wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States must come from our federal Congress, not gun lovers without clue and without Cause. It is in Article 1, Section 8.
You mean where the Federal government has to pay if the Federal government calls up the State militias in defense of the States? Article 1, Section 8 only refers to granting authority to the Federal government the ability to call up State militias. Many States have their own 2A such as Indiana. Section 32. Arms--Right to bear Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.
Nothing but continuance and diversion to prove your sincerity? To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Fhould we ftart talking like thif af well to prove a point? You see "s" looked a lot like an "f", and "well-regulated" meant "functioning normally" in 1776, no matter how much you try and make it look like something else. Enjoy your one man queft.
The only thing not well regulated around here is your (lack of) argument that US codes supersede the Bill of Rights.
Only for the clueless and the Causeless. Everyone else already knows our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. Here is the context for our Second Article of Amendment: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What pre-existing natural right did the founders intend to recognize with the second amendment I won't bother asking you any other questions just that one
so what; natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; natural rights are not found in our Second Article of Amendment, but States' rights in regard to their internal security.
OK you are not able to answer a simple question about constitutional theory and that means all your babbling on this issue is based on a complete failure to understand basic issues
still clueless and Causeless? natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; natural rights are not found in our Second Article of Amendment, but States' rights in regard to their internal security.
It's an interesting idea, but we don't have a "human constitution", and even if we did, the fools that would write it would ban guns so... Yea, it's a human right to protect oneself by any means necessary... I don't know much about Canada's Constitution. I would figure you would have some sort of guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. If you want a gun get a gun - screw the law. I mean if you're asking these questions I highly doubt you want one to hurt other people so.
The constitution of Canada does not have any sort of guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. That is one of the big differences from the US constitution. Also, I agree. Screw the law. If I want a gun I will have one. Legal or not.
