nope; it is current and actual and legal practice in our Republic; DC v. Heller is basically, just legal fiction for show.
Please cite a rule of interpretation of the law that claims what you allege; or, just admit you are full of fallacy.
sorry; no diversions or non sequiturs allowed as they are usually considered fallacies. What rule of interpretation claims you can ignore Any clause of Any contract?
Yes, what is Necessary to the security of a free State is very clearly, the Intent and Purpose for a literal right to keep and bear Arms.
It is clear that the FF felt that everyone should be very well armed, and that the government should not interfere with the people's fundamental right to be very well armed. There is no ambiguity - at all. But you know that - don't you?
No, it isn't; simply Because, Only well regulated Militia (of the People) are necessary to the security of a free State.
a fundamental Right to keep and bear Arms for self and property versus a right to not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms with a militia, for their State or the Union.
Well I guess the NRA is a "well-regulated" militia. There was a big sale on at a local gun store on the 24th. I went there and bought a handgun, at a nice discount I might add, and no one even asked me about militia service. Looks like your theory is wrong.
The right to keep and bear arms is an individual and a collective right. The FF viewed the well armed people as the raw material for a militia that would mitigate the need for a standing military. Surely you know this? How many men were in the US Army when the Barbary pirates began preying on US shipping? How large was the US Navy?
He must know he is wrong by now. The militia was and is the armed people of the US. There is no discussion in the Federalist Papers or the records of the constitutional convention of it being anything else.
nope; wellness of regulation is must be prescribed by our federal Congress, for the Militia of the United States. - - - Updated - - - you are merely resorting to fallacy by failing to distinguish natural rights for Individuals and the security needs of a free State via well regulated militia.
Frankly, even progressive scholars now recognize the right to bear arms as an individual right. “There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.” A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary”, By ADAM LIPTAK, New York Times, MAY 6, 2007. Surely you know all this. Why pretend that you do not?
Not to sure. Either a broken record or someone very stubbornly does not want to understand the truth.
so what. wellness of regulation Must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
You are still not over it; only gun lovers and the right deliberately and willfully appeal to ignorance of the law while claiming they are for the "gospel Truth" of any given Thing: 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;
Danny, I was sure you were "gospel Truth". As opposed to that uninformed left wing idiot Laurence Tribe - right?
That means; wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States must come from our federal Congress, not gun lovers without clue and without Cause.
