# Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.



## PredFan

It hasn't been a good year for them. The NRA is winning major battles despite the super Rich's money going against them. Gun sales and ownership is up, more and more women are toting, and crime is going down because of it. Liberals weep for the non-loss of life:
What Happened to Chicago s Crime Rate When Illinois Relaxed Gun Control Laws


----------



## Mr. H.

Kelsey Harris is sorta hot. 

I'd like to see more long-term stats like say, a year from now.


----------



## PredFan

Mr. H. said:


> Kelsey Harris is sorta hot.
> 
> I'd like to see more long-term stats like say, a year from now.


She's a cutie.


----------



## PredFan

Not a very good few years for gun grabbers at all:

Utah sees spike in women obtaining concealed firearms permits KSL.com


----------



## PredFan

57 000 Businesses Fight Back Post Guns Welcome Signs On Front Door


----------



## MXdad

PredFan said:


> Not a very good few years for gun grabbers at all:
> 
> Utah sees spike in women obtaining concealed firearms permits KSL.com





> In 2011, the state issued about 14,000 permits; in 2012 about 15,000 were issued; and in 2013, 34,597 permits were issued to women.


From your link

That is a big increase in only a few years, its always great to see those CCW numbers continue to climb


----------



## PredFan

The gun grabbers lose yet again. There will be much crying and wetting the panties in liberal land:

St. Louis Public Radio


----------



## 2aguy

Does this count....

Center For American Progress Surrenders Will No Longer Push Assault Weapons Ban

Sadly, they haven't given up, not really...they will simply wait for the next mass shooting with an assault rifle and then drag the dead bodies of the victims into the public square...they are very patient....and they also know Obama is going to attack guns by appointing liberal judges....and if he gets the chance and he keeps the Senate....he will try to get rid of the conservative judges on the Supreme Court, and the new lefty judges will strike down all of our advances as soon as they get the chance...

Gun Grabbers never stop....

Our goal...not one more gun, bullet, piece of equipment , or magazine will be surrendered to the gun grabbers....our laws are fine...start enforcing them...


----------



## PredFan

In Target right now with my concealed weapon.

Mulon Labe mother fuckers!


----------



## Two Thumbs

PredFan said:


> It hasn't been a good year for them. The NRA is winning major battles despite the super Rich's money going against them. Gun sales and ownership is up, more and more women are toting, and crime is going down because of it. Liberals weep for the non-loss of life:
> What Happened to Chicago s Crime Rate When Illinois Relaxed Gun Control Laws


Is there a link that backs up those claims?

cuz those numbers are kinda high


----------



## boedicca

I wish it were possible to get a conceal carry permit in CA...but those are reserved for the political class.


----------



## 2aguy

I'm not even in your state, or town, and I am safely at home...and I am simply terrified that you are in Target with a gun...

Molon Labe....


----------



## 2aguy

> I wish it were possible to get a conceal carry permit in CA...but those are reserved for the political class.



And their tax payer provided, professional body guards...


----------



## boedicca

Two Thumbs said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't been a good year for them. The NRA is winning major battles despite the super Rich's money going against them. Gun sales and ownership is up, more and more women are toting, and crime is going down because of it. Liberals weep for the non-loss of life:
> What Happened to Chicago s Crime Rate When Illinois Relaxed Gun Control Laws
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a link that backs up those claims?
> 
> cuz those numbers are kinda high
Click to expand...



Here's the article the infographic is based upon.

Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry gun permit applications surge - Washington Times


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

boedicca said:


> I wish it were possible to get a conceal carry permit in CA...but those are reserved for the political class.



California battle over concealed-weapon rights could be headed for Supreme Court Fox News


----------



## boedicca

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish it were possible to get a conceal carry permit in CA...but those are reserved for the political class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California battle over concealed-weapon rights could be headed for Supreme Court Fox News
Click to expand...


We'll see how that works out...


----------



## Impenitent

PredFan said:


> In Target right now with my concealed weapon.
> 
> Mulon Labe mother fuckers!


Don't try that in an Ohio Wal-Mart.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

PredFan said:


> It hasn't been a good year for them. The NRA is winning major battles despite the super Rich's money going against them. Gun sales and ownership is up, more and more women are toting, and crime is going down because of it. Liberals weep for the non-loss of life:
> What Happened to Chicago s Crime Rate When Illinois Relaxed Gun Control Laws


This fails as both a _post hoc_ and straw man fallacy, as there's no evidence that gun ownership or the carrying of firearms contributes to a decrease in crime:


“In 2010, according to the most recent data on justifiable homicides from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, there were 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm in self-defense during either an attempted or a completed crime. In the same year, there were 8,275 firearm homicides. This means that, for every one justifiable firearm homicide, there were 36 criminal homicides. Contrary to the gun lobby’s claim that, between 2007 and 2011, guns were used 12.5 million times in self-defense, the most reliable data on this question clearly show that firearms were used only 338,700 times in self-defense, and this includes off-duty police. Clearly, then, despite living in a country with 300 million guns, the use of firearms in self-defense appears to be an exceedingly rare phenomenon.”


Less Guns Less Crime- Debunking the Self-Defense Myth Armed With Reason


Consequently, whether citizens should be allowed to carry a firearm or not has nothing to do with the likelihood of one using his firearm for self-defense, as one is allowed to carry a firearm because he has the Constitutional right to do so, regardless whether he uses it for self-defense, regardless the crime rate.


And this a straw man fallacy because you misrepresent the position of your political opponents, as no 'liberal' advocates 'taking' guns, nor do they advocate disallowing citizens carrying guns for lawful self-defense.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

PredFan said:


> The gun grabbers lose yet again. There will be much crying and wetting the panties in liberal land:
> 
> St. Louis Public Radio


And here we have yet another example of the ignorance and stupidity common to 'gun rights' extremists, where such ignorance and stupidity reflect poorly on those of us who own and carry firearms, and seek to protect the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment; indeed, this ignorance and stupidity does more to jeopardize the Second Amendment right than anything a 'gun grabber' might do.


----------



## PredFan

Two Thumbs said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't been a good year for them. The NRA is winning major battles despite the super Rich's money going against them. Gun sales and ownership is up, more and more women are toting, and crime is going down because of it. Liberals weep for the non-loss of life:
> What Happened to Chicago s Crime Rate When Illinois Relaxed Gun Control Laws
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a link that backs up those claims?
> 
> cuz those numbers are kinda high
Click to expand...

That was the link.


----------



## PredFan

Impenitent said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Target right now with my concealed weapon.
> 
> Mulon Labe mother fuckers!
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try that in an Ohio Wal-Mart.
Click to expand...


I would if I lived there. I go to Starbucks, Panera Bread, and Target with my gun these days when I might not have previously. You ban guns? Fuck you I'm going there.


----------



## PredFan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun grabbers lose yet again. There will be much crying and wetting the panties in liberal land:
> 
> St. Louis Public Radio
> 
> 
> 
> And here we have yet another example of the ignorance and stupidity common to 'gun rights' extremists, where such ignorance and stupidity reflect poorly on those of us who own and carry firearms, and seek to protect the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment; indeed, this ignorance and stupidity does more to jeopardize the Second Amendment right than anything a 'gun grabber' might do.
Click to expand...

Careful you don't accidentally shoot yourself moron.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

PredFan said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun grabbers lose yet again. There will be much crying and wetting the panties in liberal land:
> 
> St. Louis Public Radio
> 
> 
> 
> And here we have yet another example of the ignorance and stupidity common to 'gun rights' extremists, where such ignorance and stupidity reflect poorly on those of us who own and carry firearms, and seek to protect the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment; indeed, this ignorance and stupidity does more to jeopardize the Second Amendment right than anything a 'gun grabber' might do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful you don't accidentally shoot yourself moron.
Click to expand...

This fails as an ad hominem fallacy.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't been a good year for them. The NRA is winning major battles despite the super Rich's money going against them. Gun sales and ownership is up, more and more women are toting, and crime is going down because of it. Liberals weep for the non-loss of life:
> What Happened to Chicago s Crime Rate When Illinois Relaxed Gun Control Laws
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as both a _post hoc_ and straw man fallacy, as there's no evidence that gun ownership or the carrying of firearms contributes to a decrease in crime:
Click to expand...


Except when there is.

FBI More guns less violent crime The Daily Caller

Harvard Gun Study Claims Banning Weapons Doesn t Decrease Violence

Disarming Realities As Gun Sales Soar Gun Crimes Plummet - Forbes


----------



## Two Thumbs

boedicca said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't been a good year for them. The NRA is winning major battles despite the super Rich's money going against them. Gun sales and ownership is up, more and more women are toting, and crime is going down because of it. Liberals weep for the non-loss of life:
> What Happened to Chicago s Crime Rate When Illinois Relaxed Gun Control Laws
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a link that backs up those claims?
> 
> cuz those numbers are kinda high
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the article the infographic is based upon.
> 
> Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry gun permit applications surge - Washington Times
Click to expand...

Isn't it amazing how freedom makes things better?


----------



## PredFan

Liberal bed wetting gun grabbers continue their losing streak:

Shaneen Allen Is Free Basically National Review Online

Congrats to the NRA, GOA, and freedom loving Americans everywhere.


----------



## PredFan

Win for freedom, a loss for left wing statism:

Louisiana restaurant offers heat-packing incentive Way to weed out gun-grabbers - BizPac Review


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

PredFan said:


> Win for freedom, a loss for left wing statism:
> 
> Louisiana restaurant offers heat-packing incentive Way to weed out gun-grabbers - BizPac Review


You truly are ridiculous.


----------



## Geaux4it

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun grabbers lose yet again. There will be much crying and wetting the panties in liberal land:
> 
> St. Louis Public Radio
> 
> 
> 
> And here we have yet another example of the ignorance and stupidity common to 'gun rights' extremists, where such ignorance and stupidity reflect poorly on those of us who own and carry firearms, and seek to protect the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment; indeed, this ignorance and stupidity does more to jeopardize the Second Amendment right than anything a 'gun grabber' might do.
Click to expand...


You reflect poorly on us as 'humans' everyday with your partisan hack post. We're right and you're wrong. Enjoy your Daisy BB gun and let the big kids take care of the pesky liberal 2A issue. Thanks

-Geaux

*10 Stories That Prove Guns Save Lives

1) On February 12, 2007, a lone gunman, Sulejman Talovic, opened fire at the crowded Trolley Square shopping mall, killing five bystanders. Armed with a shotgun with a pistol grip, a 38-caliber handgun with rubber grips, and a backpack full of ammunition, he set forth on his rampage through the mall.


But he did not get as far as he had hoped. He was stopped by off-duty police officer Kenneth Hammond of the Ogden City Police Department, who was at Trolley Square having an early Valentine’s Day dinner with his pregnant wife. When they heard shots, she called 911 and he drew his weapon and confronted Talovic. He was joined by Sgt. Andrew Oblad of the Salt Lake City Police Department. They pinned down Talovic, stopping further deaths, until a SWAT team from the Salt Lake City Police Department killed him.

Hammond, a man with a weapon, was credited with saving “countless lives.”


2) That's right. There was not a mass killing spree in Atlanta on Thursday, but there could have been. We'll never know -- and thankfully so, because an armed guard stepped in.


As reported by USA Today, "A 14-year-old student was shot at an Atlanta middle school Thursday afternoon, and another student was taken into custody, police said."

An armed guard disarmed the shooter moments after the 1:50 p.m. shooting in a courtyard at the Price Middle School in southeast Atlanta.

Atlanta Public Schools public information officer Steve Alford said the teen's wound was more toward the back of the neck, WXIA-TV reported.

An armed off-duty Atlanta police officer who works at the schoolsubdued the shooter and had him drop his weapon, Police Chief George Turner said.

10 Stories That Prove Guns Save Lives - John Hawkins - Page full
*


----------



## PredFan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Win for freedom, a loss for left wing statism:
> 
> Louisiana restaurant offers heat-packing incentive Way to weed out gun-grabbers - BizPac Review
> 
> 
> 
> You truly are ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Meh, coming from you, someone who excels at stupidity, that has no effect on me.


----------



## PredFan

The liberal gun grabbers are wrong about everything, all the time, but they will never stop because with them it's not about truth, it's not about saving lives, and it's not about what's right, it's about control period. They MUST control others.

NC Law Allowing Concealed Carry Inside Bars Is 1 Year Old Mayhem Has Not Ensued Concealed Nation


----------



## PredFan

But but but....it's a gun free zone!

 Video Jack in the Box Drive-Thru Employee Shot


----------



## Rotagilla

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun grabbers lose yet again. There will be much crying and wetting the panties in liberal land:
> 
> St. Louis Public Radio
> 
> 
> 
> And here we have yet another example of the ignorance and stupidity common to 'gun rights' extremists, where such ignorance and stupidity reflect poorly on those of us who own and carry firearms, and seek to protect the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment; indeed, this ignorance and stupidity does more to jeopardize the Second Amendment right than anything a 'gun grabber' might do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful you don't accidentally shoot yourself moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as an ad hominem fallacy.
Click to expand...


----------



## PredFan

Dispute truckloads if cash from left wing lunatics and megalomaniacs, the gun grabbers are still losing ground:

8 states have laws voiding federal firearms regs Gun Wars


----------



## PredFan

Poor poor liberal gun grabbers. Harry Reid is no longer in charge, republicans strengthen their hold on the House, and there is NO chance of passing any of their idiotic gun control laws.

Congratulations freedom living Americans, and congratulations to the NRA in another victory over tyranny and oppression.


----------



## mamooth

The two Colorado state senate seats that went (R) due to the special election went (D) again.

That's got to sting the righty kooks. All that hysteria was for nothing.


----------



## PredFan

mamooth said:


> The two Colorado state senate seats that went (R) due to the special election went (D) again.
> 
> That's got to sting the righty kooks. All that hysteria was for nothing.



Matters not a bit. They lefties there have learned an important lesson and won't try to make any further gun laws. What is more important is the fact that no efforts at gun control are likely to
Make it past the congress for at least the next two years, and there will be no success for them here in Florida.

Sorry doofus, you lost..  Big time.


----------



## PredFan

It is going to just get worse and worse for the gun grabbers. Poor ignorant bastards.
BREAKING Texas Governor Elect Greg Abbott Will Sign Open Carry Bill


----------



## koshergrl

My son and granddaughter, last weekend or so:






that pic is classic, lol. She's wearing spurs, too.


----------



## Saigon

It's all going so well in the US! Excellent!

You must be thrilled, man. 

And THIS is what you are celebtrating:


----------



## koshergrl

Yes, that's what happens when you foster a criminal inner city population, and take guns away from law abiding citizens.

Enjoy.

Those of us in the rural areas, where everybody is armed, have almost zero crime.

Meanwhile, yes, let's be more like South Korea, Estonia and the Czech Republic. They have such a wonderful quality of life. That sounds like a plan.


----------



## Saigon

PredFan said:


> it's not about saving lives,



Whereas your interest in saving lives is in the graph above....


----------



## Saigon

koshergrl said:


> Yes, that's what happens when you foster a criminal inner city population, and take guns away from law abiding citizens.
> 
> Enjoy.
> 
> Those of us in the rural areas, where everybody is armed, have almost zero crime.



Right...so there are no rural areas in other countries?

Come on, kosher...at least post something with a little common sense.


----------



## koshergrl

Stop letting the inner city criminals out of jail to commit crime over and over again, and stop paying their women welfare to raise their illegitimate, fatherless children.

Break the cycle of criminal, fatherless families.

That would be a start.


----------



## Saigon

koshergrl said:


> Stop letting the inner city criminals out of jail to commit crime over and over again, and stop paying their women welfare to raise their illegitimate, fatherless children.
> 
> Break the cycle of criminal, fatherless families.
> 
> That would be a start.



Because that does not happen in countries like the UK, Germany or France, right?

Come on Kosher....think before you post, eh?


----------



## PredFan

Saigon said:


> It's all going so well in the US! Excellent!
> 
> You must be thrilled, man.
> 
> And THIS is what you are celebtrating:



How fucking stupid are liberals? Well they are THIS fucking stupid, ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## Saigon

PredFan -

Please try to stay on topic. You did start this thread, afterall. 

Let me ask - looking at the graph, would you say that US gun laws are performing well when compared to other countries?


----------



## koshergrl

Saigon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop letting the inner city criminals out of jail to commit crime over and over again, and stop paying their women welfare to raise their illegitimate, fatherless children.
> 
> Break the cycle of criminal, fatherless families.
> 
> That would be a start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that does not happen in countries like the UK, Germany or France, right?
> 
> Come on Kosher....think before you post, eh?
Click to expand...


I don't need to think if I'm replying to someone like you, thanks.


----------



## koshergrl

Saigon said:


> PredFan -
> 
> Please try to stay on topic. You did start this thread, afterall.
> 
> Let me ask - looking at the graph, would you say that US gun laws are performing well when compared to other countries?



He's responding to something stupid that you posted. So if you're on topic, so is he.


----------



## Saigon

So, thus far the only response to the graph is witless abuse. 

And this after five pages of the OP deriding everyone else as being witless. 

Strange.


----------



## koshergrl

The graph submission is witless, it deserves to be abused.


----------



## 2aguy

> Whereas your interest in saving lives is in the graph above....




No my interest comes in the research that shows that guns in the United States save more lives than they take...1.4 million times a year, and that is the average from at least 15 out of 19 studies conducted over 40 years by different researchers both private and government based, guns save lives and stop violent crime...

You never mention the lives saved do you Saigon...you just ignore that all together....and you ignore the victims of crime in Britain, Australia, and the rest of Europe....they are still beaten, raped, robbed and murdered...they just have to allow it to happen....because the criminals attack with weapons or in groups or prey on the young, the old, the weak and women or defenseless individuals....

You never mention the whole equation do you Saigon because that puts the lie to your stats....


----------



## PredFan

BAM! The gun grabbers are losing. They are spending billions and lying their asses off and the NRA and free Americans all over this country are telling them to fuck off.

