arma virumque cano (et alia)
1. Morgan again offers a false dichotomy. Gun rights and the right to live are equal.2. Of course, Morgan can't understand the text of the amendment. He has no objection to state agents being armed, but objects when private citizens have guns.3. The senator is correct about the militia, and the state is gun friendly.4. Militia membership is not a requirement of the Second Amendment. The militia is named as the reason the amendment was important, but the right is identified as belonging to the people.
"Gun rights and the right to live are equal." This is why they call you freaks gun loons.It says a well regulated militia, which does not include individuals without a command structure.
Yeah, I thought "the right to life and gun rights are equal" was pretty bizarre.
Why? All rights are equal.
Your tedious repetition does not make it so.
You're claiming that some rights are more equal than others, but that doesn't make it so. That's especially true since you'd like to be the one writing the list of which rights are more important than others.What you never consider is that someone else might write a list devaluing a right that you care about, and that list might become law.
Greg, this nonsense that all rights are equal is something you made up because it sounds cool. Think about it, what right could be as important as the right to life? None, obviously.
No, Mikeb. A life without rights is a bad existence. A life without the ability to make choices is no life at all. We are more than mere animals, and that's why all rights are equal.
Your explanation is laughable. Let's say a tyrannical government allowed its citizens the right to life but forbid free speech. They'd still be alive, right? On the other hand, if they were allowed freedom of speech but could be subject to summary execution at the policeman's whim, some of them would be dead. That shows the right to life is more important than the right to free of speech.I really don't know why waste my time with you because you've shown that you don't argue in good faith. You're contentious and disagreeable and you do not have the ability to admit when you're wrong.And when I show you to be wrong, the others, ss, and TS, usually stay silent. I repeat. all rights are not equal. The right to life comes first.
Piers should have done his homework. He thought he had the Senator backed into a corner, and Bam! And of course, he's also likely really bummed that people understand that Heller has determined that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and not a collective one. Just like the First Amendment.
Without a command structure, individuals do not constitute a well regulated militia.
There is a command structure. The state militia is commanded by the State Adjutant General. The unorganized militia would be under the TAG when called up. Just as if I'm in the inactive reserve, I would fall into a command structure if I were called back.
If militia membership is not required by the Constitution (as Greg states) how could anyone be constrained by your description of command?
The militia has a command structure, but one does not have to be a member of the militia to exercise a right to own and carry firearms.
Not talking about your right to a gun, but the actions of an individual vs a well regulated militia.One must be a member of a militia to take commands. One cannot just take arms against anyone, or group on their own desecration, or they are nothing more than a criminal, or a mob. If there is a command structure, one assumes that command structure is to protect people and the authorized institution it gets its authority from. A militia cannot take arms against the authorized institution it gets its authority from, yet, some speak of a militia being a group that would fire on its own authorizing institution, because it disagrees with its latest laws. The militias authority comes from the Constitution of the United States. If the militia took arms against the United States, it would be an outlaw organization.
You're correct about a militia structure, purpose, and rules. But do you agree that belonging to a militia is not required for the exercise of the right protected by the Second Amendment.
In order to claim a Constitutional right to bear arms, one must include the militia. Otherwise, you're just twisting the meaning to align with what you want it to say.The truth is you have the same right to own a gun as you have to own a toaster, which as free citizens of the US, you do have. But this is "right" with a small "r," not the Constitutional one you say.
I have a basic right as a human being to property and to self-defense. My right to own and carry a firearm derives from those. All of that is prior to the Constitution. But the Second Amendment specifically identifies the right to arms as belonging to the people, not some limited group of the people.And as Democrats love to say about another subject, an individual right outside of militia service is the law of the land.
"Derives from those," my ass. You might as well say you have the right to anything else you want. And keep repeating it until it makes sense to you.
As long as I'm not harming anyone, I do have a right to just about anything I want and can afford.
Again the lying criminal coward screams he will do what he wants no matter what the laws are. Claiming he has a right despite what the law says. Typical comment from a criminal.
It is quite clear that the government considers everyone to be potential soldiers, and therefor an unorganized militia. The proof in that is currently called the selective service system. The government has the constitutional power to call you up to serve in the military. Just as the government of the State of Oklahoma has defined its militia to be all adults.
I'd like to know more about that strange OK law. I wouldn't be surprised if it had been enacted by some gun nuts in order to justify the bastardization of the 2A.
It's also quite clear militias are under the command and control of authorized authorities, not some rogue group calling themselves militias, or some group claiming they can attack government forces because they disagree with laws. That's exactly what extremist groups are claiming. According to them our government is itself unconstitutional and must be overthrown.
If a private group calls itself a militia and breaks the law, then the individuals breaking the law get prosecuted for crimes. Just as if a soldier in our standing army breaks the law, then they are prosecuted by either civilian or military authorities determined by the jurisdiction.
These rouge groups are on your "side." Pro gun military like militias. In fact many of them use the word militia in their title. They claim as patriots they have a right and responsibility to overthrow the government because they claim the government is socialists, unconstitutional, and oppressing Americans.
Anonymous, when those groups cross the line, they cease to be lawful and are no longer on our side.
And of course we have Anonymous(the group) and the Occupy movement.
I don't see either of those groups carrying guns and spouting murderous violence, or the overthrow of the US government. Irrational comparison.
Anonymous is a group of hackers who disrupt Internet service, and Occupy, well, that movement brought about its own demise through refusing to get organized and stand for something specific.
Computer hackers are not the same as killers with guns. The fact that you think they are the same shows your dishonesty, or stupidity.
Since you're being your usual self, Anonymous, I'm done with you.