Restrictions on rights.

Not having a more sound line of reasoning or a more valid argument is no reason to engage in non sequiturs that may be indistinguishable from ad hominems, which are usually considered fallacies.

You are welcome to explain how the power delegated to our federal Congress to provide for Arming the militia of the United States creates or establishes rights in private property.

Natural rights to private property are already recognized and secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms; "acquire" and "possess".

 

From my understanding and interpretation and in that alternative, our Second Amendment simply exempts a well regulated militia from State laws regarding gun control in favor of federal regulation as prescribed by our federal Congress.

- - - Updated - - -

Only a well regulated militia is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State.

 

All you needed was a more sound line of reasoning and a more valid argument.

 

Good morning danielpalos

I see your opinion is not going well. Have you bothered to get into the game and file?

 

this is the fallacy of your argument. I have my guns. So, now what. All I have to do to prove you wrong is to own, possess, already acquired, and bear. seems like you are arguing against what has already been done.
Since I already own, posses, keep and have already acquired, you request has no bearing on those who are in the same position as I.
still copying and pasting with fallacies.........

 

Good morning, ToeFoot,

Any civil persons in our republic are welcome to help us discover the sublime Truth (value) of our discussion in the public domain; and are welcome to any discoveries they are able to put to best used.

 

a writ of satori accepted by the SCOTUS will be sufficient............

 

States already secure rights in private property; there is no reason to establish any rights in private property for the Militia of the United States when being called out to execute the laws of the Union or the several States.

- - - Updated - - -

There are already people much better positioned than myself who can more successfully "arbitrage" this civil, social dilemma.

 

you are the one arguing as if in front of SCOTUS..........and there is no delemna, only the contray non-opinions you express. these are strictly your fantasy ramblings

 

Thanks, If conviction is that strong you would think a writ of satori would be persued. Danny has shown strong conviction and passion. I am in the belief he is wrong but I do give him credit.

 

Simply appealing to even relevant authority is not an excuse to appeal to ignorance regarding our supreme law of the land since you still don't have an actual argument or a sound line of reasoning to present.

 

you don't know what appealing to authority or ignorance mean.

 

then I would suggest you get your writ together. If you are asking us to decide your case, we've already ruled against you. you case falls on deaf ears no matter how much foot stomping you do.

 

You are welcome to cite what they mean instead of appealing to ignorance by claiming what you do.

 

Why should I need to do that; all those of the opposing view have here on this forum and venue, is nothing but fallacy for their Cause since they can't even come up with a simple argument that doesn't appeal to the authority of an unsound line of reasoning.

 

Nope I'm pretty sure that was the definitive closure to your imbalanced logic eh

 

appealing to authority is how US law works. the ultimate legal authority has called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on your argument. your childish copy and paste rants have no effect on reality or US law. you lost.

 

THEREFORE, danielpalos, Europe Rick is correct that the States retain their power as agreed to in the ratified Constitution of the United States. Then why not simply say so instead obfuscating and stuttering prosaically?

Furthermore, that the militia member was directed to supply (report with) their own weapon (and supplies) and that weapon would eventually be upgraded to a uniform (caliber/weight) weapon of the day. Methinks, due to this direction/expectation that the People have a (recognized but ignored) right to possess/own/keep and bear an automatic weapon, as the expectation is a weapon uniform with that expected in military service.

 

Simply claiming that, without providing an actual argument can be considered a simple appeal to ignorance.

I can claim the same thing if I simply want to appeal to ignorance regarding those of the opposing view.

- - - Updated - - -

You are simply resorting to special pleading since the points I raise don't seem have been presented for adjudication. You are welcome to copy and paste those adjudicated issues whenever you can find them.

 

We already know that the several States have recourse to their traditional police power for civil persons specifically unconnected with militia service.

Only a well regulated militia is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State.

 

you don't know what special pleading means. I've cited the case dozens of times which directly refutes your argument.

you lost

 

Of course I do. It is why you refuse to cite the definition.

 

Rights in private property are already secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms, "acquire" and "posses". Why would the Second Article of Amendment need to do any more securing than Due Process? You are welcome to refer to the federal, Dred Scott decision regarding rights in controversial forms of private property.

 

I have no obligation to educate you. I am content refuting you