Poor liberal morons.

NICS background checks break 200 million


----------



## Geaux4it

PredFan said:


> BAM! The gun grabbers are losing. They are spending billions and lying their asses off and the NRA and free Americans all over this country are telling them to fuck off.
> 
> Poor liberal morons.
> 
> NICS background checks break 200 million



Far out !!!!!

-Geaux


----------



## bigrebnc1775

boedicca said:


> I wish it were possible to get a conceal carry permit in CA...but those are reserved for the political class.


move is your best option. We have a some great beaches here in North Carolina.


----------



## Delldude

koshergrl said:


> *Yes, that's what happens when you foster a criminal inner city population, and take guns away from law abiding citizens.*
> 
> Enjoy.
> 
> Those of us in the rural areas, where everybody is armed, have almost zero crime.
> 
> Meanwhile, yes, let's be more like South Korea, Estonia and the Czech Republic. They have such a wonderful quality of life. That sounds like a plan.



Make one beholding to government.


----------



## PredFan

Poor poor liberal gun grabbers. Another NRA backed candidate wins. The liberals have taken several butch slapping a from the NRA lately. No one deserves it more.

NRA News - NRA-endorsed Republican Martha McSally has... Facebook


----------



## PredFan

2014 was a good year for gun rights. The gun grabbers lost big and often this year!!!

2014 Was A Good Year For Gun Rights As More Protections Enacted Into Law The Federalist Papers


----------



## PredFan

2014 was a good year for the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, and free Americans. The gun grabbers got bitch slapped quite often this past year:

NRA-ILA 2014 Year in Review


----------



## Gunman

Hay I still got all my guns --- Had two ripped off 25 years ago-- They caught the Lo-Life with my guns and a load of drugs-- In a drug bust you can't get your guns back and my guns were sold at auction--- the Lo-Life got 15 Years-- I lost my Guns...the County got the money from the auction.... Now that's Gun Grabbers...  !!!!!!


----------



## PredFan

And there is also this:

Illinois now has 90K conceal carry permit holders FOX2now.com


----------



## PredFan

Ammo makers wins big against our oppressive government:

Ammo Manufacturer Sues the Federal Government and WINS BIG TIME


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

PredFan said:


> Ammo makers wins big against our oppressive government:
> 
> Ammo Manufacturer Sues the Federal Government and WINS BIG TIME



  Dont get me wrong I like it,but as one responder pointed out it's our tax dollars paying the judgement.


----------



## danielpalos

Some on the left believe it is more about gun lovers not loving their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.  

* “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
― G.K. Chesterton

When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?


----------



## PredFan

Poor liberal gun grabbers. No wonder they are upset all the time. When you are wrong about everything every day, it's bound to be upsetting.


----------



## danielpalos

When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?


----------



## Geaux4it

danielpalos said:


> Some on the left believe it is more about gun lovers not loving their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> * “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?



Interesting. Please, do tell

-Geaux


----------



## danielpalos

Geaux4it said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some on the left believe it is more about gun lovers not loving their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> * “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Please, do tell
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

You tell me when the US can become as "great as Rome".  All that is required is enough love for your republic.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Some on the left believe it is more about gun lovers not loving their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> * “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some on the left believe it is more about gun lovers not loving their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> * “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?
Click to expand...

exactly; why should gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement if they are unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.

well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some on the left believe it is more about gun lovers not loving their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> * “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly; why should gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement if they are unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Miss-understood my "reaction" didn'tcha.........


----------



## Iceweasel

danielpalos said:


> exactly; why should gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement if they are unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.


Rights aren't an entitlement. Entitlements are gifts, a right is something government can't take away (unless there's a good reason). Your definition of love is really strange.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some on the left believe it is more about gun lovers not loving their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> * “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly; why should gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement if they are unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Miss-understood my "reaction" didn'tcha.........
Click to expand...

only if you didn't mean; wtf, why aren't gun lovers loving their republic at least as much as they claim to love their guns.


----------



## hortysir

PredFan said:


> It hasn't been a good year for them. The NRA is winning major battles despite the super Rich's money going against them. Gun sales and ownership is up, more and more women are toting, and crime is going down because of it. Liberals weep for the non-loss of life:
> What Happened to Chicago s Crime Rate When Illinois Relaxed Gun Control Laws


Gun sales are so strong it's delaying my background check for my new 40
More than 100,000 applications online when they punched mine in


----------



## danielpalos

Iceweasel said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly; why should gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement if they are unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights aren't an entitlement. Entitlements are gifts, a right is something government can't take away (unless there's a good reason). Your definition of love is really strange.
Click to expand...

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.


----------



## Iceweasel

danielpalos said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly; why should gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement if they are unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights aren't an entitlement. Entitlements are gifts, a right is something government can't take away (unless there's a good reason). Your definition of love is really strange.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
Click to expand...

Learn English first, then lecture.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some on the left believe it is more about gun lovers not loving their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> * “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly; why should gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement if they are unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Miss-understood my "reaction" didn'tcha.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only if you didn't mean; wtf, why aren't gun lovers loving their republic at least as much as they claim to love their guns.
Click to expand...

When was the last time you had a CAT scan of your brain?  Never!  Make an appointment now!


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly; why should gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement if they are unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights aren't an entitlement. Entitlements are gifts, a right is something government can't take away (unless there's a good reason). Your definition of love is really strange.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
Click to expand...

That is going to require some explanation as to your interpretation.........


----------



## danielpalos

Iceweasel said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly; why should gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement if they are unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights aren't an entitlement. Entitlements are gifts, a right is something government can't take away (unless there's a good reason). Your definition of love is really strange.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn English first, then lecture.
Click to expand...

You are the one resorting to diversion and that form of fallacy.  You need more education.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some on the left believe it is more about gun lovers not loving their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> * “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly; why should gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement if they are unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Miss-understood my "reaction" didn'tcha.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only if you didn't mean; wtf, why aren't gun lovers loving their republic at least as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was the last time you had a CAT scan of your brain?  Never!  Make an appointment now!
Click to expand...

don't need to; i just need to let the other fellows resort to fallacy for their Cause, first.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly; why should gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement if they are unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights aren't an entitlement. Entitlements are gifts, a right is something government can't take away (unless there's a good reason). Your definition of love is really strange.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is going to require some explanation as to your interpretation.........
Click to expand...


Interpretation of what?  I don't need to be as disingenuous as the right simply because I do have a clue and a Cause.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly; why should gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement if they are unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Miss-understood my "reaction" didn'tcha.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only if you didn't mean; wtf, why aren't gun lovers loving their republic at least as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was the last time you had a CAT scan of your brain?  Never!  Make an appointment now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't need to; i just need to let the other fellows resort to fallacy for their Cause, first.
Click to expand...

Then your interpretive ambiguity will be returned in kind.......


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly; why should gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement if they are unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights aren't an entitlement. Entitlements are gifts, a right is something government can't take away (unless there's a good reason). Your definition of love is really strange.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is going to require some explanation as to your interpretation.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interpretation of what?  I don't need to be as disingenuous as the right simply because I do have a clue and a Cause.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
Click to expand...

Your interpretation of _well regulated militia_ based on your understanding of the Second Amendment (in it's historical context) and what differentiation you're making between so called gun lovers and said clause.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?



Wtf are you babbling about? Do YOU even know?


----------



## PredFan

Poor liberal gun grabbers. Apparently losing so often lately has caused much confusion in their alleged brains.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly; why should gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement if they are unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Miss-understood my "reaction" didn'tcha.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only if you didn't mean; wtf, why aren't gun lovers loving their republic at least as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was the last time you had a CAT scan of your brain?  Never!  Make an appointment now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't need to; i just need to let the other fellows resort to fallacy for their Cause, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your interpretive ambiguity will be returned in kind.......
Click to expand...

Nothing but diversion; I got it.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly; why should gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement if they are unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights aren't an entitlement. Entitlements are gifts, a right is something government can't take away (unless there's a good reason). Your definition of love is really strange.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is going to require some explanation as to your interpretation.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interpretation of what?  I don't need to be as disingenuous as the right simply because I do have a clue and a Cause.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your interpretation of _well regulated militia_ based on your understanding of the Second Amendment (in it's historical context) and what differentiation you're making between so called gun lovers and said clause.
Click to expand...

Nope; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf are you babbling about? Do YOU even know?
Click to expand...

I know you don't have a clue or a Cause.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Miss-understood my "reaction" didn'tcha.........
> 
> 
> 
> only if you didn't mean; wtf, why aren't gun lovers loving their republic at least as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was the last time you had a CAT scan of your brain?  Never!  Make an appointment now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't need to; i just need to let the other fellows resort to fallacy for their Cause, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your interpretive ambiguity will be returned in kind.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion; I got it.
Click to expand...

Basically what I'm getting from you.  Don't like it, don't do it.  Couldn't be more simple.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights aren't an entitlement. Entitlements are gifts, a right is something government can't take away (unless there's a good reason). Your definition of love is really strange.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is going to require some explanation as to your interpretation.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interpretation of what?  I don't need to be as disingenuous as the right simply because I do have a clue and a Cause.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your interpretation of _well regulated militia_ based on your understanding of the Second Amendment (in it's historical context) and what differentiation you're making between so called gun lovers and said clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
Click to expand...

Interesting considering there are primarily still two differing interpretations of "the law".  Which one do you adhere to.  It's an easy question, all it takes is a simple (forthright) answer as opposed to "I know what I mean and you should to" kindergarten tactics.   
Oh and if you don't like your game being turned back on you.........


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only if you didn't mean; wtf, why aren't gun lovers loving their republic at least as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> 
> 
> When was the last time you had a CAT scan of your brain?  Never!  Make an appointment now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't need to; i just need to let the other fellows resort to fallacy for their Cause, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your interpretive ambiguity will be returned in kind.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion; I got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basically what I'm getting from you.  Don't like it, don't do it.  Couldn't be more simple.
Click to expand...

Nope; it has to do with Appeals to Ignorance of the law being no form of excuse.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> 
> 
> That is going to require some explanation as to your interpretation.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interpretation of what?  I don't need to be as disingenuous as the right simply because I do have a clue and a Cause.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your interpretation of _well regulated militia_ based on your understanding of the Second Amendment (in it's historical context) and what differentiation you're making between so called gun lovers and said clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting considering there are primarily still two differing interpretations of "the law".  Which one do you adhere to.  It's an easy question, all it takes is a simple (forthright) answer as opposed to "I know what I mean and you should to" kindergarten tactics.
> Oh and if you don't like your game being turned back on you.........
Click to expand...

You haven't been turning any Thing back on me as long as you are the one resorting to fallacies.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is going to require some explanation as to your interpretation.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation of what?  I don't need to be as disingenuous as the right simply because I do have a clue and a Cause.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your interpretation of _well regulated militia_ based on your understanding of the Second Amendment (in it's historical context) and what differentiation you're making between so called gun lovers and said clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting considering there are primarily still two differing interpretations of "the law".  Which one do you adhere to.  It's an easy question, all it takes is a simple (forthright) answer as opposed to "I know what I mean and you should to" kindergarten tactics.
> Oh and if you don't like your game being turned back on you.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't been turning any Thing back on me as long as you are the one resorting to fallacies.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the answer I thought I'd get back, dodge and evade, dodge and evade.  How much time have you done in the "big house" as a con artist?  (Senator in the Senate............. )


----------



## Roadrunner

Impenitent said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Target right now with my concealed weapon.
> 
> Mulon Labe mother fuckers!
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try that in an Ohio Wal-Mart.
Click to expand...

If it is properly concealed, who would know?


----------



## Roadrunner

koshergrl said:


> My son and granddaughter, last weekend or so:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that pic is classic, lol. She's wearing spurs, too.


Is that the Remington 700, subject to massive recall because some dumbasses trusted a mechanical device called a safety, and broke the #1 rule, do not point the muzzle at anything you do not want to shoot?


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation of what?  I don't need to be as disingenuous as the right simply because I do have a clue and a Cause.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> 
> 
> Your interpretation of _well regulated militia_ based on your understanding of the Second Amendment (in it's historical context) and what differentiation you're making between so called gun lovers and said clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting considering there are primarily still two differing interpretations of "the law".  Which one do you adhere to.  It's an easy question, all it takes is a simple (forthright) answer as opposed to "I know what I mean and you should to" kindergarten tactics.
> Oh and if you don't like your game being turned back on you.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't been turning any Thing back on me as long as you are the one resorting to fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty much the answer I thought I'd get back, dodge and evade, dodge and evade.  How much time have you done in the "big house" as a con artist?  (Senator in the Senate............. )
Click to expand...

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment. it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your interpretation of _well regulated militia_ based on your understanding of the Second Amendment (in it's historical context) and what differentiation you're making between so called gun lovers and said clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting considering there are primarily still two differing interpretations of "the law".  Which one do you adhere to.  It's an easy question, all it takes is a simple (forthright) answer as opposed to "I know what I mean and you should to" kindergarten tactics.
> Oh and if you don't like your game being turned back on you.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't been turning any Thing back on me as long as you are the one resorting to fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty much the answer I thought I'd get back, dodge and evade, dodge and evade.  How much time have you done in the "big house" as a con artist?  (Senator in the Senate............. )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment. it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
Click to expand...

Okay, shades of Dante.........


----------



## Iceweasel

danielpalos said:


> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment. it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.


Sorry but it's been to the highest court. You lost.


----------



## koshergrl

Roadrunner said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> My son and granddaughter, last weekend or so:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that pic is classic, lol. She's wearing spurs, too.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the Remington 700, subject to massive recall because some dumbasses trusted a mechanical device called a safety, and broke the #1 rule, do not point the muzzle at anything you do not want to shoot?
Click to expand...

 
Freaking idiot.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting considering there are primarily still two differing interpretations of "the law".  Which one do you adhere to.  It's an easy question, all it takes is a simple (forthright) answer as opposed to "I know what I mean and you should to" kindergarten tactics.
> Oh and if you don't like your game being turned back on you.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't been turning any Thing back on me as long as you are the one resorting to fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty much the answer I thought I'd get back, dodge and evade, dodge and evade.  How much time have you done in the "big house" as a con artist?  (Senator in the Senate............. )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment. it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, shades of Dante.........
Click to expand...

thank you for ceding the point and the argument, dear.


----------



## danielpalos

Iceweasel said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment. it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it's been to the highest court. You lost.
Click to expand...

No, that alternative hasn't; only the current frivolity in legal venues has lost.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf are you babbling about? Do YOU even know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you don't have a clue or a Cause.
Click to expand...


Yeah well when the author doesn't even know wtf he's saying, how the hell is the reader supposed to?


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf are you babbling about? Do YOU even know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you don't have a clue or a Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well when the author doesn't even know wtf he's saying, how the hell is the reader supposed to?
Click to expand...

Only those who don't have a clue or a Cause, say that.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; that includes the Intent and Purpose.


----------



## koshergrl

danielpalos said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment. it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it's been to the highest court. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that alternative hasn't; only the current frivolity in legal venues has lost.
Click to expand...

 
Good grief, speaka da ingles.


----------



## danielpalos

koshergrl said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment. it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it's been to the highest court. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that alternative hasn't; only the current frivolity in legal venues has lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief, speaka da ingles.
Click to expand...

it helps if you have a clue and a Cause.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment. it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.


----------



## koshergrl

Good grief. I suppose mental illness is it's own language.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting considering there are primarily still two differing interpretations of "the law".  Which one do you adhere to.  It's an easy question, all it takes is a simple (forthright) answer as opposed to "I know what I mean and you should to" kindergarten tactics.
> Oh and if you don't like your game being turned back on you.........
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't been turning any Thing back on me as long as you are the one resorting to fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty much the answer I thought I'd get back, dodge and evade, dodge and evade.  How much time have you done in the "big house" as a con artist?  (Senator in the Senate............. )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment. it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, shades of Dante.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thank you for ceding the point and the argument, dear.
Click to expand...

Shades of Dante........


----------



## Ringel05

koshergrl said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment. it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it's been to the highest court. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that alternative hasn't; only the current frivolity in legal venues has lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief, speaka da ingles.
Click to expand...

It's an old self aggrandizing ploy, make a semi-cryptic statement that could be taken at least two ways and see who takes the bait, and which way they take it then indulge in smug self satisfaction at making light of those who don't take it the way the author intends.   Grade school antics.


----------



## koshergrl

Ringel05 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment. it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it's been to the highest court. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that alternative hasn't; only the current frivolity in legal venues has lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief, speaka da ingles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an old self aggrandizing ploy, make a semi-cryptic statement that could be taken at least two ways and see who takes the bait, and which way they take it then indulge in smug self satisfaction at making light of those who don't take it the way the author intends.   Grade school antics.
Click to expand...

 
It's also indicative of a huge degree of stupid hubris. The dude ISN'T a great writer, but plays one on the internet. And thinks it makes him sophisticated and clever..instead of sad and idiotic.

They also seem to think the level to which they cannot speak intelligible English defines the level of their superiority. The more people who can't understand me, why, the smarter I must be!

They forget that nonsensical commentary is just insane droning, and intelligence is actually rated by how ACCURATELY and CONCISELY you can relay IDEAS to anyone you are talking to.


----------



## danielpalos

koshergrl said:


> Good grief. I suppose mental illness is it's own language.


yes, it is termed and styled, cognitive dissonance; now you know why I strive to resort to the fewest fallacies.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't been turning any Thing back on me as long as you are the one resorting to fallacies.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much the answer I thought I'd get back, dodge and evade, dodge and evade.  How much time have you done in the "big house" as a con artist?  (Senator in the Senate............. )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment. it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, shades of Dante.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thank you for ceding the point and the argument, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shades of Dante........
Click to expand...

