The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee any individual rights - Page 22 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

danielpalos · #**316** (**permalink**) 05-11-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Uh - yeah. That whole section grants the federal government the authority to call up the militia to federal service - as MPD stated....

Except that the 2nd Amendment addresses a "...right of the people..." not a power reserved to the states.

What about "and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States"

Doesn't that imply that not all of the Militias will be called to federal service?

If not all of the Militias are not called to federal service, don't the states reserve the right to call up the militia, that may not be in federal service, for their exclusive use, in matters of the domestic tranquility of a state?

I think the 2A complements the 10A, in matters of powers and rights retained by the states (via the collective action of individual people; as a form of statism).

danielpalos · #**317** (**permalink**) 05-11-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Hmmm, more than 300 posts in this thread. And I see that the danielpalos person is STILL repeating the same falsehoods he was repeating earlier in the thread, when other patiently explained to him time and again how and why they were wrong.

And now he's STILL repeating them, as though nothing had ever been said.

You know who the sillest people in this thread are?

Not the danielpalos person, though a strong case can be made.

It's the people who STILL keep explaining to him why he's wrong.

Who is siller? A person who has demonstrated that he is completely incapable of understanding or retaining the truth? Or the person who, knowing that, still keeps trying to present the truth to him?

Three HUNDRED posts.

At least one of these people should know better. And that's who the truly silly one is.

I thought you understood that argumentum ad hominem and ignoratio elenchi are considered fallacies.

You may also be missing the point. Are you implying that states do not have a (10A) right call forth the Militia of the State to ensure the domestic tranquility?

EricOKC · #**318** (**permalink**) 05-11-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

What about "and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States"

Doesn't that imply that not all of the Militias will be called to federal service?

No, it implies that not all MAY be called to federal service.

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

If not all of the Militias are not called to federal service, don't the states reserve the right to call up the militia,

No. They retain that power regardless of the limited power granted to the federal government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

that may not be in federal service, for their exclusive use, in matters of the domestic tranquility of a state?

Or for whatever reason they damn well please, including insurrection, secession, border security, and just for the hell of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I think the 2A complements the 10A, in matters of powers and rights retained by the states (via the collective action of individual people; as a form of statism).

And as usual, you are wrong. You insist upon intentionally misinterpreting plain language.

Do you simply throw out phrases such as "domestic tranquility" and "form of statism" as if they hold some magic power?

danielpalos · #**319** (**permalink**) 05-12-2007

You give me the impression that a hypothetical militia, not callable to federal service, could be used to restrict labor market participants available for foreign entanglements by the federal government. And could be viewed as a form of states' rights. Any well regulated militia could be used by the state to ensure its domestic tranquility, especially in cases of natural disasters.

Do yo think the 10A could be used to prohibit some of the militia of the several states, from federal service (not callable to federal service)?

tamperpr00f · #**320** (**permalink**) 05-12-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Hmmm, more than 300 posts in this thread. And I see that the danielpalos person is STILL repeating the same falsehoods he was repeating earlier in the thread, when other patiently explained to him time and again how and why they were wrong.

And now he's STILL repeating them, as though nothing had ever been said.

You know who the sillest people in this thread are?

Not the danielpalos person, though a strong case can be made.

It's the people who STILL keep explaining to him why he's wrong.

Who is siller? A person who has demonstrated that he is completely incapable of understanding or retaining the truth? Or the person who, knowing that, still keeps trying to present the truth to him?

Three HUNDRED posts.

At least one of these people should know better. And that's who the truly silly one is.

I learned this lesson while debating immigration with him. He ignores the main thrust of what you are saying when you are debating him and then goes on to repeat himself over and over and over. It was enough to make me want to put a broken record on in his stead

EDIT: Oh and he loves using the words "labor market participants".

danielpalos · #**321** (**permalink**) 05-12-2007

From one perspective, it can be implied, that states have a traditional right to call forth the Militia to ensure the domestic tranquility. A hypothetical State militia would serve to better complement local law enforcement and assist the National Guard (the portion of the militia callable to federal service). Such a state could also reserve a portion of the Militia that is not callable to federal service; and could be viewed as a state's right that better ensures the domestic tranquility.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode