Ending the Myth that America is Dangerous because of Gun Ownership

did you know that non sequiturs are styled, non responsive in legal venues

 

There is no ambiguity in our supreme law of the land; our Founding Fathers really really were that Good.

 

you mean these very same guys, right?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."

 

dude; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; regardless of any hearsay.

 

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law or its Intent and Purpose; except to the disingenuous left

 

Here is the Intent and Purpose and End, my friend:

Only the means may be sacrificed to the end. ....

 

The Only failures are those that fail to have a valid argument that resorts to full employment of sublime Truth (value) over fallacy.
you have no case
Law of Logical Argument -Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about. and you don't know what you're talking about....

 

you still need a valid argument, or your elected representatives to your State have a valid argument for gun control laws they may feel are necessary for civil Persons who are considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.

 

Oh well done, danielpalos! Well done indeed. Finally, after these many attempts, you make your position understandable. You believe that the militia clause shackles the RKBA—that it limits the right to militia service. You’re wrong, but at least I understand you now. Why are you wrong? Because I said so…no, wait, that’s the authority you always use. Let me quote you what Heller says of your argument for starters:

"It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment's prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens' militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right — unlike some other English rights — was codified in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER'S assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 714 (dissenting opinion), is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue — but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right's codification; it was the central component of the right itself.

Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281 (1897), petitioners' interpretation does not even achieve the narrower [Page 600] purpose that prompted codification of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petitioners 8 — if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment's guarantee — it does not assure the existence of a “citizens' militia” as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force.17 That is why the first Militia Act's requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government's Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521-525 (199. Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens' right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people's militia that was the concern of the founding generation."

District Of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 599-600 (200(emphasis in original)

You interpretation, my friend, means that the founders intended to place the RKBA within the protection of the Bill of Rights for the purpose of destroying it. In your view, they took a right that pre-existed the Constitution, a RKBA for defense of yourself and others against personal and state-sponsored aggression, a right that the state’s drew upon as a source of militia arms, and they eliminated this right by choosing to limit it in the future to only militia service. The Bill of Rights was intended to limit the power of government, not to grant it total power over a right. If, as you argue, the RKBA is limited to militia service, then it is no longer a right at all. Congress has total control over the arming of the militia, and Congress has total control over who will and will not be a member. You would know this if you would read the Constitution as a whole. Your narrow and preferred outcome based interpretation reduces the “right of the people” to a privilege which Congress has total power to bestow upon those whom it favors, and deny to those whom it does not.

It is a strange thing indeed to declare that the BoR—a set of Amendments that everyone agrees was intended to recognize and protect fundamental liberties—actually announces the death of a pre-existing RKBA by shackling it to militia service totally controlled by Congress. The whole purpose of the BoR was to restrict the power of the federal government, but you argue the 2nd. Amendment was intended to do the opposite—it expands that power to totally consume a right it professes to protect. There is no appeal from such illogic.

I understand your desire for this outcome. I also understand you have no authority for your position other than your desire that it be so. Your opinion alone is a very thin reed indeed, and it cannot bear the weight of its own illogic. Your opinion is internally inconsistent with itself, and it has been rejected by every supreme court panel which has ever considered the second amendment.

 

It is either a natural right secured in State Constitutions regarding rights in private property or it isn't.

Our Second Amendment clearly establishes the Intent and Purpose for the law should there be any need to quibble what it is about.

 

…nothing but diversion instead of posting a more cogent argument to better advance your Cause; i got it. Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you couldn't seem to come up with for the greater glory of your Cause.

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson

 

It is either a natural right secured in State Constitutions regarding rights in private property or it isn't.

Gun lovers and the right in their support, should know when to stop appealing to ignorance of the law, before they corrupt the youth.

 

"longstanding" my aching behind. You call since 1968 " long standing"? that's a crock. There were no fed laws banning the possession of guns by felons until the GCA 68. I'm the furthest thing from a gun banner you can imagine. The 2nd says just what it means. you can't TOUCH gun ownership.

 

Only the right by advancing a one-nation government through their gun loving allies, prefer to appeal to ignorance of the law as recognized in Sate Constitutions regarding a natural right to acquire and possess private property.

 

Example of gun lovers corrupting the youth of America..

http://sssfonline.org/

 

The pen is even mightier than the sword or the gun.

Gun lovers and the right in their support, should know when to stop appealing to ignorance of the law.

 

I think my car falling into the wrong hands can do more harm then my gun can.

Do you also worry about my crowbar falling into the wrong hands? What about my bottles of Ammonia and Clorox?

Sorry, I refuse to indulge the paranoia of others.

 

yes, that small circle of Individuals, have nothing but fallacy for their Cause and prove it through collusion and conspiracy; and still fail to come up with arguments, even with the extra "processing power" of any committee they may form.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Yet, we are still paying for our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; when our Second Amendment provides a more cost effective solution.

If only we could find nice gun lovers of morals who are willing to truly love their republic as much as they merely claim to love their guns.

 

Ya know, funny thing about that though.

The War on Drugs is mostly supported by the Conservatives. The Liberals are generally the ones that just want to end it all together by legalizing drugs.

Yet it is the Liberals who are conducting the war on guns.

Funny thing it is when you have rational thinking processes, so easily see such holes in logic.

 

Yes, some on the left may have missed the memo that Prohibition is no substitute for militias, well regulated.

 

Twenty degrees of solitude, twenty degrees in all,
All the dancing kings and wives assembled in the hall.
Lost is the long and loneliest town fairly sybil flying.
All along the, all along the mountains of the moon.

 

What does one have to do with the other?

That is like saying a solid judiciary prevents poverty.

 

the right just loves repeating historical mistakes and claiming they are not really like that, afterward.

- - - Updated - - -

the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

 

Why do liberals keep wanting to import crime, poverty, drugs and terror into our country ?

It's Obama who's supplied the drug cartels with guns.

It's the left who wants open borders and more poverty and crime to enter our country.

It was Obama who released over 68,000 convicted criminals back on to our streets.

It's liberals who want illegal aliens to be issued drivers licenses so they can purchase guns and vote the Democrat ticket in our elections.

While we are at it, it was the Obama administration who was arming Al Qaeda in Syria.

Obama just isn't the # 1 gun salesman in America for six years in a row now but also in the Arab world.