No "Shades" at all; there is simply no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws; it really is that simple, except to the right.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment. it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it's been to the highest court. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that alternative hasn't; only the current frivolity in legal venues has lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief, speaka da ingles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an old self aggrandizing ploy, make a semi-cryptic statement that could be taken at least two ways and see who takes the bait, and which way they take it then indulge in smug self satisfaction at making light of those who don't take it the way the author intends.   Grade school antics.
Click to expand...

It is as clear as the sky during a drought of any appeals to ignorance; only those of your point of view don't seem to have a clue or a Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

koshergrl said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment. it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it's been to the highest court. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that alternative hasn't; only the current frivolity in legal venues has lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief, speaka da ingles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an old self aggrandizing ploy, make a semi-cryptic statement that could be taken at least two ways and see who takes the bait, and which way they take it then indulge in smug self satisfaction at making light of those who don't take it the way the author intends.   Grade school antics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also indicative of a huge degree of stupid hubris. The dude ISN'T a great writer, but plays one on the internet. And thinks it makes him sophisticated and clever..instead of sad and idiotic.
> 
> They also seem to think the level to which they cannot speak intelligible English defines the level of their superiority. The more people who can't understand me, why, the smarter I must be!
> 
> They forget that nonsensical commentary is just insane droning, and intelligence is actually rated by how ACCURATELY and CONCISELY you can relay IDEAS to anyone you are talking to.
Click to expand...

too bad diversions are still, usually considered fallacies.  why not get a clue and a Cause?


----------



## koshergrl

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment. it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it's been to the highest court. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that alternative hasn't; only the current frivolity in legal venues has lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief, speaka da ingles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an old self aggrandizing ploy, make a semi-cryptic statement that could be taken at least two ways and see who takes the bait, and which way they take it then indulge in smug self satisfaction at making light of those who don't take it the way the author intends.   Grade school antics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is as clear as the sky during a drought of any appeals to ignorance; only those of your point of view don't seem to have a clue or a Cause.
Click to expand...

 
That's not English. Nor is it even a sentence.


----------



## Iceweasel

danielpalos said:


> It is as clear as the sky during a drought of any appeals to ignorance; only those of your point of view don't seem to have a clue or a Cause.


The Cause of the Intent is Manifested in the vernacular of the day heightened by the extrapolations of the Hypotenuse of the various Aspects of the Interpretations. 

Here's an example:


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less our supreme law of the land. well regulated militias of the United States already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment. it is only gun lovers who are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" who are complaining.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it's been to the highest court. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that alternative hasn't; only the current frivolity in legal venues has lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief, speaka da ingles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an old self aggrandizing ploy, make a semi-cryptic statement that could be taken at least two ways and see who takes the bait, and which way they take it then indulge in smug self satisfaction at making light of those who don't take it the way the author intends.   Grade school antics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is as clear as the sky during a drought of any appeals to ignorance; only those of your point of view don't seem to have a clue or a Cause.
Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming my assessment.


----------



## danielpalos

koshergrl said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it's been to the highest court. You lost.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that alternative hasn't; only the current frivolity in legal venues has lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief, speaka da ingles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an old self aggrandizing ploy, make a semi-cryptic statement that could be taken at least two ways and see who takes the bait, and which way they take it then indulge in smug self satisfaction at making light of those who don't take it the way the author intends.   Grade school antics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is as clear as the sky during a drought of any appeals to ignorance; only those of your point of view don't seem to have a clue or a Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not English. Nor is it even a sentence.
Click to expand...

sure it is; you merely need a clue and a Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

Iceweasel said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is as clear as the sky during a drought of any appeals to ignorance; only those of your point of view don't seem to have a clue or a Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> The Cause of the Intent is Manifested in the vernacular of the day heightened by the extrapolations of the Hypotenuse of the various Aspects of the Interpretations.
> 
> Here's an example:
Click to expand...

The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of it.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it's been to the highest court. You lost.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that alternative hasn't; only the current frivolity in legal venues has lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief, speaka da ingles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an old self aggrandizing ploy, make a semi-cryptic statement that could be taken at least two ways and see who takes the bait, and which way they take it then indulge in smug self satisfaction at making light of those who don't take it the way the author intends.   Grade school antics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is as clear as the sky during a drought of any appeals to ignorance; only those of your point of view don't seem to have a clue or a Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for confirming my assessment.
Click to expand...

Thank you for having nothing but fallacy to work with, and ceding the point and the argument, as a result of your lack of being able to come up with a valid argument for a valid rebuttal.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that alternative hasn't; only the current frivolity in legal venues has lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief, speaka da ingles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an old self aggrandizing ploy, make a semi-cryptic statement that could be taken at least two ways and see who takes the bait, and which way they take it then indulge in smug self satisfaction at making light of those who don't take it the way the author intends.   Grade school antics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is as clear as the sky during a drought of any appeals to ignorance; only those of your point of view don't seem to have a clue or a Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for confirming my assessment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for having nothing but fallacy to work with, and ceding the point and the argument, as a result of your lack of being able to come up with a valid argument for a valid rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're a politician.........  one step below a lawyer, who is lower than whale shit.  I'm not trying to rebut anything you've posted....... yet
I'll make it easy for ya Sparky, define militia in the historical context of the founding fathers.  If you refuse, dodge, obfuscate or continue to play the broken record then I'll dismiss you for a clueless hack or an infantile troll.  No problem.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf are you babbling about? Do YOU even know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you don't have a clue or a Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well when the author doesn't even know wtf he's saying, how the hell is the reader supposed to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who don't have a clue or a Cause, say that.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; that includes the Intent and Purpose.
Click to expand...


Say what? Just wtf are you babbling about?


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief, speaka da ingles.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an old self aggrandizing ploy, make a semi-cryptic statement that could be taken at least two ways and see who takes the bait, and which way they take it then indulge in smug self satisfaction at making light of those who don't take it the way the author intends.   Grade school antics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is as clear as the sky during a drought of any appeals to ignorance; only those of your point of view don't seem to have a clue or a Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for confirming my assessment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for having nothing but fallacy to work with, and ceding the point and the argument, as a result of your lack of being able to come up with a valid argument for a valid rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, you're a politician.........  one step below a lawyer, who is lower than whale shit.  I'm not trying to rebut anything you've posted....... yet
> I'll make it easy for ya Sparky, define militia in the historical context of the founding fathers.  If you refuse, dodge, obfuscate or continue to play the broken record then I'll dismiss you for a clueless hack or an infantile troll.  No problem.
Click to expand...

Dude, you really do need a clue and a Cause.  There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf are you babbling about? Do YOU even know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you don't have a clue or a Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well when the author doesn't even know wtf he's saying, how the hell is the reader supposed to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who don't have a clue or a Cause, say that.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say what? Just wtf are you babbling about?
Click to expand...

Your lack of a clue or a Cause sufficient for you to acquire and possess, any form of standing.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an old self aggrandizing ploy, make a semi-cryptic statement that could be taken at least two ways and see who takes the bait, and which way they take it then indulge in smug self satisfaction at making light of those who don't take it the way the author intends.   Grade school antics.
> 
> 
> 
> It is as clear as the sky during a drought of any appeals to ignorance; only those of your point of view don't seem to have a clue or a Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for confirming my assessment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for having nothing but fallacy to work with, and ceding the point and the argument, as a result of your lack of being able to come up with a valid argument for a valid rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, you're a politician.........  one step below a lawyer, who is lower than whale shit.  I'm not trying to rebut anything you've posted....... yet
> I'll make it easy for ya Sparky, define militia in the historical context of the founding fathers.  If you refuse, dodge, obfuscate or continue to play the broken record then I'll dismiss you for a clueless hack or an infantile troll.  No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you really do need a clue and a Cause.  There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.
Click to expand...

Answered my question the way I thought you would, have a nice life troll.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is as clear as the sky during a drought of any appeals to ignorance; only those of your point of view don't seem to have a clue or a Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming my assessment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for having nothing but fallacy to work with, and ceding the point and the argument, as a result of your lack of being able to come up with a valid argument for a valid rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, you're a politician.........  one step below a lawyer, who is lower than whale shit.  I'm not trying to rebut anything you've posted....... yet
> I'll make it easy for ya Sparky, define militia in the historical context of the founding fathers.  If you refuse, dodge, obfuscate or continue to play the broken record then I'll dismiss you for a clueless hack or an infantile troll.  No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you really do need a clue and a Cause.  There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answered my question the way I thought you would, have a nice life troll.
Click to expand...

dude, even Ogres have better arguments than Trolls, like yourself.  There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming my assessment.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for having nothing but fallacy to work with, and ceding the point and the argument, as a result of your lack of being able to come up with a valid argument for a valid rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, you're a politician.........  one step below a lawyer, who is lower than whale shit.  I'm not trying to rebut anything you've posted....... yet
> I'll make it easy for ya Sparky, define militia in the historical context of the founding fathers.  If you refuse, dodge, obfuscate or continue to play the broken record then I'll dismiss you for a clueless hack or an infantile troll.  No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you really do need a clue and a Cause.  There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answered my question the way I thought you would, have a nice life troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, even Ogres have better arguments than Trolls, like yourself.  There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.
Click to expand...

Finally you partially answered the question, amazing!!  Now for the for the rest of it, your interpretation.  Is your view based on the modern concept that only includes what you have posted or the Original Intent of the founding fathers based on their concept of militia AND their writings clearly defining what they meant when they included the militia clause AND the shall not be infringed determination?


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf are you babbling about? Do YOU even know?
> 
> 
> 
> I know you don't have a clue or a Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well when the author doesn't even know wtf he's saying, how the hell is the reader supposed to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who don't have a clue or a Cause, say that.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say what? Just wtf are you babbling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your lack of a clue or a Cause sufficient for you to acquire and possess, any form of standing.
Click to expand...


Jesus you are fucking stupid. Wtf does that have to do with my original statement idiot?


----------



## PredFan

Poor poor liberal gun grabbers. They have been getting their asses beat so hard and so often by the NRA and freedom loving people that it has caused their minds to unhinge even more than usual.

Funny shit that!


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for having nothing but fallacy to work with, and ceding the point and the argument, as a result of your lack of being able to come up with a valid argument for a valid rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're a politician.........  one step below a lawyer, who is lower than whale shit.  I'm not trying to rebut anything you've posted....... yet
> I'll make it easy for ya Sparky, define militia in the historical context of the founding fathers.  If you refuse, dodge, obfuscate or continue to play the broken record then I'll dismiss you for a clueless hack or an infantile troll.  No problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you really do need a clue and a Cause.  There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answered my question the way I thought you would, have a nice life troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, even Ogres have better arguments than Trolls, like yourself.  There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally you partially answered the question, amazing!!  Now for the for the rest of it, your interpretation.  Is your view based on the modern concept that only includes what you have posted or the Original Intent of the founding fathers based on their concept of militia AND their writings clearly defining what they meant when they included the militia clause AND the shall not be infringed determination?
Click to expand...

Ok. since I am on the liberal left and a patriot to the federal Cause; here it is in a nutshell,

_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._

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.

10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.

Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated enough to be organized.

Only well regulated militias of the United States are necessary to the security of the several United States, should their be Any need to quibble, regardless of any (Southern) Cause.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're a politician.........  one step below a lawyer, who is lower than whale shit.  I'm not trying to rebut anything you've posted....... yet
> I'll make it easy for ya Sparky, define militia in the historical context of the founding fathers.  If you refuse, dodge, obfuscate or continue to play the broken record then I'll dismiss you for a clueless hack or an infantile troll.  No problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you really do need a clue and a Cause.  There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answered my question the way I thought you would, have a nice life troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, even Ogres have better arguments than Trolls, like yourself.  There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally you partially answered the question, amazing!!  Now for the for the rest of it, your interpretation.  Is your view based on the modern concept that only includes what you have posted or the Original Intent of the founding fathers based on their concept of militia AND their writings clearly defining what they meant when they included the militia clause AND the shall not be infringed determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. since I am on the liberal left and a patriot to the federal Cause; here it is in a nutshell,
> 
> _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._
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.
> 
> 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.
> 
> Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated enough to be organized.
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States are necessary to the security of the several United States, should their be Any need to quibble, regardless of any (Southern) Cause.
Click to expand...

And based on the writings of the founding fathers, the laws in place in the colonies which remained in force when each colony became a state AND the historical context (their concept of not only militia but specifically HOW they wrote it) which differs from your MODERN interpretation, you'd be wrong.  
Beside SCOTUS disagrees with you........ go figure. 
My suggestion is do some historical research, both in documentation and the cultural aspect (what and how they thought as well as the meanings of words in there era which have "evolved" today) and if you still believe what you do now then it's by choice, bereft of any basis in fact, remember Original Intent is always the key.


----------



## Ringel05

Also your concept of militia is modern (to include modern armories), not at all what the founding fathers called a militia or what armories were used for in the 1700s and 1800s.


----------



## PredFan

Ok, let's get back to the point of this thread; the liberal gun grabbers getting bitch-slapped by the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, and the American People.

In this latest slapping, a law against state to state transfer of weapons was shot down:

BREAKING Federal Judge Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban - The Truth About Guns


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you really do need a clue and a Cause.  There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.
> 
> 
> 
> Answered my question the way I thought you would, have a nice life troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, even Ogres have better arguments than Trolls, like yourself.  There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally you partially answered the question, amazing!!  Now for the for the rest of it, your interpretation.  Is your view based on the modern concept that only includes what you have posted or the Original Intent of the founding fathers based on their concept of militia AND their writings clearly defining what they meant when they included the militia clause AND the shall not be infringed determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. since I am on the liberal left and a patriot to the federal Cause; here it is in a nutshell,
> 
> _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._
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.
> 
> 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.
> 
> Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated enough to be organized.
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States are necessary to the security of the several United States, should their be Any need to quibble, regardless of any (Southern) Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And based on the writings of the founding fathers, the laws in place in the colonies which remained in force when each colony became a state AND the historical context (their concept of not only militia but specifically HOW they wrote it) which differs from your MODERN interpretation, you'd be wrong.
> Beside SCOTUS disagrees with you........ go figure.
> My suggestion is do some historical research, both in documentation and the cultural aspect (what and how they thought as well as the meanings of words in there era which have "evolved" today) and if you still believe what you do now then it's by choice, bereft of any basis in fact, remember Original Intent is always the key.
Click to expand...

Dude, There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.  10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.  Any Thing else is a simple, Appeal to Ignorance.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> Also your concept of militia is modern (to include modern armories), not at all what the founding fathers called a militia or what armories were used for in the 1700s and 1800s.


Dude, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.  10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> Ok, let's get back to the point of this thread; the liberal gun grabbers getting bitch-slapped by the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, and the American People.
> 
> In this latest slapping, a law against state to state transfer of weapons was shot down:
> 
> BREAKING Federal Judge Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban - The Truth About Guns


So what; just the right (hand) slapping itself (which can be quite a feat in itself), through the cognitive dissonance of Appealing to Ignorance of our Commerce Clause.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let's get back to the point of this thread; the liberal gun grabbers getting bitch-slapped by the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, and the American People.
> 
> In this latest slapping, a law against state to state transfer of weapons was shot down:
> 
> BREAKING Federal Judge Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban - The Truth About Guns
> 
> 
> 
> So what; just the right (hand) slapping itself (which can be quite a feat in itself), through the cognitive dissonance of Appealing to Ignorance of our Commerce Clause.
Click to expand...


Meh, it's a win for us and a loss for the statists. That's the point.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answered my question the way I thought you would, have a nice life troll.
> 
> 
> 
> dude, even Ogres have better arguments than Trolls, like yourself.  There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally you partially answered the question, amazing!!  Now for the for the rest of it, your interpretation.  Is your view based on the modern concept that only includes what you have posted or the Original Intent of the founding fathers based on their concept of militia AND their writings clearly defining what they meant when they included the militia clause AND the shall not be infringed determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. since I am on the liberal left and a patriot to the federal Cause; here it is in a nutshell,
> 
> _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._
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.
> 
> 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.
> 
> Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated enough to be organized.
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States are necessary to the security of the several United States, should their be Any need to quibble, regardless of any (Southern) Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And based on the writings of the founding fathers, the laws in place in the colonies which remained in force when each colony became a state AND the historical context (their concept of not only militia but specifically HOW they wrote it) which differs from your MODERN interpretation, you'd be wrong.
> Beside SCOTUS disagrees with you........ go figure.
> My suggestion is do some historical research, both in documentation and the cultural aspect (what and how they thought as well as the meanings of words in there era which have "evolved" today) and if you still believe what you do now then it's by choice, bereft of any basis in fact, remember Original Intent is always the key.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.  10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.  Any Thing else is a simple, Appeal to Ignorance.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, a zealot.  Bet you hope that if you keep repeating your lie often enough people will believe it.  

I guess Original Intent means nothing to you tovarich.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, even Ogres have better arguments than Trolls, like yourself.  There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally you partially answered the question, amazing!!  Now for the for the rest of it, your interpretation.  Is your view based on the modern concept that only includes what you have posted or the Original Intent of the founding fathers based on their concept of militia AND their writings clearly defining what they meant when they included the militia clause AND the shall not be infringed determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. since I am on the liberal left and a patriot to the federal Cause; here it is in a nutshell,
> 
> _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._
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.
> 
> 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.
> 
> Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated enough to be organized.
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States are necessary to the security of the several United States, should their be Any need to quibble, regardless of any (Southern) Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And based on the writings of the founding fathers, the laws in place in the colonies which remained in force when each colony became a state AND the historical context (their concept of not only militia but specifically HOW they wrote it) which differs from your MODERN interpretation, you'd be wrong.
> Beside SCOTUS disagrees with you........ go figure.
> My suggestion is do some historical research, both in documentation and the cultural aspect (what and how they thought as well as the meanings of words in there era which have "evolved" today) and if you still believe what you do now then it's by choice, bereft of any basis in fact, remember Original Intent is always the key.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.  10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.  Any Thing else is a simple, Appeal to Ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah yes, a zealot.  Bet you hope that if you keep repeating your lie often enough people will believe it.
> 
> I guess Original Intent means nothing to you tovarich.
Click to expand...


dude, what part of the original Intent and Purpose do you suppose you have to appeal to ignorance of, to advance such an unsound line of reasoning?

