‘Concealed Carry Permit Holders Have a Duty to Be Armed’

Daniel

What you are ideologically denying is that the founders wanted all the people to have arms so that if necessary to defend themselves and the country from threats, foreign and domestic, we could form militia. Honest research on your part would find this was the founders intent. They believed we had an enalienable right to keep and bear arms, period.

 

dear; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law, should we have to quibble in legal venues.

- - - Updated - - -

dude; not all of the militia of the United States is well regulated, Only that Part that is, is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

Then I would suggest you learn what the founding fathers meant by "well regulated". There's plenty of information out there on that.

When the constitution was written, it simply meant "functioning normally". Notice also the 2A says "A" militia not "THE" militia.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

So we know the militias are there to oppose tyranny. Why would the people need to be armed? Well, do you want to start trying to arm yourself AFTER tyranny needs to be fought? No, because then ITS TOO LATE.

That is why ALL able bodied citizens need to be armed before such tyranny strikes. This is why every time Obama opens his pie-hole, Americans run out and arm themselves. It's too late once the bans or grabs start.

In order for an armed militia to be formed to fight tyranny, the people need to possess arms BEFORE the need to establish militia's happens.

You're welcome.

 

There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311, either.

 

You're right, especially since I already explained it to you.

Every single able bodied man in the US is a member of "THE" militia of the US as shown:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So in THE militia of the US, everyone falls into the unorganized militia of the US, unless you are part of the organized militia (National Guard, etc).

Again, the founders put these things in the Constitution in the event that the citizens of the US needed to fight the standing armies of a tyrannically congress/government.

In the event "A" militia of citizens needed to fight the US government/congress backed armies, such a code would not apply anyway, as that would be a code from a tyrannical government we wouldn't be following.

This is why the government is not allowed to infringe on owning weapons in any way, as the founders knew that the first act a tyrannical government would do is attempt to disarm us.

Kind of like they are trying to do now by trying to slowly infringe on our rights, so that we don't notice they're disappearing.

 

Game, set, match. Let the fat lady sing.

 

Yes; not All of The Militia of the United States is well regulated. Only that Part of the entire Militia of the United States which is well regulated is declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It really is that simple except to gun lovers and the Right.

 

Yes, THE militia of the US, which would be used to support regular US troops supported by congress.

That would be who "A" militia would be fighting against in the event of a tyrannical government.

"A" militia, just like the one formed by our founding fathers to fight THEIR tyrannical government.

It is extremely simple I agree.

 

This text supports my contention and not yours:

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.

not All of The Militia of the United States is well regulated. Only that Part of the entire Militia of the United States which is well regulated is declared necessary to the security of a free State.

 

Describe your version of "well regulated".

 

"Well-regulated":

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

So, you see, the phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only NOT the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

I don't appeal to ignorance of the law, unlike gun lovers and the Right.

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;

- - - Updated - - -

dear, our Founding Fathers were much wiser than Any gun lovers or the Right.

 

They were wise enough to use the 21st century meaning of the phrase "well regulated" in their writings of the 18th century? Wow, that's hella-wise..... dear.

 

dear, there is no appeal to ignorance of Article 1, Section 8.

 

Permits and registration are serious infringements.

 

I have shown and provided the definition of 'well-regulated', as it pertains to the 2A, to you in this thread, and in several others in the past. And yet you persist in using the phrase wrongly to support your specious argument. This indicates to me that you are no longer merely ignorant of the truth... but you intentionally choose to remain in denial of it, while offering no coherent rebuttal. I have done my part to educate and enlighten you... that is all I can do.

 

You haven't done any Thing but appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

Funny how you are the only one that sees things your way.

 

I quoted Article 1, Section 8, and our Second Amendment; all y'all did was appeal to ignorance of them.

 

And how would such sections apply to a coup in the US?


Let's say a president decided to cancel elections to install himself as dictator, and had the members of congress who didn't support him killed.

Congress then passed laws allowing the dictator to curtail or even remove certain rights such as free speech, right to assemble, right to bear arms, then went about demanding loyal parts of the armed forces disarm and/or kill those who resisted and implemented marshal law?

At that point the tyrannical government is attempting to destroy the Constitution of the US.

This is when "A" well-regulated milita (i.e. well armed and able to carry out their duties), forms consisting of former federal military, police officers, veterans, and those unskilled in warfare to depose such a tyrannical government.

Thankfully, the founding fathers were smart enough to allow all citizens to have arms prior to the existence of such a tyrannical government, ensuring their capability of waging a conflict capable of deposing those attempting to destroy the Constitution.

This means that any edicts from the federal government at that point would be illegal anyway, since they are no longer upholding the Constitution.

No clause, no article, no section, no amendment would apply to a tyrannical government attempting the destruction of our Constitution.

That is why your argument has no merit, and you are wrong.

 

dear; both of those apply to any Persons specifically unconnected with militia service for our States or the Union, well regulated; even the South could not claim Any exemption.

 

What does 'well-regulated' mean in the context of the 2A?

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

So, you see, the phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only NOT the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

Why appeal to ignorance of Article 1, Section 8?

It means whatever Congress says it means.

 

It means what it meant, to the men who wrote it. The intent of the founders is clear, and the SCOTUS agrees. You are wrong, and remain willfully ignorant.

 

Dude...
Imagine a slow-moving boat. There's a fisherman with a rod and reel, dangling a line into the water...