A question of trust of fellow citizens

He's admitting that he's ignorant of the law and there is NOTHING on God's green earth that you can appeal to him whereby it will educate him. There is no appeal to his ignorance. Despite the simple fact that this guy is 100 percent wrong, he will waste bandwidth no matter how many people tell him that he's wrong... and it's not just posters. Judges, historians, lawyers, legal scholars, legislators, and statesmen alike have all been witnesses against this guy. He is ignorant of the law and he's telling you that up front.

 

What about armed guards? (Banks, armored cars, body guards.)

 

still appealing to ignorance of the law? wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress. Article 1, Section 8.

- - - Updated - - -

It matters whenever a Person may have to make a choice as to who may not be Infringed when keeping and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

- - - Updated - - -

just more hearsay and soothsay?

- - - Updated - - -

What about them?

I believe we simply need a class of Arms meant for Persons who do not wish to be necessary to the security of a free State.

 

Take a look at this.

http://constitutionalmilitia.org/national-guard-not-a-militia

 

I was just trying to find out where you stand. The strongest gun rights supporter would agree that an individual should not own a nuclear missile, and the strongest anti-gunner would not want to remove guns from law enforcement officers. (At least I haven't met one yet)

Can I assume that you support armed security for banks?

 

No, it is totally irrelevant. The Supreme Court rule the 2nd clause is not defined by or limited by the first clause of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment limits the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

In Heller vs DC

The Supreme Court held:[43]

(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.


It is a settled matter.

 

Awesome. The state constitution says I'm part of the militia.

Think I'll go buy a gun now.

 

I want you to know that I appreciate your posting. It is 100 percent correct and it is the interpretation of the law by the highest authority in this land. The problem is, you cannot appeal to ignorance where anti-gunners are concerned. They've said so. A wise man put it to me a bit different. He said:

"Never argue with an idiot. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

I guess forewarned is forearmed. The anti - gun side has stated that we cannot appeal to their ignorance.

 

I did; there is no appeal to this federal law: 10USC311. Don't be illegal to our own laws or you will have no credibility when you complain about less fortunate illegals.

 

Here is a declaration of Rights in a State Constitution:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Defense of self and property is a natural right declared civil, along with the natural and civil right to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms.

 

I am aware of my rights; I was just trying to find out where you stand on the issue of private gun ownership. (Forgive me, Im new here!)

 

How I'm being illegal to my own laws? I have to check florida's constitution but as far as I know I'm not even in any militia.

 

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law in our Republic. 10USC311 defines the militia of the United States.

This is a State's sovereign right, recognized and secured in our Second Amendment: 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.

 

An ORGANIZED militia. Gun ownership without required training and background checking EVERY time is a disorganized militia.

 

It defines an ORGANIZED militia not a regulated one. Words in law have specific meanings. Check the meaning of regulated back in the day it was written into the constitution. Plus the SCOTUS ruled that individuals have the right to bear arms.

 

Individuals with training and clearance (background checks) are a hindrance to the militia. Guns are not self explanatory

 

Clearly I meant "WITHOUT"

 

Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.

The unorganized militia should get "cozy" with their County sheriff, for posse duty.

 

The unorganized militia needs to always stay down range of me. They are a hazard until proven otherwise

 

Agreed

 

Y'all gun lovers know you really just want to be Regulators.

 

I am a lover of freedom, which includes my right to own guns. Are there any rights you consider sacred?

 

Considering the number of police officers who have conducted negligent discharges while on duty, there is enough evidence to suggest that even those with training and background checks prevent a hazard to those around them.

 

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions: All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

Strangely enough the government in the form of police routinely stop black men on the streets, give them pat downs, search through their cars and pockets, and demand to know where are they going or where they have been. Even stranger is how so many right wingers believe the police have the right to disregard the Constitution and should do this more often.