_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._


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let's get back to the point of this thread; the liberal gun grabbers getting bitch-slapped by the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, and the American People.
> 
> In this latest slapping, a law against state to state transfer of weapons was shot down:
> 
> BREAKING Federal Judge Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban - The Truth About Guns
> 
> 
> 
> So what; just the right (hand) slapping itself (which can be quite a feat in itself), through the cognitive dissonance of Appealing to Ignorance of our Commerce Clause.
Click to expand...

Apparently you only selectively read it.  While the court say the government had a compelling reason within the realm of citizen safety it


danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally you partially answered the question, amazing!!  Now for the for the rest of it, your interpretation.  Is your view based on the modern concept that only includes what you have posted or the Original Intent of the founding fathers based on their concept of militia AND their writings clearly defining what they meant when they included the militia clause AND the shall not be infringed determination?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. since I am on the liberal left and a patriot to the federal Cause; here it is in a nutshell,
> 
> _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._
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.
> 
> 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.
> 
> Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated enough to be organized.
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States are necessary to the security of the several United States, should their be Any need to quibble, regardless of any (Southern) Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And based on the writings of the founding fathers, the laws in place in the colonies which remained in force when each colony became a state AND the historical context (their concept of not only militia but specifically HOW they wrote it) which differs from your MODERN interpretation, you'd be wrong.
> Beside SCOTUS disagrees with you........ go figure.
> My suggestion is do some historical research, both in documentation and the cultural aspect (what and how they thought as well as the meanings of words in there era which have "evolved" today) and if you still believe what you do now then it's by choice, bereft of any basis in fact, remember Original Intent is always the key.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.  10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.  Any Thing else is a simple, Appeal to Ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah yes, a zealot.  Bet you hope that if you keep repeating your lie often enough people will believe it.
> 
> I guess Original Intent means nothing to you tovarich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude, what part of the original Intent and Purpose do you suppose you have to appeal to ignorance of, to advance such an unsound line of reasoning?
> 
> _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._
Click to expand...

I already told you, you chose to ignore or reject it in favor of your own MODERN world view.  I can't help it if you don't or won't get it and opt to continue your line of rationality.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let's get back to the point of this thread; the liberal gun grabbers getting bitch-slapped by the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, and the American People.
> 
> In this latest slapping, a law against state to state transfer of weapons was shot down:
> 
> BREAKING Federal Judge Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban - The Truth About Guns
> 
> 
> 
> So what; just the right (hand) slapping itself (which can be quite a feat in itself), through the cognitive dissonance of Appealing to Ignorance of our Commerce Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you only selectively read it.  While the court say the government had a compelling reason within the realm of citizen safety it
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. since I am on the liberal left and a patriot to the federal Cause; here it is in a nutshell,
> 
> _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._
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.
> 
> 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.
> 
> Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated enough to be organized.
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States are necessary to the security of the several United States, should their be Any need to quibble, regardless of any (Southern) Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And based on the writings of the founding fathers, the laws in place in the colonies which remained in force when each colony became a state AND the historical context (their concept of not only militia but specifically HOW they wrote it) which differs from your MODERN interpretation, you'd be wrong.
> Beside SCOTUS disagrees with you........ go figure.
> My suggestion is do some historical research, both in documentation and the cultural aspect (what and how they thought as well as the meanings of words in there era which have "evolved" today) and if you still believe what you do now then it's by choice, bereft of any basis in fact, remember Original Intent is always the key.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.  10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.  Any Thing else is a simple, Appeal to Ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah yes, a zealot.  Bet you hope that if you keep repeating your lie often enough people will believe it.
> 
> I guess Original Intent means nothing to you tovarich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude, what part of the original Intent and Purpose do you suppose you have to appeal to ignorance of, to advance such an unsound line of reasoning?
> 
> _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._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already told you, you chose to ignore or reject it in favor of your own MODERN world view.  I can't help it if you don't or won't get it and opt to continue your line of rationality.
Click to expand...

Nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy for your Cause; i got it.  

_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of Any law, much less our supreme law of the land.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let's get back to the point of this thread; the liberal gun grabbers getting bitch-slapped by the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, and the American People.
> 
> In this latest slapping, a law against state to state transfer of weapons was shot down:
> 
> BREAKING Federal Judge Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban - The Truth About Guns
> 
> 
> 
> So what; just the right (hand) slapping itself (which can be quite a feat in itself), through the cognitive dissonance of Appealing to Ignorance of our Commerce Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you only selectively read it.  While the court say the government had a compelling reason within the realm of citizen safety it
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And based on the writings of the founding fathers, the laws in place in the colonies which remained in force when each colony became a state AND the historical context (their concept of not only militia but specifically HOW they wrote it) which differs from your MODERN interpretation, you'd be wrong.
> Beside SCOTUS disagrees with you........ go figure.
> My suggestion is do some historical research, both in documentation and the cultural aspect (what and how they thought as well as the meanings of words in there era which have "evolved" today) and if you still believe what you do now then it's by choice, bereft of any basis in fact, remember Original Intent is always the key.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.  10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.  Any Thing else is a simple, Appeal to Ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah yes, a zealot.  Bet you hope that if you keep repeating your lie often enough people will believe it.
> 
> I guess Original Intent means nothing to you tovarich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude, what part of the original Intent and Purpose do you suppose you have to appeal to ignorance of, to advance such an unsound line of reasoning?
> 
> _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._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already told you, you chose to ignore or reject it in favor of your own MODERN world view.  I can't help it if you don't or won't get it and opt to continue your line of rationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy for your Cause; i got it.  *
> 
> _A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of Any law, much less our supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...

Projection suits you.


----------



## danielpalos

No Thing but sublime Truth (value) through argumentation here, unless you can show any fallacies.


----------



## PredFan

Lubricated with the greasy tears of liberals.


----------



## danielpalos

so what; only gun lovers who can't seem to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns, are the only ones complaining about a lack of literal recourse to our Second Amendment, simply because Only that which is Necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for that State or the Union.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> so what; only gun lovers who can't seem to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns, are the only ones complaining about a lack of literal recourse to our Second Amendment, simply because Only that which is Necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for that State or the Union.



ZZZZZzzzzzzz........what's that? Oh, it's just a liberal nut job who thinks just because he spoke a thing, that thing is correct.
ZZZZZZZzzzzzz......


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only gun lovers who can't seem to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns, are the only ones complaining about a lack of literal recourse to our Second Amendment, simply because Only that which is Necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for that State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ZZZZZzzzzzzz........what's that? Oh, it's just a liberal nut job who thinks just because he spoke a thing, that thing is correct.
> ZZZZZZZzzzzzz......
Click to expand...

It isn't my fault you slept through love them and make them great class instead of use them and lose them class.

*"Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *

― G.K. Chesterton


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only gun lovers who can't seem to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns, are the only ones complaining about a lack of literal recourse to our Second Amendment, simply because Only that which is Necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for that State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ZZZZZzzzzzzz........what's that? Oh, it's just a liberal nut job who thinks just because he spoke a thing, that thing is correct.
> ZZZZZZZzzzzzz......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't my fault you slept through love them and make them great class instead of use them and lose them class.
> 
> *Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
> 
> ― G.K. Chesterton
Click to expand...


ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz.....

Poor ignorant liberal gun grabber. The NRA has been kicking your ignorant asses for several years now and it has unhinged you. Just crawl back under your rock, lick your wounds and live to fight another day


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only gun lovers who can't seem to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns, are the only ones complaining about a lack of literal recourse to our Second Amendment, simply because Only that which is Necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for that State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ZZZZZzzzzzzz........what's that? Oh, it's just a liberal nut job who thinks just because he spoke a thing, that thing is correct.
> ZZZZZZZzzzzzz......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't my fault you slept through love them and make them great class instead of use them and lose them class.
> 
> *Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
> 
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz.....
> 
> Poor ignorant liberal gun grabber. The NRA has been kicking your ignorant asses for several years now and it has unhinged you. Just crawl back under your rock, lick your wounds and live to fight another day
Click to expand...

Nothing but diversion; i got it.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only gun lovers who can't seem to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns, are the only ones complaining about a lack of literal recourse to our Second Amendment, simply because Only that which is Necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for that State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ZZZZZzzzzzzz........what's that? Oh, it's just a liberal nut job who thinks just because he spoke a thing, that thing is correct.
> ZZZZZZZzzzzzz......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't my fault you slept through love them and make them great class instead of use them and lose them class.
> 
> *Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
> 
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz.....
> 
> Poor ignorant liberal gun grabber. The NRA has been kicking your ignorant asses for several years now and it has unhinged you. Just crawl back under your rock, lick your wounds and live to fight another day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion; i got it.
Click to expand...


It's all over this thread nut job, you guy's are getting your asses handed to you. Read it and weep.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only gun lovers who can't seem to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns, are the only ones complaining about a lack of literal recourse to our Second Amendment, simply because Only that which is Necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for that State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ZZZZZzzzzzzz........what's that? Oh, it's just a liberal nut job who thinks just because he spoke a thing, that thing is correct.
> ZZZZZZZzzzzzz......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't my fault you slept through love them and make them great class instead of use them and lose them class.
> 
> *Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
> 
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz.....
> 
> Poor ignorant liberal gun grabber. The NRA has been kicking your ignorant asses for several years now and it has unhinged you. Just crawl back under your rock, lick your wounds and live to fight another day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all over this thread nut job, you guy's are getting your asses handed to you. Read it and weep.
Click to expand...

dude, have you ever heard of the Patton doctrine (of argumentation) and getting the other fellow to resort to fallacy for his Cause, first.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ZZZZZzzzzzzz........what's that? Oh, it's just a liberal nut job who thinks just because he spoke a thing, that thing is correct.
> ZZZZZZZzzzzzz......
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't my fault you slept through love them and make them great class instead of use them and lose them class.
> 
> *Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
> 
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz.....
> 
> Poor ignorant liberal gun grabber. The NRA has been kicking your ignorant asses for several years now and it has unhinged you. Just crawl back under your rock, lick your wounds and live to fight another day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all over this thread nut job, you guy's are getting your asses handed to you. Read it and weep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, have you ever heard of the Patton doctrine (of argumentation) and getting the other fellow to resort to fallacy for his Cause, first.
Click to expand...


Blah blah blah. Like the majority of your posts, YOU don't even know the meaning of the things you say. You smell of Butthurt and desperation.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't my fault you slept through love them and make them great class instead of use them and lose them class.
> 
> *Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
> 
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz.....
> 
> Poor ignorant liberal gun grabber. The NRA has been kicking your ignorant asses for several years now and it has unhinged you. Just crawl back under your rock, lick your wounds and live to fight another day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all over this thread nut job, you guy's are getting your asses handed to you. Read it and weep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, have you ever heard of the Patton doctrine (of argumentation) and getting the other fellow to resort to fallacy for his Cause, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah. Like the majority of your posts, YOU don't even know the meaning of the things you say. You smell of Butthurt and desperation.
Click to expand...

too bad the one who is resorting to the most fallacies, is you.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz.....
> 
> Poor ignorant liberal gun grabber. The NRA has been kicking your ignorant asses for several years now and it has unhinged you. Just crawl back under your rock, lick your wounds and live to fight another day
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all over this thread nut job, you guy's are getting your asses handed to you. Read it and weep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, have you ever heard of the Patton doctrine (of argumentation) and getting the other fellow to resort to fallacy for his Cause, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah. Like the majority of your posts, YOU don't even know the meaning of the things you say. You smell of Butthurt and desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too bad the one who is resorting to the most fallacies, is you.
Click to expand...


You have no clue what that means. I'm surprised you can even spell it.

The Butthurt is strong with you.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## westwall

PredFan said:


> It hasn't been a good year for them. The NRA is winning major battles despite the super Rich's money going against them. Gun sales and ownership is up, more and more women are toting, and crime is going down because of it. Liberals weep for the non-loss of life:
> What Happened to Chicago s Crime Rate When Illinois Relaxed Gun Control Laws








But, but, but....any progressive will tell you that gun ownership's dropping every day!  Sucks to be them!


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion; i got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all over this thread nut job, you guy's are getting your asses handed to you. Read it and weep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, have you ever heard of the Patton doctrine (of argumentation) and getting the other fellow to resort to fallacy for his Cause, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah. Like the majority of your posts, YOU don't even know the meaning of the things you say. You smell of Butthurt and desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too bad the one who is resorting to the most fallacies, is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no clue what that means. I'm surprised you can even spell it.
> 
> The Butthurt is strong with you.
Click to expand...

_nothing but diversion you have.  m. yoda._


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all over this thread nut job, you guy's are getting your asses handed to you. Read it and weep.
> 
> 
> 
> dude, have you ever heard of the Patton doctrine (of argumentation) and getting the other fellow to resort to fallacy for his Cause, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah. Like the majority of your posts, YOU don't even know the meaning of the things you say. You smell of Butthurt and desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too bad the one who is resorting to the most fallacies, is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no clue what that means. I'm surprised you can even spell it.
> 
> The Butthurt is strong with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _nothing but diversion you have.  m. yoda._
Click to expand...


ZZZZZZZzzzzzzz......


----------



## LOki

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And this a straw man fallacy because you misrepresent the position of your political opponents, as no 'liberal' advocates 'taking' guns, nor do they advocate disallowing citizens carrying guns for lawful self-defense.


You are wrong, Senator Feinstein.

All you need do is look at the gun-control initiatives that self-identifying liberals--documented members of liberal coalitions and the liberal party--advocate, and it is abundantly and unambiguously clear that general civilian disarmament is what they advocate.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, have you ever heard of the Patton doctrine (of argumentation) and getting the other fellow to resort to fallacy for his Cause, first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah. Like the majority of your posts, YOU don't even know the meaning of the things you say. You smell of Butthurt and desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too bad the one who is resorting to the most fallacies, is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no clue what that means. I'm surprised you can even spell it.
> 
> The Butthurt is strong with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _nothing but diversion you have.  m. yoda._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ZZZZZZZzzzzzzz......
Click to expand...


We have a Commerce Clause and a Second Amendment; why do you believe only gun lovers of the People are denied and disparaged literal recourse to our Second Amendment as citizens in the several States when they are not entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia"?


----------



## Gunman

The Stupid Gun Grabbers Are too Stupid to Know that their are 4 or 5 GUNS for ever HUMAN in the USA...
Some Folks own a 100 guns and some folks own Zero guns... NO way of knowing who has what....NO way of knowing WHERE all them guns ARE... It would take a really Stupid Kind of Stupid person to ask or tell Americans to give up their guns so that ONLY the BAD guys will have guns ...O-yes and that would include the BAD DEM, government.. BAD DEM.Gov. says you can smoke Dope & kill Babies  BUT you must give up your Guns... How Stupid can you get...???


----------



## LOki

Saigon said:


> It's all going so well in the US! Excellent!
> 
> You must be thrilled, man.
> 
> And THIS is what you are celebtrating:


No. What's your point?

You think your "gun related" tautology makes a meaningful point? Or is it just your hysteria informing your position?


----------



## danielpalos

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.


----------



## LOki

Saigon said:


> PredFan -
> 
> Please try to stay on topic. You did start this thread, afterall.
> 
> Let me ask - looking at the graph, would you say that US gun laws are performing well when compared to other countries?


They most certainly are--from a total rate of violent crime perspective. You see, rational people don't validate the dopey notion that "gun-related" things are extra bad.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.


Nonsense.

"The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.

That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> "The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.
> 
> That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.
Click to expand...


Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established. 

Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> "The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.
> 
> That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.
> 
> Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.

2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.

3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.

If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.

The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> "The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.
> 
> That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.
Click to expand...




> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.
> 
> Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.





> Nonsense.
> 
> 1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.
> 
> 2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.
> 
> 3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.
> 
> If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.
> 
> The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.

_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._


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> "The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.
> 
> That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.
> 
> Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.
> 
> 2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.
> 
> 3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.
> 
> If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.
> 
> The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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._
Click to expand...

"Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.

It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> "The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.
> 
> That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.
> 
> Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.
> 
> 2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.
> 
> 3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.
> 
> If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.
> 
> The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.
> 
> It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.  Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.


----------



## Gunman

A gun is only a tool... Most Dumb Ass, Stupid folks.. Never learn how to use tools... Most can't drive very good also... But CAN smoke Dope & get Knocked-Up ... and look for a Hand Out.... !!!!!   You Say...?????


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> "The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.
> 
> That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.
> 
> Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.
> 
> 2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.
> 
> 3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.
> 
> If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.
> 
> The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.
> 
> It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.
Click to expand...

No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.

Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.

I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.



danielpalos said:


> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.


I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.

Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Pumpkin?



danielpalos said:


> Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.


I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.

Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?


----------



## Ringel05

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> "The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.
> 
> That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.
> 
> Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.
> 
> 2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.
> 
> 3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.
> 
> If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.
> 
> The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.
> 
> It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.
> 
> Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.
> 
> Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.
> 
> Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?
Click to expand...

I tried logic, reason and fact all to no avail, what we have here is a doctrinaire, committed in its belief the repeating of a lie often enough will ultimately convince people of its "truth".........  
The best approach with such a fanatic is to ostracize by exclusion or by derision.


----------



## LOki

Ringel05 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> "The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.
> 
> That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.
> 
> Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.
> 
> 2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.
> 
> 3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.
> 
> If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.
> 
> The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.
> 
> It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.
> 
> Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.
> 
> Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.
> 
> Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tried logic, reason and fact all to no avail, what we have here is a doctrinaire, committed in its belief the repeating of a lie often enough will ultimately convince people of its "truth".........
> The best approach with such a fanatic is to ostracize by exclusion or by derision.
Click to expand...

