled my gun. The only time I've used a gun for defense was at my house, and I only had too show it. Here's my problem. I am military trained, and I keep up my firearm training probably more than most police dept. do. Yet living in a city, with about half million people, that averages about 7 shootings and 1 murder per day, I don't qualify. Here's Md.s gun law:Open and concealed carry are legal in Maryland only for Maryland Wear/Carry Handgun Permit (WCHP) holders. In order to obtain a WCHP, applicants must be at least 21 years old (or 18 years old for employment purposes only) and must show a good and substantial reason to carry a handgun. Believe it or not, being a senior citizen with physical limitations in this city is not considered a "good and substantial reason to carry a handgun". I would like to be a "shall issue state", like Pa. or Fla. etc. In those states, CCW holders commit illegal shootings than police officers do. The JACS did a 30 year exhaustive study, and found that gun laws have no effect on gun crimes either way. "State Level Firearm Concealed-Carry Legislation and Rates of Homicide and Other Violent Crime "This study demonstrates no statistical association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over 3 decades and the rates of homicides, firearm homicides, or other violent crime, using a rigorous statistical model."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...4-X/fulltext&usg=AOvVaw27fa2sZz9NFJj76Vl98ipg

 

[danielpalos]

Assumption of facts not proven.



False. The people needed to form the militia need to be able to keep and bear in the event of being needed. The militia is dependent upon people keeping and bearing arms, keeping and bearing arms is not dependent upon the militia, it is a right of a free people to chose how they want to defend themselves---or they aren't free.



Yes, but within very specific and defined limits when it comes to gun control, as Chicago has learned when one of their laws was struck down. All of Illinois was affected when a may carry law was struck down and county sheriffs simply started issuing carry permits because the state legislature thought it could drag its feet and not pass a law to deny citizens their rights.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

There is no such thing as well regulated militia of Individuals in our Republic. The People are the Militia of the United States. You are either well regulated or unorganized.

 

[TurtleDude]

You simply don't understand the concepts. Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control not the organized and well regulated militia.

this stupid line has been repeated ad nauseum and makes no sense whatsoever. It is non responsive and I can only figure it as being bot speak

 

[TurtleDude]

Your first sentence is incorrect.

The second is concept stew.

He has repeated that idiocy on several boards for several years. Its bot speak and has absolutely no relevance to this discussion.

 

[danielpalos]

this stupid line has been repeated ad nauseum and makes no sense whatsoever. It is non responsive and I can only figure it as being bot speak

lol. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

He has repeated that idiocy on several boards for several years. Its bot speak and has absolutely no relevance to this discussion.

y'all are simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

 

[BahamaBob]

I'm a vet, and after boot camp the only weapon I used was in a 5" gun on a DD. A combat soldier was, if I remember correctly, supported by five(?) - maybe more - other soldiers. Many who like me didn't see combat and my service was 1967 to 1969.

Did the Red Coats have air power? Our BB's off the Coast of Vietnam could target the enemy 40 miles away with a massive projectile.

Since your story about being able to target an enemy 40 miles away is a lie, I infer the rest of your story is also a lie.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Argument to the stone is again rejected, you must at least try to refute me, saying no over and over again isn't a discussion.

There is no such thing as well regulated militia of Individuals in our Republic. The People are the Militia of the United States. You are either well regulated or unorganized.

False, in a point above you refuse to even acknowledge. You need to stop repeating the same nonsense ad nauseum, which is a fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

Argument to the stone is again rejected, you must at least try to refute me, saying no over and over again isn't a discussion.

False, in a point above you refuse to even acknowledge. You need to stop repeating the same nonsense ad nauseum, which is a fallacy.

Lol. You are simply false. You have no argument for your point of view.

This is part of our supreme law of the land: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

That is the social Power that gives the general Government the authority to muster the militia of the People.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Lol. You are simply false. You have no argument for your point of view.

This is part of our supreme law of the land: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

That is the social Power that gives the general Government the authority to muster the militia of the People.

None of which addresses regulating firearms.

You still haven't produced anything but a repeated argument to the stone.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[danielpalos]

None of which addresses regulating firearms.

You still haven't produced anything but a repeated argument to the stone.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

lol. The unorganized militia of the whole and entire People are not declared Necessary to the security of our free States or the Union.

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.)

 

[OpportunityCost]

lol. The unorganized militia of the whole and entire People are not declared Necessary to the security of our free States or the Union.

And...? You cant read shall not be infringed apparently.

As nauseum fallacy, btw. You continue to be wrong and refuse to discuss anything.

 

[danielpalos]

And...? You cant read shall not be infringed apparently.

As nauseum fallacy, btw. You continue to be wrong and refuse to discuss anything.

Yes, I can read quite well. It helps to win valid arguments not just appeal to ignorance.

The People can be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms and are Infringed, all the time simply Because they are not Well Regulated militia in the service of their State or the Union.

Ask anyone who is in jail or prison.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yes, I can read quite well. It helps to win valid arguments not just appeal to ignorance.

The People can be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms and are Infringed, all the time simply Because they are not Well Regulated militia in the service of their State or the Union.

Ask anyone who is in jail or prison.

All rights are based in not doing harm to others, except when in self defense. Rights being infringed has zero to do with not being in a militia. Most generally they are public safety issues like place restrictions, psychiatric or felony removal of rights to protect others. The difference is due process and not outright removal through legislation. I gave you examples where gun control legislation was repealed and you replied with your spam bot bull****.

 

[danielpalos]

Rights being infringed has zero to do with not being in a militia.

Yes, it does. Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by civil authorities while in the service of their State or the Union.

 

[Boo Radley]

Words have meaning. The People are the Militia.

This is the Common law for the Common defense:



Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

People made up the militia then.

Definition of militia

1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency The militia was called to quell the riot.
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Again, it was for a time when the people were dependent on in a different way, and really today that way is less important as the military simply put has better weapons.

Your last comment means next to nothing BTW.

 

[danielpalos]

People made up the militia then.

Definition of militia

1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency The militia was called to quell the riot.
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Again, it was for a time when the people were dependent on in a different way, and really today that way is less important as the military simply put has better weapons.

Your last comment means next to nothing BTW.

You simply don't understand the concepts and appeal to ignorance.

The People are the Militia. Our Second Amendment clearly states what is Necessary to the Security of a free State and it is most definitely not, the whole and entire People.

 

[BahamaBob]

Just an information post.

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that 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."

The militia portion of the 2nd Amendment and the people's right to possess firearms are separate. In fact, the ability of the people to possess firearms enables them to form a militia if necessary.

 

[danielpalos]

Just an information post.

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that 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."

The militia portion of the 2nd Amendment and the people's right to possess firearms are separate. In fact, the ability of the people to possess firearms enables them to form a militia if necessary.

Simple legal error or "legislation from the bench", take your pick.

"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

This is the Common understanding of the Common Law for the Common Defense:

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.

The whole and entire People are the Militia of the United States. Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.