Ban all guns

Private Individual Americans which is what a Militia have allegiance to America unlike the Gutless TRAITOR Muslim Terrorist Obama bin laden

 

Americans will not bow to RACIST SEXIST FASCIST Gun Control started to Slaughter Black people by the DNC Formed KKK

 

the Federal Government gets its power From the American Voters which rights are granted by our Creator not government.

I know you hate America and want a Nazi Muslim Socialist dictator but its not gonna happen and Americans will Crush you muslim terrorist hero Obummer

 

your wasting your time with a Obama Sheep but you did a good job of stating the Pro Freedom Case

 

Awesome....Simply Awesome.

But don't let one or two liberal nobody's get to you....They know thier defeated.

 

The Supreme Court of the United States.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

 

The same reason that freedom lovers think that the rest of the Bill of Rights should also be applied to the states.

 

I would agree with you, if the People were not a requirement for a well regulated Militia. Can you cite any militia, well regulated or otherwise, that is not comprised of the People? If not, then why do you believe our Founding Fathers even bothered to enumerate, not just any militia, but a well regulated Militia (of the United States)?

From my readings of the opinions of the judicature of the United States; all they seem to be saying is that a Person is not required to be in a well regulated militia to acquire, posses, keep, and bear, forms of private property which may include Arms. It also conforms to the notion of private property rights in our republican form of Government.

 

What doesn't make any logical sense is that our Founding Fathers would have gone to such trouble to Ordain and Establish our federal form of Government, if it was not necessary. Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates what is considered Necessary to the security of a free State; if what you claimed is true, our Founding Fathers would not have needed to mention the security of a free State in our Second Amendment, simply to secure that natural right of individuals, without any State to ensure its own sovereign security.

 

You may not have read our Declaration of Independence.

 

Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates that a well regulated Militia (of the United States) is Necessary to the security of a free State; it does not say that the People as individual gun lovers are necessary to the security of a free State; since our Founding Fathers did an excellent job at the convention with out federal Constitution, why do you believe they enumerated that a well regulated militia is Necessary instead of the People with an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms?

Gun lovers are usually referring to a form of Anarchy that has no basis in our federal Constitution since any well regulated Militia of the United States must have its rules prescribed by our federal Congress as a form of Government. If gun lovers have no rules prescribed by our federal Congress or one of the several and sovereign States; it means they don't believe in our supreme law of the land as it relates to Government, instead of simply a more selfish desire to not have to be responsible to our Government.

 

The reason our Second Amendment only applies to a well regulated Militia of the United States and not Anarchists of the People or Mobsters of the People, is that a well regulated Militia of the United States may be called upon to suppress an insurrection or rebellion by Anarchists of the People or Mobsters of the People.

The point was, that a literal interpretation cannot apply to insurrectionists of the People or rebels of the People; but, only to a well regulated Militia of the People who keep and bear Arms. Otherwise, those personnel you mention would have to "loyal" to our federal Constitution and "surrender" to gun lovers who have an alleged and uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, since, according to a literal interpretation of our Second Amendment, they should have to do, even if they are not in a well regulated militia of the United States. If that is not the case, then why do gun lovers believe the propaganda and rhetoric concerning a semi-literal interpretation regarding the right of the People to not be infringed in their right to keep and bear Arms?

 

Gun lover's interpretation of our Second Amendment only applies in a vacuum of special pleading; since for it to be otherwise would infringe on sovereign States' rights concerning their domestic tranquility and security.

A literal interpretation of our Second Amendment specifically applies to a well regulated Militia of the United States that is comprised of individuals who keep and bear Arms.

If that is not the case, then why is our federal Congress delegated the power to call forth the Militia (not the People) to suppress insurrections or enforce the laws of the Union; which would have the effect of denying, disparaging, and infringing upon the alleged right of gun lovers to not be infringed regardless of the needs of Government? In other words, why did our Founding Fathers even bother ordaining and establishing a Government, if all they really wanted to do was to let gun lovers love their guns and not their republic?

 

A literal interpretation does not infringe upon States' rights because our Founding Fathers did an excellent job at the convention, with our federal Constitution.

 

Our Second Amendment concerns States' rights and an obligation of the People to the defense of the State.

A well regulated Militia is the Obligation.

 

It depends on your view of gun control; it is not the same as gun Prohibition. Gun control is a States' right, while gun prohibition is not.

The Tenth Amendment simply preserves a State's right to enact gun control legislation that has the effect of law that is meant for anyone who is not in a well regulated Militia of the United States.

If this is not the case, then the several States would have no authority to pass any gun laws, regardless of the security needs of the State. We have our federal form of Government for a reason; it also secures States' rights as enumerated in out Tenth Amendment. That is why our Founding Fathers specifically enumerated that only a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

Why am I not surprised since it would have required some more logic and reason instead of simply resorting to a fallacy of appealing to emotion instead of a rational argument.

Are you claiming that you really don't believe in the allegedly literal interpretation subscribed to by gun lovers?

 

Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies. Why resort to fallacy for your Cause and expect persons with a good argument to confide in your sincerity?

 

Private individuals are not necessarily well regulated, and therefore, not Necessary to the security of a free State.

 

Some gun lovers who feel that way end up in jail, with their right to keep and bear Arms, infringed upon; regardless of your interpretation of the Second Amendment. How do you account for that, if what you keep claiming is true?

 

Our federal form of Government was Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers; even the former Confederate States of America found that out when they had their right to keep and bear Arms infringed upon by troops loyal to the Union, and our federal Constitution; regardless of gun lovers' interpretation of our Second Amendment. Why do you believe that private individuals should be exempted when whole States were not?

 

I am on dialup. Can you post the relevant quotes?

However, where in any judicial opinions is it claimed that a well regulated Militia of the United States is not exempted from State gun control in favor of federal gun control as prescribed by our federal Congress.

From my understanding, what you are referring to is a natural right to acquire, posses, keep, and bear forms of private property which may include Arms. It is not the same as an exemption from State gun control laws.

 

Our Bill of Rights was modeled after State Constitutions. It was merely misapplied States' rights that resulted in our Civil War.

 

Here is an excerpt that supports my contention that gun control is a State's right, while gun Prohibition is not:

The District of Columbia is a special case because our federal Constitution is their equivalent to a State Constitution.

 

This is a clear issue of requiring a State to simply bear true witness to its own supreme law of the land.

Gun control is a State's right; while gun Prohibition is not. If it does not involve a well regulated Militia of the People who keep and bear Arms; it is not a federal issue under a fundamental and literal interpretation of our Second Amendment.

Why do you believe that State should not be required to bear true witness to its own supreme law of the land; especially if it otherwise could deny and disparage the privileges and immunities of those citizens of that State?