More easily done than said.

More amusing too.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> "The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.
> 
> That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.
> 
> Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.
> 
> 2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.
> 
> 3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.
> 
> If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.
> 
> The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.
> 
> It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.
> 
> Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.
> 
> Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.
> 
> Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?
Click to expand...


Ok, How are rights in private property secured for the entirety of the Militia of the United States when Only well regulated Militias (of the several United States) are declared Necessary to the security of a free State and therefore, not to be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Our Second Article of Amendment is Not a Constitution unto itself.

Dudes and Esquires, 

Should we wager that those of the opposing view have nothing but fallacy for their Cause and that form of Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> "The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.
> 
> That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.
> 
> Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.
> 
> 2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.
> 
> 3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.
> 
> If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.
> 
> The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.
> 
> It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.
> 
> Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.
> 
> Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.
> 
> Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, How are rights in private property secured for the entirety of the Militia of the United States ...
Click to expand...

While arms are certainly property, the issue is not property rights, but rather the explicit assertion that the right of the people (NOT militias) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The "well regulated militia" and "security of a free state" referenced are dependent upon the "right" explicitly and unambiguously identified--the "right" is in no way premised or dependent upon belonging to a militia or action to preserve the security of a free state.

Your premise is both irrelevant and faulty.



danielpalos said:


> ...when Only well regulated Militias (of the several United States) are declared Necessary to the security of a free State ...


But not exclusively so.



danielpalos said:


> ...and therefore, not to be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


Again, you insist upon putting the cart before the horse.

The security of a free state is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent (NOT a constraint) upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Thus the positive assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



danielpalos said:


> Our Second Article of Amendment is Not a Constitution unto itself.


I didn't declare that it was.




danielpalos said:


> Dudes and Esquires,
> 
> Should we wager that those of the opposing view have nothing but fallacy for their Cause and that form of Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.


I suspect that you were once painfully delivered a full course of butthurt having your own Appeal to Ignorance exposed. This would neatly explain why you repeatedly invoke Appeal to Ignorance like a magic talisman whenever you have no substantive rebuttal or logically valid argument.

I am incapable of breaking it to you any more gently than this, Pumpkin: You clearly have no idea what "Appeal to Ignorance" means, as evidenced by your improper use of the term. You should really look it up before you use it again.

Or demonstrate how I have made such an appeal.

I have no apprehensions that you'll even try.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> 
> "Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.
> 
> It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.
> 
> Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.
> 
> Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.
> 
> Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, How are rights in private property secured for the entirety of the Militia of the United States ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While arms are certainly property, the issue is not property rights, but rather the explicit assertion that the right of the people (NOT militias) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...


You may be missing the point and that composition; our Second Article of Amendment specifically declares what is necessary to the security of a free State and it is clearly not the People as private citizens, but as that Body politic known as the Militia of the United States.   Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.
> 
> It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.
> 
> Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.
> 
> Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.
> 
> Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, How are rights in private property secured for the entirety of the Militia of the United States ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While arms are certainly property, the issue is not property rights, but rather the explicit assertion that the right of the people (NOT militias) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may be missing the point and that composition;...
Click to expand...

While I don't understand your reference to "composition" (I am beginning to suspect you translate your posts into English from another language), I'm not missing your point.



danielpalos said:


> ...our Second Article of Amendment specifically declares what is necessary to the security of a free State and it is clearly not the People as private citizens, but as that Body politic known as the Militia of the United States.   Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.


All of this is irrelevant, and none of this constrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment is unambiguously clear on this point. It is made clear by the phrase, "shall not be infringed"; which refers only to the right to keep and bear arms (not state security, not regulating militias), and that right is unquestionably the right of the people--NOT well regulated militias, NOT free states.

I will put it to you plainly again: The security of a free state is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is DEPEPENENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> 
> 
> No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.
> 
> Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.
> 
> Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.
> 
> Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, How are rights in private property secured for the entirety of the Militia of the United States ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While arms are certainly property, the issue is not property rights, but rather the explicit assertion that the right of the people (NOT militias) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may be missing the point and that composition;...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I don't understand your reference to "composition" (I am beginning to suspect you translate your posts into English from another language), I'm not missing your point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...our Second Article of Amendment specifically declares what is necessary to the security of a free State and it is clearly not the People as private citizens, but as that Body politic known as the Militia of the United States.   Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of this is irrelevant, and none of this constrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment is unambiguously clear on this point. It is made clear by the phrase, "shall not be infringed"; which refers only to the right to keep and bear arms (not state security, not regulating militias), and that right is unquestionably the right of the people--NOT well regulated militias, NOT free states.
> 
> I will put it to you plainly again: The security of a free state is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is DEPEPENENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...


Yes, our Second Amendment is clear as to which Part of the Militia of the United States necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.
> 
> Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.
> 
> I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.
> 
> Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.
> 
> Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, How are rights in private property secured for the entirety of the Militia of the United States ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While arms are certainly property, the issue is not property rights, but rather the explicit assertion that the right of the people (NOT militias) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may be missing the point and that composition;...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I don't understand your reference to "composition" (I am beginning to suspect you translate your posts into English from another language), I'm not missing your point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...our Second Article of Amendment specifically declares what is necessary to the security of a free State and it is clearly not the People as private citizens, but as that Body politic known as the Militia of the United States.   Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of this is irrelevant, and none of this constrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment is unambiguously clear on this point. It is made clear by the phrase, "shall not be infringed"; which refers only to the right to keep and bear arms (not state security, not regulating militias), and that right is unquestionably the right of the people--NOT well regulated militias, NOT free states.
> 
> I will put it to you plainly again: The security of a free state is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is DEPEPENENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, our Second Amendment is clear as to which Part of the Militia of the United States necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...

No. It makes clear what KIND of militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Regardless, membership in the militia is no prerequisite for, or constraint upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, How are rights in private property secured for the entirety of the Militia of the United States ...
> 
> 
> 
> While arms are certainly property, the issue is not property rights, but rather the explicit assertion that the right of the people (NOT militias) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may be missing the point and that composition;...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I don't understand your reference to "composition" (I am beginning to suspect you translate your posts into English from another language), I'm not missing your point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...our Second Article of Amendment specifically declares what is necessary to the security of a free State and it is clearly not the People as private citizens, but as that Body politic known as the Militia of the United States.   Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of this is irrelevant, and none of this constrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment is unambiguously clear on this point. It is made clear by the phrase, "shall not be infringed"; which refers only to the right to keep and bear arms (not state security, not regulating militias), and that right is unquestionably the right of the people--NOT well regulated militias, NOT free states.
> 
> I will put it to you plainly again: The security of a free state is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is DEPEPENENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, our Second Amendment is clear as to which Part of the Militia of the United States necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It makes clear what KIND of militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
> 
> Regardless, membership in the militia is no prerequisite for, or constraint upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Yes, there must be a difference since Only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.   That has nothing to do with the natural right to acquire and posses private property, which is secured in State Constitutions. Simply claiming that is  simple fallacy of composition and false Cause, since those rights are already secured in State Constitutions and available via due process, for the several citizens in the several States.  Only one Body politic is enumerated as Necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the other ones; and, Only that Body politic may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> While arms are certainly property, the issue is not property rights, but rather the explicit assertion that the right of the people (NOT militias) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may be missing the point and that composition;...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I don't understand your reference to "composition" (I am beginning to suspect you translate your posts into English from another language), I'm not missing your point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...our Second Article of Amendment specifically declares what is necessary to the security of a free State and it is clearly not the People as private citizens, but as that Body politic known as the Militia of the United States.   Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of this is irrelevant, and none of this constrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment is unambiguously clear on this point. It is made clear by the phrase, "shall not be infringed"; which refers only to the right to keep and bear arms (not state security, not regulating militias), and that right is unquestionably the right of the people--NOT well regulated militias, NOT free states.
> 
> I will put it to you plainly again: The security of a free state is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is DEPEPENENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, our Second Amendment is clear as to which Part of the Militia of the United States necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It makes clear what KIND of militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
> 
> Regardless, membership in the militia is no prerequisite for, or constraint upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, there must be a difference since Only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

 NO! The phrase "shall not be infringed" belongs CLEARLY to the right of the people, and NOT the well regulated militia.

The necessity for well regulated militias is NO CONSTRAINT upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a prerequisite for nor qualifier upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is IN NO WAY limited to membership or service in a well regulated militia. This is made abundantly clear by the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."



danielpalos said:


> That has nothing to do with the natural right to acquire and posses private property, which is secured in State Constitutions. Simply claiming that is  simple fallacy of composition and false Cause, since those rights are already secured in State Constitutions and available via due process, for the several citizen in the several States.


Property rights are STILL not at issue.

I made NO CLAIM regarding property rights to rebut your errors of fact and logic.



danielpalos said:


> Only one Body politic is enumerated as Necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the other ones.


Irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again. Still.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be missing the point and that composition;...
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't understand your reference to "composition" (I am beginning to suspect you translate your posts into English from another language), I'm not missing your point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...our Second Article of Amendment specifically declares what is necessary to the security of a free State and it is clearly not the People as private citizens, but as that Body politic known as the Militia of the United States.   Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of this is irrelevant, and none of this constrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment is unambiguously clear on this point. It is made clear by the phrase, "shall not be infringed"; which refers only to the right to keep and bear arms (not state security, not regulating militias), and that right is unquestionably the right of the people--NOT well regulated militias, NOT free states.
> 
> I will put it to you plainly again: The security of a free state is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is DEPEPENENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, our Second Amendment is clear as to which Part of the Militia of the United States necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It makes clear what KIND of militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
> 
> Regardless, membership in the militia is no prerequisite for, or constraint upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, there must be a difference since Only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO! The phrase "shall not be infringed" belongs CLEARLY to the right of the people, and NOT the well regulated militia.
> 
> The necessity for well regulated militias is NO CONSTRAINT upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a prerequisite for nor qualifier upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms is IN NO WAY limited to membership or service in a well regulated militia. This is made abundantly clear by the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the natural right to acquire and posses private property, which is secured in State Constitutions. Simply claiming that is  simple fallacy of composition and false Cause, since those rights are already secured in State Constitutions and available via due process, for the several citizen in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Property rights are STILL not at issue.
> 
> I made NO CLAIM regarding property rights to rebut your errors of fact and logic.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only one Body politic is enumerated as Necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again. Still.
Click to expand...

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause.  In any case, the People is plural not Individual.  Thus, no Individual rights can be implied.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't understand your reference to "composition" (I am beginning to suspect you translate your posts into English from another language), I'm not missing your point.
> 
> All of this is irrelevant, and none of this constrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment is unambiguously clear on this point. It is made clear by the phrase, "shall not be infringed"; which refers only to the right to keep and bear arms (not state security, not regulating militias), and that right is unquestionably the right of the people--NOT well regulated militias, NOT free states.
> 
> I will put it to you plainly again: The security of a free state is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is DEPEPENENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, our Second Amendment is clear as to which Part of the Militia of the United States necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It makes clear what KIND of militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
> 
> Regardless, membership in the militia is no prerequisite for, or constraint upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, there must be a difference since Only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO! The phrase "shall not be infringed" belongs CLEARLY to the right of the people, and NOT the well regulated militia.
> 
> The necessity for well regulated militias is NO CONSTRAINT upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a prerequisite for nor qualifier upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms is IN NO WAY limited to membership or service in a well regulated militia. This is made abundantly clear by the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the natural right to acquire and posses private property, which is secured in State Constitutions. Simply claiming that is  simple fallacy of composition and false Cause, since those rights are already secured in State Constitutions and available via due process, for the several citizen in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Property rights are STILL not at issue.
> 
> I made NO CLAIM regarding property rights to rebut your errors of fact and logic.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only one Body politic is enumerated as Necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again. Still.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause.
Click to expand...

You keep saying so, but you never demonstrate. Why is that, Cupcake?

The obvious answer is that you are wrong. 

I have already demonstrated my full awareness and understanding of the first clause, as well as exposing your errors of fact and logic regarding said clause.

If you persist in invoking "appeal to ignorance" without demonstration, I will be obligated to conclude you're just doing so for the sake of being mendaciously obtuse.



danielpalos said:


> In any case, the People is plural not Individual.  Thus, no Individual rights can be implied.


"People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Individual rights are certainly not implied... they are explicitly recognized.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, our Second Amendment is clear as to which Part of the Militia of the United States necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> No. It makes clear what KIND of militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
> 
> Regardless, membership in the militia is no prerequisite for, or constraint upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, there must be a difference since Only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO! The phrase "shall not be infringed" belongs CLEARLY to the right of the people, and NOT the well regulated militia.
> 
> The necessity for well regulated militias is NO CONSTRAINT upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a prerequisite for nor qualifier upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms is IN NO WAY limited to membership or service in a well regulated militia. This is made abundantly clear by the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the natural right to acquire and posses private property, which is secured in State Constitutions. Simply claiming that is  simple fallacy of composition and false Cause, since those rights are already secured in State Constitutions and available via due process, for the several citizen in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Property rights are STILL not at issue.
> 
> I made NO CLAIM regarding property rights to rebut your errors of fact and logic.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only one Body politic is enumerated as Necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again. Still.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying so, but you never demonstrate. Why is that, Cupcake?
> 
> The obvious answer is that you are wrong.
> 
> I have already demonstrated my full awareness and understanding of the first clause, as well as exposing your errors of fact and logic regarding said clause.
> 
> If you persist in invoking "appeal to ignorance" without demonstration, I will be obligated to conclude you're just doing so for the sake of being mendaciously obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, the People is plural not Individual.  Thus, no Individual rights can be implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Individual rights are certainly not implied... they are explicitly recognized.
Click to expand...


How do you commute the "People" into the "Persons" via our Second Amendment,  Both Militia and the People are collective, not Individual .  Can you cite where (the) Persons have a right to keep and bear Arms in our Second Amendment?


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It makes clear what KIND of militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
> 
> Regardless, membership in the militia is no prerequisite for, or constraint upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there must be a difference since Only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO! The phrase "shall not be infringed" belongs CLEARLY to the right of the people, and NOT the well regulated militia.
> 
> The necessity for well regulated militias is NO CONSTRAINT upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a prerequisite for nor qualifier upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms is IN NO WAY limited to membership or service in a well regulated militia. This is made abundantly clear by the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the natural right to acquire and posses private property, which is secured in State Constitutions. Simply claiming that is  simple fallacy of composition and false Cause, since those rights are already secured in State Constitutions and available via due process, for the several citizen in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Property rights are STILL not at issue.
> 
> I made NO CLAIM regarding property rights to rebut your errors of fact and logic.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only one Body politic is enumerated as Necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again. Still.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying so, but you never demonstrate. Why is that, Cupcake?
> 
> The obvious answer is that you are wrong.
> 
> I have already demonstrated my full awareness and understanding of the first clause, as well as exposing your errors of fact and logic regarding said clause.
> 
> If you persist in invoking "appeal to ignorance" without demonstration, I will be obligated to conclude you're just doing so for the sake of being mendaciously obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, the People is plural not Individual.  Thus, no Individual rights can be implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Individual rights are certainly not implied... they are explicitly recognized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you commute the "People" into the "Persons" via our Second Amendment,  ...
Click to expand...

I don't "commute " People" into "Persons" via our Second Amendment", standard English definitions of terms and common legal usage establishes "people" to be the plural of person.



danielpalos said:


> Both Militia and the People are collective, not Individual .  Can you cite where (the) Persons have a right to keep and bear Arms in our Second Amendment?


"People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## Doggy

We never had this problem till the dumbass white wimmin and stupid wigger boys voted in the half breed afrikan to the Blackhouse.It will take a grew three years to clean the black shit off the walls of our whitehouse .


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there must be a difference since Only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> NO! The phrase "shall not be infringed" belongs CLEARLY to the right of the people, and NOT the well regulated militia.
> 
> The necessity for well regulated militias is NO CONSTRAINT upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a prerequisite for nor qualifier upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms is IN NO WAY limited to membership or service in a well regulated militia. This is made abundantly clear by the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the natural right to acquire and posses private property, which is secured in State Constitutions. Simply claiming that is  simple fallacy of composition and false Cause, since those rights are already secured in State Constitutions and available via due process, for the several citizen in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Property rights are STILL not at issue.
> 
> I made NO CLAIM regarding property rights to rebut your errors of fact and logic.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only one Body politic is enumerated as Necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again. Still.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying so, but you never demonstrate. Why is that, Cupcake?
> 
> The obvious answer is that you are wrong.
> 
> I have already demonstrated my full awareness and understanding of the first clause, as well as exposing your errors of fact and logic regarding said clause.
> 
> If you persist in invoking "appeal to ignorance" without demonstration, I will be obligated to conclude you're just doing so for the sake of being mendaciously obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, the People is plural not Individual.  Thus, no Individual rights can be implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Individual rights are certainly not implied... they are explicitly recognized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you commute the "People" into the "Persons" via our Second Amendment,  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't "commute " People" into "Persons" via our Second Amendment", standard English definitions of terms and common legal usage establishes "people" to be the plural of person.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Militia and the People are collective, not Individual .  Can you cite where (the) Persons have a right to keep and bear Arms in our Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...


Yes, plural and collective, not Individual.


----------



## LOki

No


danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO! The phrase "shall not be infringed" belongs CLEARLY to the right of the people, and NOT the well regulated militia.
> 
> The necessity for well regulated militias is NO CONSTRAINT upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a prerequisite for nor qualifier upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms is IN NO WAY limited to membership or service in a well regulated militia. This is made abundantly clear by the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> Property rights are STILL not at issue.
> 
> I made NO CLAIM regarding property rights to rebut your errors of fact and logic.
> 
> Irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again. Still.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying so, but you never demonstrate. Why is that, Cupcake?
> 
> The obvious answer is that you are wrong.
> 
> I have already demonstrated my full awareness and understanding of the first clause, as well as exposing your errors of fact and logic regarding said clause.
> 
> If you persist in invoking "appeal to ignorance" without demonstration, I will be obligated to conclude you're just doing so for the sake of being mendaciously obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, the People is plural not Individual.  Thus, no Individual rights can be implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Individual rights are certainly not implied... they are explicitly recognized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you commute the "People" into the "Persons" via our Second Amendment,  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't "commute " People" into "Persons" via our Second Amendment", standard English definitions of terms and common legal usage establishes "people" to be the plural of person.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Militia and the People are collective, not Individual .  Can you cite where (the) Persons have a right to keep and bear Arms in our Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, plural and collective, not Individual.
Click to expand...

Not collective. Many individuals, individually--it's self-evident.


----------



## Geaux4it




----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> No
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying so, but you never demonstrate. Why is that, Cupcake?
> 
> The obvious answer is that you are wrong.
> 
> I have already demonstrated my full awareness and understanding of the first clause, as well as exposing your errors of fact and logic regarding said clause.
> 
> If you persist in invoking "appeal to ignorance" without demonstration, I will be obligated to conclude you're just doing so for the sake of being mendaciously obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, the People is plural not Individual.  Thus, no Individual rights can be implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Individual rights are certainly not implied... they are explicitly recognized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you commute the "People" into the "Persons" via our Second Amendment,  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't "commute " People" into "Persons" via our Second Amendment", standard English definitions of terms and common legal usage establishes "people" to be the plural of person.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Militia and the People are collective, not Individual .  Can you cite where (the) Persons have a right to keep and bear Arms in our Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, plural and collective, not Individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not collective. Many individuals, individually--it's self-evident.
Click to expand...

Nope; both Militia and the People are plural and collective, not Individual.  There is no such Thing as a Militia of one or the People of one.  

Person is the term used for Individuals.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying so, but you never demonstrate. Why is that, Cupcake?
> 
> The obvious answer is that you are wrong.
> 
> I have already demonstrated my full awareness and understanding of the first clause, as well as exposing your errors of fact and logic regarding said clause.
> 
> If you persist in invoking "appeal to ignorance" without demonstration, I will be obligated to conclude you're just doing so for the sake of being mendaciously obtuse.
> 
> "People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Individual rights are certainly not implied... they are explicitly recognized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you commute the "People" into the "Persons" via our Second Amendment,  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't "commute " People" into "Persons" via our Second Amendment", standard English definitions of terms and common legal usage establishes "people" to be the plural of person.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Militia and the People are collective, not Individual .  Can you cite where (the) Persons have a right to keep and bear Arms in our Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, plural and collective, not Individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not collective. Many individuals, individually--it's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; both Militia and the People are plural and collective, not Individual.
Click to expand...

Militias and the people are composed of individuals.



danielpalos said:


> There is no such Thing as a Militia of one or the People of one.


Irrelevant, and there is no such thing as a militia or the people that is not contingent upon individuals, and does not refer to the individuals that compose those respective groups.



danielpalos said:


> Person is the term used for Individuals.


And people is a term used for a group of individual persons.


----------



## danielpalos

You seem to be missing the point about the Militia of the United States.  There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; especially, this one--10USC311.

Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.  Only well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State, should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues.


----------



## timslash

Guns aren't necessary and it doesn't matter are they legal or not!
Every problem can be solved without gun usage and in every case(except terrorist attack)police can solve it without deaths!


----------



## danielpalos

timslash said:


> Guns aren't necessary and it doesn't matter are they legal or not!
> Every problem can be solved without gun usage and in every case(except terrorist attack)police can solve it without deaths!



That is not the underlying social dilemma we are being presented with.

The problem is simply and merely, that gun lovers refuse to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.

* “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”  *
― G.K. Chesterton

If only, we could goad, cajole, or enjoin gun lovers to get more serious about a really really serious relationship with their republic.


----------



## Ringel05

timslash said:


> Guns aren't necessary and it doesn't matter are they legal or not!
> Every problem can be solved without gun usage and in every case(except terrorist attack)police can solve it without deaths!


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> timslash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns aren't necessary and it doesn't matter are they legal or not!
> Every problem can be solved without gun usage and in every case(except terrorist attack)police can solve it without deaths!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the underlying social dilemma we are being presented with.
> 
> The problem is simply and merely, that gun lovers refuse to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> * “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”  *
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> If only, we could goad, cajole, or enjoin gun lovers to get more serious about a really really serious relationship with their republic.
Click to expand...

So you're implying that people who have a different idea of what the second amendment means don't love their 'country"..........?

You're kidding, right?


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.



You are full of shit, and the SCOTUS agrees with me.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> "The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.
> 
> That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.
> 
> Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.
Click to expand...


The SCOTUS says you are a dumbass.


----------



## PredFan

Ringel05 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> "The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.
> 
> That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.
> 
> Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.
> 
> 2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.
> 
> 3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.
> 
> If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.
> 
> The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.
> 
> It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.
> 
> Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.
> 
> Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.
> 
> Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tried logic, reason and fact all to no avail, what we have here is a doctrinaire, committed in its belief the repeating of a lie often enough will ultimately convince people of its "truth".........
> The best approach with such a fanatic is to ostracize by exclusion or by derision.
Click to expand...


Or, in a thread like this one where I continually remind them that they are losing the battle.

You cannot reason with these people, just point at them, laugh, and rub it in their faces. That's what I do.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timslash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns aren't necessary and it doesn't matter are they legal or not!
> Every problem can be solved without gun usage and in every case(except terrorist attack)police can solve it without deaths!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the underlying social dilemma we are being presented with.
> 
> The problem is simply and merely, that gun lovers refuse to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> * “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”  *
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> If only, we could goad, cajole, or enjoin gun lovers to get more serious about a really really serious relationship with their republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're implying that people who have a different idea of what the second amendment means don't love their 'country"..........?
> 
> You're kidding, right?
Click to expand...

What different idea can you mean?

This is the only idea that matters:

_We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America._


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> "The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.
> 
> That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.
> 
> Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS says you are a dumbass.
Click to expand...

so what; they only have fallacy for their Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> 
> "Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.
> 
> It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.
> 
> Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.
> 
> Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.
> 
> Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tried logic, reason and fact all to no avail, what we have here is a doctrinaire, committed in its belief the repeating of a lie often enough will ultimately convince people of its "truth".........
> The best approach with such a fanatic is to ostracize by exclusion or by derision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, in a thread like this one where I continually remind them that they are losing the battle.
> 
> You cannot reason with these people, just point at them, laugh, and rub it in their faces. That's what I do.
Click to expand...

I just get them to resort to fallacy for their Cause first.


----------



## PredFan

Geaux4it said:


>



Post of the year so far.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timslash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns aren't necessary and it doesn't matter are they legal or not!
> Every problem can be solved without gun usage and in every case(except terrorist attack)police can solve it without deaths!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the underlying social dilemma we are being presented with.
> 
> The problem is simply and merely, that gun lovers refuse to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> * “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”  *
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> If only, we could goad, cajole, or enjoin gun lovers to get more serious about a really really serious relationship with their republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're implying that people who have a different idea of what the second amendment means don't love their 'country"..........?
> 
> You're kidding, right?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What different idea can you mean?
> 
> This is the only idea that matters:
> 
> _We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America._
Click to expand...

Hate to tell ya this but that isn't the second amendment..........  Just thought you'd like to know.........


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> "The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.
> 
> That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.
> 
> Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS says you are a dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; they only have fallacy for their Cause.
Click to expand...


So what, nit wit? They know a hell of a lot more about it than you. You think because you say a thing that that thing becomes true? It doesn't you are wrong.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.
> 
> It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.
> 
> Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.
> 
> Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.
> 
> Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tried logic, reason and fact all to no avail, what we have here is a doctrinaire, committed in its belief the repeating of a lie often enough will ultimately convince people of its "truth".........
> The best approach with such a fanatic is to ostracize by exclusion or by derision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, in a thread like this one where I continually remind them that they are losing the battle.
> 
> You cannot reason with these people, just point at them, laugh, and rub it in their faces. That's what I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just get them to resort to fallacy for their Cause first.
Click to expand...


No, that only exists in your mind.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> You seem to be missing the point about the Militia of the United States.


No. I have demonstrated that your point regarding militias is irrelevant, and your conclusion from that irrelvant point is patently wrong--I have missed NOTHING.



danielpalos said:


> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; especially, this one--10USC311.


I warned you about this. From this point forward I will treat like the mendaciously obtuse retard you have demanded I regard you as.

1) Before you use "Appeal to Ignorance", like the complete imbecile you are, ever again, *CLICK HERE.*

2) Without ever looking at 10 USC 311 (Militia: composition and classes), even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

For the profoundly retarded, such as yourself, the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 you moron, is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

3) Even so, considering that 10 USC 311 make no mention at all of a well regulated milita, your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.



danielpalos said:


> Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.


So what? Really. Explain the significance of this idiotic non-sequitur.



danielpalos said:


> Only well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State,...


No one is contesting this, you retard. No one.

And since a well regulated Militia is necessary (but not exclusively so) to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is because a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.

You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

Infringement upon the right of the people--the individual soverigns of the United States--to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to the security of a free state, BECAUSE the condition of having a well regulated militia explicitly requrires that the right of the people--those individual soverigns of the United States upon whom a well relgulated milita depends--to keep and bear arms not be infringed.


----------



## PredFan

The gun grabbing nutters have been getting bitch slapped by the NRA, the SCOTUS, and freedom a lot lately. Being left wing nut jobs they cannot ever admit when they are wrong so they resort to more and more insane nonsense.


----------



## Gunman

Still say how you gonna get all the 600,000,000 guns in the USA.... ? ? ?


----------



## BULLDOG

Gunman said:


> Still say how you gonna get all the 600,000,000 guns in the USA.... ? ? ?




I don't think it would be possible to do that. Fortunately, no one is trying to do that.


----------



## PredFan

Gunman said:


> Still say how you gonna get all the 600,000,000 guns in the USA.... ? ? ?



It would be easy. There are a couple of ways:
1. Make them illegal to own. Most people won't turn theirs in right away, but without the ability to take them with you, or shoot them ever, eventually people will give them up. They will have to.
2. Tax ammo to the point where it will be unaffordable.
3. Shut down all gun manufacturers and gun stores. Again eventually they will all be gone.
4. Any combination of the above.

Just because gun confiscation doesn't happen all in one fell swoop doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.


----------



## BULLDOG

PredFan said:


> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still say how you gonna get all the 600,000,000 guns in the USA.... ? ? ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be easy. There are a couple of ways:
> 1. Make them illegal to own. Most people won't turn theirs in right away, but without the ability to take them with you, or shoot them ever, eventually people will give them up. They will have to.
> 2. Tax ammo to the point where it will
> be unaffordable.
> 3. Shut down all gun manufacturers and gun stores. Again eventually they will all be gone.
> 4. Any combination of the above.
> 
> Just because gun confiscation doesn't happen all in one fell swoop doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...


How long has paranoia been a problem for you?


----------



## PredFan

BULLDOG said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still say how you gonna get all the 600,000,000 guns in the USA.... ? ? ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be easy. There are a couple of ways:
> 1. Make them illegal to own. Most people won't turn theirs in right away, but without the ability to take them with you, or shoot them ever, eventually people will give them up. They will have to.
> 2. Tax ammo to the point where it will
> be unaffordable.
> 3. Shut down all gun manufacturers and gun stores. Again eventually they will all be gone.
> 4. Any combination of the above.
> 
> Just because gun confiscation doesn't happen all in one fell swoop doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long has paranoia been a problem for you?
Click to expand...


Never. How long until you learn how to read at higher than a 3rd grade level?


----------



## BULLDOG

PredFan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still say how you gonna get all the 600,000,000 guns in the USA.... ? ? ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be easy. There are a couple of ways:
> 1. Make them illegal to own. Most people won't turn theirs in right away, but without the ability to take them with you, or shoot them ever, eventually people will give them up. They will have to.
> 2. Tax ammo to the point where it will
> be unaffordable.
> 3. Shut down all gun manufacturers and gun stores. Again eventually they will all be gone.
> 4. Any combination of the above.
> 
> Just because gun confiscation doesn't happen all in one fell swoop doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long has paranoia been a problem for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never. How long until you learn how to read at higher than a 3rd grade level?
Click to expand...



I can understand where you might think third grade level might be something to aspire to, but in reality, most non GOP followers are well beyond that. It's ok if that is your present goal though.


----------



## PredFan

BULLDOG said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still say how you gonna get all the 600,000,000 guns in the USA.... ? ? ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be easy. There are a couple of ways:
> 1. Make them illegal to own. Most people won't turn theirs in right away, but without the ability to take them with you, or shoot them ever, eventually people will give them up. They will have to.
> 2. Tax ammo to the point where it will
> be unaffordable.
> 3. Shut down all gun manufacturers and gun stores. Again eventually they will all be gone.
> 4. Any combination of the above.
> 
> Just because gun confiscation doesn't happen all in one fell swoop doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long has paranoia been a problem for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never. How long until you learn how to read at higher than a 3rd grade level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand where you might think third grade level might be something to aspire to, but in reality, most non GOP followers are well beyond that. It's ok if that is your present goal though.
Click to expand...


Apparently I estimated too high. 2nd grade maybe?


----------



## 2aguy

timslash said:


> Guns aren't necessary and it doesn't matter are they legal or not!
> Every problem can be solved without gun usage and in every case(except terrorist attack)police can solve it without deaths!




Hmmmm tell that to murder, rape and beating and stabbing victims....did you actually think about what you posted.....?


----------



## PredFan

The butthurt is strong with liberal gun grabbers.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timslash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns aren't necessary and it doesn't matter are they legal or not!
> Every problem can be solved without gun usage and in every case(except terrorist attack)police can solve it without deaths!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the underlying social dilemma we are being presented with.
> 
> The problem is simply and merely, that gun lovers refuse to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> * “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”  *
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> If only, we could goad, cajole, or enjoin gun lovers to get more serious about a really really serious relationship with their republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're implying that people who have a different idea of what the second amendment means don't love their 'country"..........?
> 
> You're kidding, right?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What different idea can you mean?
> 
> This is the only idea that matters:
> 
> _We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hate to tell ya this but that isn't the second amendment..........  Just thought you'd like to know.........
Click to expand...

Hate to tell ya, but our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timslash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns aren't necessary and it doesn't matter are they legal or not!
> Every problem can be solved without gun usage and in every case(except terrorist attack)police can solve it without deaths!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the underlying social dilemma we are being presented with.
> 
> The problem is simply and merely, that gun lovers refuse to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> * “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”  *
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> If only, we could goad, cajole, or enjoin gun lovers to get more serious about a really really serious relationship with their republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're implying that people who have a different idea of what the second amendment means don't love their 'country"..........?
> 
> You're kidding, right?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What different idea can you mean?
> 
> This is the only idea that matters:
> 
> _We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hate to tell ya this but that isn't the second amendment..........  Just thought you'd like to know.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hate to tell ya, but our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
Click to expand...

Wow!  You figured that out all on your own??!!!!  I'm impressed, surprised but impressed.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> "The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.
> 
> That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.
> 
> Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS says you are a dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; they only have fallacy for their Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what, nit wit? They know a hell of a lot more about it than you. You think because you say a thing that that thing becomes true? It doesn't you are wrong.
Click to expand...

They may know more about legal machinations in Their venue; but, I probably mustered with dictionary and thesauri militia more often than they did and am more well regulated as a result.


----------



## PredFan

The left wing butthurt never abates.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point about the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> No. I have demonstrated that your point regarding militias is irrelevant, and your conclusion from that irrelvant point is patently wrong--I have missed NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; especially, this one--10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I warned you about this. From this point forward I will treat like the mendaciously obtuse retard you have demanded I regard you as.
> 
> 1) Before you use "Appeal to Ignorance", like the complete imbecile you are, ever again, *CLICK HERE.*
> 
> 2) Without ever looking at 10 USC 311 (Militia: composition and classes), even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> For the profoundly retarded, such as yourself, the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 you moron, is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> 3) Even so, considering that 10 USC 311 make no mention at all of a well regulated milita, your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what? Really. Explain the significance of this idiotic non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State,...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is contesting this, you retard. No one.
> 
> And since a well regulated Militia is necessary (but not exclusively so) to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> This is because a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> Infringement upon the right of the people--the individual soverigns of the United States--to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to the security of a free state, BECAUSE the condition of having a well regulated militia explicitly requrires that the right of the people--those individual soverigns of the United States upon whom a well relgulated milita depends--to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Dude; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law, that includes 10US311.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> The gun grabbing nutters have been getting bitch slapped by the NRA, the SCOTUS, and freedom a lot lately. Being left wing nut jobs they cannot ever admit when they are wrong so they resort to more and more insane nonsense.



Don't know what you are referring; it is gun lovers that refuse to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns who are the ones complaining about a lack of literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  

* “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
― G.K. Chesterton


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point about the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> No. I have demonstrated that your point regarding militias is irrelevant, and your conclusion from that irrelvant point is patently wrong--I have missed NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; especially, this one--10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I warned you about this. From this point forward I will treat like the mendaciously obtuse retard you have demanded I regard you as.
> 
> 1) Before you use "Appeal to Ignorance", like the complete imbecile you are, ever again, *CLICK HERE.*
> 
> 2) Without ever looking at 10 USC 311 (Militia: composition and classes), even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> For the profoundly retarded, such as yourself, the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 you moron, is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> 3) Even so, considering that 10 USC 311 make no mention at all of a well regulated milita, your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what? Really. Explain the significance of this idiotic non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State,...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is contesting this, you retard. No one.
> 
> And since a well regulated Militia is necessary (but not exclusively so) to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> This is because a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> Infringement upon the right of the people--the individual soverigns of the United States--to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to the security of a free state, BECAUSE the condition of having a well regulated militia explicitly requrires that the right of the people--those individual soverigns of the United States upon whom a well relgulated milita depends--to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law, that includes 10US311.
Click to expand...

Ah. You're not just an unrepentantly mendacious retard... you're mendaciously retarded and proud of it!

BRAVO! BRAVO, SIR! BRAVO!


----------



## danielpalos

Gunman said:


> Still say how you gonna get all the 600,000,000 guns in the USA.... ? ? ?



Not trying to; remember, it was only the States with the Southern Cause (to get the Union involved) that were Infringed; and, it Had to be that way, simply Because; Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

BULLDOG said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still say how you gonna get all the 600,000,000 guns in the USA.... ? ? ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be easy. There are a couple of ways:
> 1. Make them illegal to own. Most people won't turn theirs in right away, but without the ability to take them with you, or shoot them ever, eventually people will give them up. They will have to.
> 2. Tax ammo to the point where it will
> be unaffordable.
> 3. Shut down all gun manufacturers and gun stores. Again eventually they will all be gone.
> 4. Any combination of the above.
> 
> Just because gun confiscation doesn't happen all in one fell swoop doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long has paranoia been a problem for you?
Click to expand...

He must not have enough Faith in the wisdom of our Founding Fathers regarding our supreme law of the land.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the underlying social dilemma we are being presented with.
> 
> The problem is simply and merely, that gun lovers refuse to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
> 
> * “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”  *
> ― G.K. Chesterton
> 
> If only, we could goad, cajole, or enjoin gun lovers to get more serious about a really really serious relationship with their republic.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're implying that people who have a different idea of what the second amendment means don't love their 'country"..........?
> 
> You're kidding, right?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What different idea can you mean?
> 
> This is the only idea that matters:
> 
> _We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hate to tell ya this but that isn't the second amendment..........  Just thought you'd like to know.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hate to tell ya, but our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow!  You figured that out all on your own??!!!!  I'm impressed, surprised but impressed.
Click to expand...

Tell that to gun lovers who believe it is and can operate in a vacuum of special pleading.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> The left wing butthurt never abates.


the right wing diversion is like  a river.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point about the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> No. I have demonstrated that your point regarding militias is irrelevant, and your conclusion from that irrelvant point is patently wrong--I have missed NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; especially, this one--10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I warned you about this. From this point forward I will treat like the mendaciously obtuse retard you have demanded I regard you as.
> 
> 1) Before you use "Appeal to Ignorance", like the complete imbecile you are, ever again, *CLICK HERE.*
> 
> 2) Without ever looking at 10 USC 311 (Militia: composition and classes), even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> For the profoundly retarded, such as yourself, the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 you moron, is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> 3) Even so, considering that 10 USC 311 make no mention at all of a well regulated milita, your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what? Really. Explain the significance of this idiotic non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State,...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is contesting this, you retard. No one.
> 
> And since a well regulated Militia is necessary (but not exclusively so) to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> This is because a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> Infringement upon the right of the people--the individual soverigns of the United States--to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to the security of a free state, BECAUSE the condition of having a well regulated militia explicitly requrires that the right of the people--those individual soverigns of the United States upon whom a well relgulated milita depends--to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law, that includes 10US311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah. You're not just an unrepentantly mendacious retard... you're mendaciously retarded and proud of it!
> 
> BRAVO! BRAVO, SIR! BRAVO!
Click to expand...

Nothing but fallacy for your Cause in public venues; i got it.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point about the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> No. I have demonstrated that your point regarding militias is irrelevant, and your conclusion from that irrelvant point is patently wrong--I have missed NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; especially, this one--10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I warned you about this. From this point forward I will treat like the mendaciously obtuse retard you have demanded I regard you as.
> 
> 1) Before you use "Appeal to Ignorance", like the complete imbecile you are, ever again, *CLICK HERE.*
> 
> 2) Without ever looking at 10 USC 311 (Militia: composition and classes), even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> For the profoundly retarded, such as yourself, the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 you moron, is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> 3) Even so, considering that 10 USC 311 make no mention at all of a well regulated milita, your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what? Really. Explain the significance of this idiotic non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State,...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is contesting this, you retard. No one.
> 
> And since a well regulated Militia is necessary (but not exclusively so) to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> This is because a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> Infringement upon the right of the people--the individual soverigns of the United States--to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to the security of a free state, BECAUSE the condition of having a well regulated militia explicitly requrires that the right of the people--those individual soverigns of the United States upon whom a well relgulated milita depends--to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law, that includes 10US311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah. You're not just an unrepentantly mendacious retard... you're mendaciously retarded and proud of it!
> 
> BRAVO! BRAVO, SIR! BRAVO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but fallacy for your Cause in public venues; i got it.
Click to expand...

Literally nothing but meaningless butt noises coming from your head, and posted here in support of your retarded notions.

Nicely played, moron!


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're implying that people who have a different idea of what the second amendment means don't love their 'country"..........?
> 
> You're kidding, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What different idea can you mean?
> 
> This is the only idea that matters:
> 
> _We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hate to tell ya this but that isn't the second amendment..........  Just thought you'd like to know.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hate to tell ya, but our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow!  You figured that out all on your own??!!!!  I'm impressed, surprised but impressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to gun lovers who believe it is and can operate in a vacuum of special pleading.
Click to expand...

Uummmm............


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point about the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> No. I have demonstrated that your point regarding militias is irrelevant, and your conclusion from that irrelvant point is patently wrong--I have missed NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; especially, this one--10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I warned you about this. From this point forward I will treat like the mendaciously obtuse retard you have demanded I regard you as.
> 
> 1) Before you use "Appeal to Ignorance", like the complete imbecile you are, ever again, *CLICK HERE.*
> 
> 2) Without ever looking at 10 USC 311 (Militia: composition and classes), even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> For the profoundly retarded, such as yourself, the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 you moron, is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> 3) Even so, considering that 10 USC 311 make no mention at all of a well regulated milita, your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what? Really. Explain the significance of this idiotic non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State,...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is contesting this, you retard. No one.
> 
> And since a well regulated Militia is necessary (but not exclusively so) to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> This is because a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> Infringement upon the right of the people--the individual soverigns of the United States--to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to the security of a free state, BECAUSE the condition of having a well regulated militia explicitly requrires that the right of the people--those individual soverigns of the United States upon whom a well relgulated milita depends--to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law, that includes 10US311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah. You're not just an unrepentantly mendacious retard... you're mendaciously retarded and proud of it!
> 
> BRAVO! BRAVO, SIR! BRAVO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but fallacy for your Cause in public venues; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Literally nothing but meaningless butt noises coming from your head, and posted here in support of your retarded notions.
> 
> Nicely played, moron!
Click to expand...


The one resorting to the most fallacies, isn't me--projecting much.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun grabbing nutters have been getting bitch slapped by the NRA, the SCOTUS, and freedom a lot lately. Being left wing nut jobs they cannot ever admit when they are wrong so they resort to more and more insane nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know what you are referring; it is gun lovers that refuse to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns who are the ones complaining about a lack of literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> * “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
> ― G.K. Chesterton
Click to expand...


Do you not read the posts you respond to or is it you cannot understand what you read? Your response has nothing to do with my post.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left wing butthurt never abates.
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing diversion is like  a river.
Click to expand...


The left wing stupidity know no limits. Do you know what this thread is about nit wit? Of course not, you are a moron.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I have demonstrated that your point regarding militias is irrelevant, and your conclusion from that irrelvant point is patently wrong--I have missed NOTHING.
> 
> I warned you about this. From this point forward I will treat like the mendaciously obtuse retard you have demanded I regard you as.
> 
> 1) Before you use "Appeal to Ignorance", like the complete imbecile you are, ever again, *CLICK HERE.*
> 
> 2) Without ever looking at 10 USC 311 (Militia: composition and classes), even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> For the profoundly retarded, such as yourself, the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 you moron, is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> 3) Even so, considering that 10 USC 311 make no mention at all of a well regulated milita, your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> So what? Really. Explain the significance of this idiotic non-sequitur.
> 
> No one is contesting this, you retard. No one.
> 
> And since a well regulated Militia is necessary (but not exclusively so) to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> This is because a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> Infringement upon the right of the people--the individual soverigns of the United States--to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to the security of a free state, BECAUSE the condition of having a well regulated militia explicitly requrires that the right of the people--those individual soverigns of the United States upon whom a well relgulated milita depends--to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law, that includes 10US311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah. You're not just an unrepentantly mendacious retard... you're mendaciously retarded and proud of it!
> 
> BRAVO! BRAVO, SIR! BRAVO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but fallacy for your Cause in public venues; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Literally nothing but meaningless butt noises coming from your head, and posted here in support of your retarded notions.
> 
> Nicely played, moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one resorting to the most fallacies, isn't me--projecting much.
Click to expand...

The reason you only name fallacies, rather than demonstrate that such fallacies were employed is that,

You're the kind of mendacious idiot who just declares a fallacy was employed without knowing what you're talking about; and
The fallacies you identified were not actually employed.
If it were otherwise, you would have demonstrated those fallacies... you've had every opportunity to do so, but you haven't.

Why don't you tell me why that is, Cupcake?


----------



## danielpalos

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.


There's no appeal to ignorance involved. You say there is, but you simply cannot demonstrate it is so. Still you invoke it like it's some magic talisman. Hence, you're a retard.



danielpalos said:


> Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.


You repeat this without context or explanation; it is meaningless. It has also been demonstrated to be entirely irrelevant; so again, it is meaningless. Your retarded point is meaningless.


----------



## Dan Daly

danielpalos said:


> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.



None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.  

If I say that "well-trained carpenters being necessary for the construction of shelters, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed" , does that mean that only well-trained carpenters can own hammers?

Of course not. People that equate membership in a militia, well-regulated (trained) or not, to the right of all people to keep and bear any means of defending themselves, their families, communities, states, countries, etc., have gotta be either the dimmest bulbs on the tree, or the most dishonest.


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Daly said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

You are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified in 10USC311.  The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment, is clearly expressed in the first clause.


----------



## LOki

Dan Daly said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
> 
> If I say that "well-trained carpenters being necessary for the construction of shelters, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed" , does that mean that only well-trained carpenters can own hammers?
> 
> Of course not. People that equate membership in a militia, well-regulated (trained) or not, to the right of all people to keep and bear any means of defending themselves, their families, communities, states, countries, etc., have gotta be either the dimmest bulbs on the tree, or the most dishonest.
Click to expand...


"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
> 
> If I say that "well-trained carpenters being necessary for the construction of shelters, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed" , does that mean that only well-trained carpenters can own hammers?
> 
> Of course not. People that equate membership in a militia, well-regulated (trained) or not, to the right of all people to keep and bear any means of defending themselves, their families, communities, states, countries, etc., have gotta be either the dimmest bulbs on the tree, or the most dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself; you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified in 10USC311.
Click to expand...

There's no appeal to ignorance involved. You say there is, but you simply cannot demonstrate it is so. Still you invoke it like it's some magic talisman. Hence, you're a retard.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
> 
> If I say that "well-trained carpenters being necessary for the construction of shelters, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed" , does that mean that only well-trained carpenters can own hammers?
> 
> Of course not. People that equate membership in a militia, well-regulated (trained) or not, to the right of all people to keep and bear any means of defending themselves, their families, communities, states, countries, etc., have gotta be either the dimmest bulbs on the tree, or the most dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.
Click to expand...

Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.

Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
> 
> If I say that "well-trained carpenters being necessary for the construction of shelters, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed" , does that mean that only well-trained carpenters can own hammers?
> 
> Of course not. People that equate membership in a militia, well-regulated (trained) or not, to the right of all people to keep and bear any means of defending themselves, their families, communities, states, countries, etc., have gotta be either the dimmest bulbs on the tree, or the most dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;...
Click to expand...

Strawman. I never claimed it was.



danielpalos said:


> ...you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.


Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.

Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
> 
> If I say that "well-trained carpenters being necessary for the construction of shelters, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed" , does that mean that only well-trained carpenters can own hammers?
> 
> Of course not. People that equate membership in a militia, well-regulated (trained) or not, to the right of all people to keep and bear any means of defending themselves, their families, communities, states, countries, etc., have gotta be either the dimmest bulbs on the tree, or the most dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman. I never claimed it was.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.
> 
> Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.
Click to expand...

Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.  

You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.


----------



## Dan Daly

danielpalos said:


> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.



and AGAIN, the mention of well-regulated militias in the 2nd Amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with our right to keep and bear arms.   Deal with it, Nancy.

Fact is, our right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution or any other document...it is an inherent human right that you and your government toadies can only infringe IF we allow you to disarm us...which ain't gonna happen, Junior.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
> 
> If I say that "well-trained carpenters being necessary for the construction of shelters, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed" , does that mean that only well-trained carpenters can own hammers?
> 
> Of course not. People that equate membership in a militia, well-regulated (trained) or not, to the right of all people to keep and bear any means of defending themselves, their families, communities, states, countries, etc., have gotta be either the dimmest bulbs on the tree, or the most dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman. I never claimed it was.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.
> 
> Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.



danielpalos said:


> You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.


There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.

Considering that *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Daly said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and AGAIN, the mention of well-regulated militias in the 2nd Amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with our right to keep and bear arms.   Deal with it, Nancy.
> 
> Fact is, our right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution or any other document...it is an inherent human right that you and your government toadies can only infringe IF we allow you to disarm us...which ain't gonna happen, Junior.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does, simply Because, not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
> 
> If I say that "well-trained carpenters being necessary for the construction of shelters, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed" , does that mean that only well-trained carpenters can own hammers?
> 
> Of course not. People that equate membership in a militia, well-regulated (trained) or not, to the right of all people to keep and bear any means of defending themselves, their families, communities, states, countries, etc., have gotta be either the dimmest bulbs on the tree, or the most dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman. I never claimed it was.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.
> 
> Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> Considering that *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
Click to expand...


It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.


----------



## Dan Daly

danielpalos said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and AGAIN, the mention of well-regulated militias in the 2nd Amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with our right to keep and bear arms.   Deal with it, Nancy.
> 
> Fact is, our right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution or any other document...it is an inherent human right that you and your government toadies can only infringe IF we allow you to disarm us...which ain't gonna happen, Junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does, simply Because, not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
Click to expand...


I didn't realize you were mentally challenged, so please read carefully and slowly:  

The mention of a well-regulated militia in the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  

If that still isn't clear, feel free to ask questions.  If your handicap prevents you from being able to communicate effectively with words, feel free to draw pictures.


----------



## Dan Daly

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman. I never claimed it was.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.
> 
> Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> Considering that *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.
Click to expand...


well-regulated means well-trained...it has nothing to do with the organizational structure.

At issue would be CONSTITUTIONAL militias vs Tom, Dick & Harry's private militias.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman. I never claimed it was.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.
> 
> Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> Considering that *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.

You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
*
Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
*
Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.

You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. 

So you remain wrong.* AGAIN. STILL. *


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Daly said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and AGAIN, the mention of well-regulated militias in the 2nd Amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with our right to keep and bear arms.   Deal with it, Nancy.
> 
> Fact is, our right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution or any other document...it is an inherent human right that you and your government toadies can only infringe IF we allow you to disarm us...which ain't gonna happen, Junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does, simply Because, not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't realize you were mentally challenged, so please read carefully and slowly:
> 
> The mention of a well-regulated militia in the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> If that still isn't clear, feel free to ask questions.  If your handicap prevents you from being able to communicate effectively with words, feel free to draw pictures.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does; Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller specifically applies to gun lovers without a clue or a Cause, but not well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Daly said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;...
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. I never claimed it was.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.
> 
> Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> Considering that *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well-regulated means well-trained...it has nothing to do with the organizational structure.
> 
> At issue would be CONSTITUTIONAL militias vs Tom, Dick & Harry's private militias.
Click to expand...

nope; in our US case, it means whatever our federal Congress prescribes.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;...
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. I never claimed it was.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.
> 
> Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> Considering that *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. I never claimed it was.
> 
> Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.
> 
> Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> Considering that *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.
Click to expand...

Yes you can. And you obviously are.

You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.

You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.

It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
*
Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.

You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

So you remain wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## Dan Daly

danielpalos said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and AGAIN, the mention of well-regulated militias in the 2nd Amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with our right to keep and bear arms.   Deal with it, Nancy.
> 
> Fact is, our right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution or any other document...it is an inherent human right that you and your government toadies can only infringe IF we allow you to disarm us...which ain't gonna happen, Junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does, simply Because, not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't realize you were mentally challenged, so please read carefully and slowly:
> 
> The mention of a well-regulated militia in the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> If that still isn't clear, feel free to ask questions.  If your handicap prevents you from being able to communicate effectively with words, feel free to draw pictures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does; Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller specifically applies to gun lovers without a clue or a Cause, but not well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.
Click to expand...


You just keep looking dumber with every post.   You must work for the Obama bunch.  

That you don't understand the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, or the slightly more complicated language of Heller is depressing.  I assume you are a product of public education?


----------



## Dan Daly

danielpalos said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. I never claimed it was.
> 
> Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.
> 
> Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> Considering that *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well-regulated means well-trained...it has nothing to do with the organizational structure.
> 
> At issue would be CONSTITUTIONAL militias vs Tom, Dick & Harry's private militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; in our US case, it means whatever our federal Congress prescribes.
Click to expand...


Only if they amend the Constitution...but I am not surprised that you are one of the Idiocrats who think Congress can simply pass a law to change the Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> Considering that *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you can. And you obviously are.
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> So you remain wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...


I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.

All you have done is appeal to ignorance; a well regulated militia must be an organized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Daly said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and AGAIN, the mention of well-regulated militias in the 2nd Amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with our right to keep and bear arms.   Deal with it, Nancy.
> 
> Fact is, our right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution or any other document...it is an inherent human right that you and your government toadies can only infringe IF we allow you to disarm us...which ain't gonna happen, Junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does, simply Because, not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't realize you were mentally challenged, so please read carefully and slowly:
> 
> The mention of a well-regulated militia in the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> If that still isn't clear, feel free to ask questions.  If your handicap prevents you from being able to communicate effectively with words, feel free to draw pictures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does; Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller specifically applies to gun lovers without a clue or a Cause, but not well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep looking dumber with every post.   You must work for the Obama bunch.
> 
> That you don't understand the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, or the slightly more complicated language of Heller is depressing.  I assume you are a product of public education?
Click to expand...

Yes, the plain language is limited by the context of the Intent and Purpose.


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Daly said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> Considering that *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well-regulated means well-trained...it has nothing to do with the organizational structure.
> 
> At issue would be CONSTITUTIONAL militias vs Tom, Dick & Harry's private militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; in our US case, it means whatever our federal Congress prescribes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if they amend the Constitution...but I am not surprised that you are one of the Idiocrats who think Congress can simply pass a law to change the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You only appeal to ignorance.  

Wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.


----------



## Dan Daly

danielpalos said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> Considering that *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well-regulated means well-trained...it has nothing to do with the organizational structure.
> 
> At issue would be CONSTITUTIONAL militias vs Tom, Dick & Harry's private militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; in our US case, it means whatever our federal Congress prescribes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if they amend the Constitution...but I am not surprised that you are one of the Idiocrats who think Congress can simply pass a law to change the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.
Click to expand...


psst...the only Constitutional militias are those of the States (where applicable)...which of course predate our federal government.   But I wouldn't expect a ninny to know any of that. 

As far as a federal militia, you should probably also look at the types of militias outlined in the US Code...one of which is decidedly UNORGANIZED.

The more you try to look smart, the dumber you look.


----------



## Dan Daly

danielpalos said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> and AGAIN, the mention of well-regulated militias in the 2nd Amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with our right to keep and bear arms.   Deal with it, Nancy.
> 
> Fact is, our right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution or any other document...it is an inherent human right that you and your government toadies can only infringe IF we allow you to disarm us...which ain't gonna happen, Junior.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does, simply Because, not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't realize you were mentally challenged, so please read carefully and slowly:
> 
> The mention of a well-regulated militia in the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> If that still isn't clear, feel free to ask questions.  If your handicap prevents you from being able to communicate effectively with words, feel free to draw pictures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does; Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller specifically applies to gun lovers without a clue or a Cause, but not well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep looking dumber with every post.   You must work for the Obama bunch.
> 
> That you don't understand the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, or the slightly more complicated language of Heller is depressing.  I assume you are a product of public education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the plain language is limited by the context of the Intent and Purpose.
Click to expand...


of which you are obviously ignorant.

You should probably limit yourself to debating those ignorant of this issue...it's the only way that at least the rest of the Idiocracy might think you are smart.


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Daly said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well-regulated means well-trained...it has nothing to do with the organizational structure.
> 
> At issue would be CONSTITUTIONAL militias vs Tom, Dick & Harry's private militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; in our US case, it means whatever our federal Congress prescribes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if they amend the Constitution...but I am not surprised that you are one of the Idiocrats who think Congress can simply pass a law to change the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> psst...the only Constitutional militias are those of the States (where applicable)...which of course predate our federal government.   But I wouldn't expect a ninny to know any of that.
> 
> As far as a federal militia, you should probably also look at the types of militias outlined in the US Code...one of which is decidedly UNORGANIZED.
> 
> The more you try to look smart, the dumber you look.
Click to expand...

dude, you really just do need a clue and a Cause.  


> 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;


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Daly said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does, simply Because, not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realize you were mentally challenged, so please read carefully and slowly:
> 
> The mention of a well-regulated militia in the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> If that still isn't clear, feel free to ask questions.  If your handicap prevents you from being able to communicate effectively with words, feel free to draw pictures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does; Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller specifically applies to gun lovers without a clue or a Cause, but not well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep looking dumber with every post.   You must work for the Obama bunch.
> 
> That you don't understand the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, or the slightly more complicated language of Heller is depressing.  I assume you are a product of public education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the plain language is limited by the context of the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of which you are obviously ignorant.
> 
> You should probably limit yourself to debating those ignorant of this issue...it's the only way that at least the rest of the Idiocracy might think you are smart.
Click to expand...

dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  that Must include the Intent and Purpose.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> Considering that *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you can. And you obviously are.
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> So you remain wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.
> 
> All you have done is appeal to ignorance; a well regulated militia must be an organized militia.
Click to expand...


There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.

*You are wrong.*

You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.

You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.

There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized."

There is nothing about being "organized" that is contigent upon being "well regulated."

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*

Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.

You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

So you remain wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you can. And you obviously are.
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> So you remain wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.
> 
> All you have done is appeal to ignorance; a well regulated militia must be an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> *You are wrong.*
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized."
> 
> There is nothing about being "organized" that is contigent upon being "well regulated."
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> So you remain wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.


----------



## Dan Daly

danielpalos said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realize you were mentally challenged, so please read carefully and slowly:
> 
> The mention of a well-regulated militia in the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> If that still isn't clear, feel free to ask questions.  If your handicap prevents you from being able to communicate effectively with words, feel free to draw pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does; Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller specifically applies to gun lovers without a clue or a Cause, but not well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep looking dumber with every post.   You must work for the Obama bunch.
> 
> That you don't understand the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, or the slightly more complicated language of Heller is depressing.  I assume you are a product of public education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the plain language is limited by the context of the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of which you are obviously ignorant.
> 
> You should probably limit yourself to debating those ignorant of this issue...it's the only way that at least the rest of the Idiocracy might think you are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  that Must include the Intent and Purpose.
Click to expand...


Son, I was creating, enforcing, judging and teaching the law since before you were a gleam in your gay daddy's eye.


----------



## Dan Daly

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you can. And you obviously are.
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> So you remain wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.
> 
> All you have done is appeal to ignorance; a well regulated militia must be an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> *You are wrong.*
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized."
> 
> There is nothing about being "organized" that is contigent upon being "well regulated."
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> So you remain wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
Click to expand...


I have two questions:

1. Is English your first language?
2. Do you even understand the words you are writing?

Apparently not.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realize you were mentally challenged, so please read carefully and slowly:
> 
> The mention of a well-regulated militia in the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> If that still isn't clear, feel free to ask questions.  If your handicap prevents you from being able to communicate effectively with words, feel free to draw pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does; Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller specifically applies to gun lovers without a clue or a Cause, but not well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep looking dumber with every post.   You must work for the Obama bunch.
> 
> That you don't understand the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, or the slightly more complicated language of Heller is depressing.  I assume you are a product of public education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the plain language is limited by the context of the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of which you are obviously ignorant.
> 
> You should probably limit yourself to debating those ignorant of this issue...it's the only way that at least the rest of the Idiocracy might think you are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
Click to expand...

There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.




danielpalos said:


> that Must include the Intent and Purpose.


The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment does NOT limit any assertion of the main clause, because it is subordinate to and dependent upon the main clause.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Daly said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does; Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller specifically applies to gun lovers without a clue or a Cause, but not well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just keep looking dumber with every post.   You must work for the Obama bunch.
> 
> That you don't understand the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, or the slightly more complicated language of Heller is depressing.  I assume you are a product of public education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the plain language is limited by the context of the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of which you are obviously ignorant.
> 
> You should probably limit yourself to debating those ignorant of this issue...it's the only way that at least the rest of the Idiocracy might think you are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  that Must include the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, I was creating, enforcing, judging and teaching the law since before you were a gleam in your gay daddy's eye.
Click to expand...

what a waste of resources.  have you considered simply walking around with any old book, call yourself John, and proclaim you are expounding "the gospel Truth".


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Daly said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you can. And you obviously are.
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> So you remain wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.
> 
> All you have done is appeal to ignorance; a well regulated militia must be an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> *You are wrong.*
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized."
> 
> There is nothing about being "organized" that is contigent upon being "well regulated."
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> So you remain wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have two questions:
> 
> 1. Is English your first language?
> 2. Do you even understand the words you are writing?
> 
> Apparently not.
Click to expand...

nothing but Diversion; i got it.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does; Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller specifically applies to gun lovers without a clue or a Cause, but not well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just keep looking dumber with every post.   You must work for the Obama bunch.
> 
> That you don't understand the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, or the slightly more complicated language of Heller is depressing.  I assume you are a product of public education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the plain language is limited by the context of the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of which you are obviously ignorant.
> 
> You should probably limit yourself to debating those ignorant of this issue...it's the only way that at least the rest of the Idiocracy might think you are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that Must include the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment does NOT limit any assertion of the main clause, because it is subordinate to and dependent upon the main clause.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Yes, it must limit the context.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose.


----------



## Dan Daly

danielpalos said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you can. And you obviously are.
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> So you remain wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.
> 
> All you have done is appeal to ignorance; a well regulated militia must be an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> *You are wrong.*
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized."
> 
> There is nothing about being "organized" that is contigent upon being "well regulated."
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> So you remain wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have two questions:
> 
> 1. Is English your first language?
> 2. Do you even understand the words you are writing?
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but Diversion; i got it.
Click to expand...


Diversion from your idiocy is what you need, not I, cupcake.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you can. And you obviously are.
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> So you remain wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.
> 
> All you have done is appeal to ignorance; a well regulated militia must be an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> *You are wrong.*
> 
> You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.
> 
> You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.
> 
> There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized."
> 
> There is nothing about being "organized" that is contigent upon being "well regulated."
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
> 
> So you remain wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
Click to expand...


Meaningless butt noises in your head, informing the retarded notions you post here.

Absent any cogent rebuttal, you remain wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just keep looking dumber with every post.   You must work for the Obama bunch.
> 
> That you don't understand the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, or the slightly more complicated language of Heller is depressing.  I assume you are a product of public education?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the plain language is limited by the context of the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of which you are obviously ignorant.
> 
> You should probably limit yourself to debating those ignorant of this issue...it's the only way that at least the rest of the Idiocracy might think you are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that Must include the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment does NOT limit any assertion of the main clause, because it is subordinate to and dependent upon the main clause.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it must limit the context.
Click to expand...

No. No such necessity is called for or indicated. The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment does NOT limit any assertion of the main clause, because it is subordinate to and dependent upon the main clause.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*



danielpalos said:


> There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose.


There is clearly no *Appeal to Ignorance* being made here, you insufferable cretin.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

y'all merely need a clue and a Cause.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Any questions?


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> y'all merely need a clue and a Cause.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Any questions?


Intent and purpose for what, Pumpkin?

If you wish to assert that the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to place limits and constraints upon, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then you are OBLIGATED to demonstrate it.

I have no apprehensions that you will even try.

Because you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*

You will misapply "*Appeal to Ignorance*" again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the term.

And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*

You will fatuosly cite 10 USC 311 again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the terms "regulated" and "organized" as they are used in their respective documents.

And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*

You will deny that the USC is SUBJECT to, and constrained by the US Constitution, and like an imbecile, you will insist rather that the US Constitution is subject to the USC.

And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*

You will flatly refuse to acknowledge the obvious logical and factual necessity that a well regulated militia is clearly declared  to be dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*

It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.


----------



## Gunman

Am I still Wrong... How you gonna get folks in the USA to give up 600,000,000 Guns..? ? ?


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> y'all merely need a clue and a Cause.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Intent and purpose for what, Pumpkin?
> 
> If you wish to assert that the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to place limits and constraints upon, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then you are OBLIGATED to demonstrate it.
> 
> I have no apprehensions that you will even try.
> 
> Because you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will misapply "*Appeal to Ignorance*" again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the term.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will fatuosly cite 10 USC 311 again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the terms "regulated" and "organized" as they are used in their respective documents.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will deny that the USC is SUBJECT to, and constrained by the US Constitution, and like an imbecile, you will insist rather that the US Constitution is subject to the USC.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will flatly refuse to acknowledge the obvious logical and factual necessity that a well regulated militia is clearly declared  to be dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.
Click to expand...

Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.  

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the _Militia of the United States_ which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.


----------



## danielpalos

Gunman said:


> Am I still Wrong... How you gonna get folks in the USA to give up 600,000,000 Guns..? ? ?


dude, did you miss the fact that even the South, was Infringed in keeping and bearing Arms for their States and their union of States simply because Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> y'all merely need a clue and a Cause.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Any questions?



Just one question:

Did your mother have any children that lived?


----------



## PredFan

Despite the insipid nonsense spouted recently, the premise of the OP remains. The liberal gun grabbers have been getting bitch slapped on a regular basis. All the stupid rhetoric about the 2nd Amendment is irrevant.

Gun grabber are losing, freedom is winning.

Life is good.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> y'all merely need a clue and a Cause.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Intent and purpose for what, Pumpkin?
> 
> If you wish to assert that the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to place limits and constraints upon, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then you are OBLIGATED to demonstrate it.
> 
> I have no apprehensions that you will even try.
> 
> Because you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will misapply "*Appeal to Ignorance*" again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the term.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will fatuosly cite 10 USC 311 again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the terms "regulated" and "organized" as they are used in their respective documents.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will deny that the USC is SUBJECT to, and constrained by the US Constitution, and like an imbecile, you will insist rather that the US Constitution is subject to the USC.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will flatly refuse to acknowledge the obvious logical and factual necessity that a well regulated militia is clearly declared  to be dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the _Militia of the United States_ which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
Click to expand...

Wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*

It's obvious that it is the RIGHT that shall not be infringed.

The obvious logical and factual necessity is that a well regulated militia is dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

10 USC 311 is no constitution at all. Not even a part of it. Imbecile.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> y'all merely need a clue and a Cause.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just one question:
> 
> Did your mother have any children that lived?
Click to expand...

Just one answer; diversions are just that, fallacies.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> y'all merely need a clue and a Cause.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Intent and purpose for what, Pumpkin?
> 
> If you wish to assert that the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to place limits and constraints upon, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then you are OBLIGATED to demonstrate it.
> 
> I have no apprehensions that you will even try.
> 
> Because you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will misapply "*Appeal to Ignorance*" again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the term.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will fatuosly cite 10 USC 311 again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the terms "regulated" and "organized" as they are used in their respective documents.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will deny that the USC is SUBJECT to, and constrained by the US Constitution, and like an imbecile, you will insist rather that the US Constitution is subject to the USC.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will flatly refuse to acknowledge the obvious logical and factual necessity that a well regulated militia is clearly declared  to be dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the _Militia of the United States_ which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> It's obvious that it is the RIGHT that shall not be infringed.
> 
> The obvious logical and factual necessity is that a well regulated militia is dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 10 USC 311 is no constitution at all. Not even a part of it. Imbecile.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

It is obvious that only that which is necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> y'all merely need a clue and a Cause.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Intent and purpose for what, Pumpkin?
> 
> If you wish to assert that the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to place limits and constraints upon, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then you are OBLIGATED to demonstrate it.
> 
> I have no apprehensions that you will even try.
> 
> Because you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will misapply "*Appeal to Ignorance*" again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the term.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will fatuosly cite 10 USC 311 again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the terms "regulated" and "organized" as they are used in their respective documents.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will deny that the USC is SUBJECT to, and constrained by the US Constitution, and like an imbecile, you will insist rather that the US Constitution is subject to the USC.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will flatly refuse to acknowledge the obvious logical and factual necessity that a well regulated militia is clearly declared  to be dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the _Militia of the United States_ which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> It's obvious that it is the RIGHT that shall not be infringed.
> 
> The obvious logical and factual necessity is that a well regulated militia is dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 10 USC 311 is no constitution at all. Not even a part of it. Imbecile.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is obvious that only that which is necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed.
Click to expand...

That is not what is asserted. That which shall not be infringed, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms... as explicitly and unambiguously asserted.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## Gunman

OK Smart-Azz ... How you gonna infringe on folks with 600,000,000 Guns...


----------



## Doggy

They skeered we are fed up.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> y'all merely need a clue and a Cause.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Intent and purpose for what, Pumpkin?
> 
> If you wish to assert that the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to place limits and constraints upon, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then you are OBLIGATED to demonstrate it.
> 
> I have no apprehensions that you will even try.
> 
> Because you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will misapply "*Appeal to Ignorance*" again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the term.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will fatuosly cite 10 USC 311 again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the terms "regulated" and "organized" as they are used in their respective documents.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will deny that the USC is SUBJECT to, and constrained by the US Constitution, and like an imbecile, you will insist rather that the US Constitution is subject to the USC.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will flatly refuse to acknowledge the obvious logical and factual necessity that a well regulated militia is clearly declared  to be dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the _Militia of the United States_ which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> It's obvious that it is the RIGHT that shall not be infringed.
> 
> The obvious logical and factual necessity is that a well regulated militia is dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 10 USC 311 is no constitution at all. Not even a part of it. Imbecile.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is obvious that only that which is necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not what is asserted. That which shall not be infringed, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms... as explicitly and unambiguously asserted.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

It is a right for Only some of the People who are a well regulated militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Gunman said:


> OK Smart-Azz ... How you gonna infringe on folks with 600,000,000 Guns...


You make it seem like all gun lovers are going to insurrect or Rebel.  Only those with a Southern Cause rebelled last time and proved beyond any shadow of any doubt, that Only well regulated militias of the Union may not be Infringed when keeping an bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Doggy said:


> They skeered we are fed up.


Why should well regulated militia be skeered of a bunch of gun lovers who refuse to become more well regulated than them?


----------



## Iceweasel

danielpalos said:


> y'all merely need a clue and a Cause.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Any questions?


Not really, I'm filtering you out. Parrots make more sense.


----------



## danielpalos

Iceweasel said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> y'all merely need a clue and a Cause.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, I'm filtering you out. Parrots make more sense.
Click to expand...

dude, you only have fallacy for your Cause; that makes you and parrots about as right as a broken clock.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> y'all merely need a clue and a Cause.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just one question:
> 
> Did your mother have any children that lived?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just one answer; diversions are just that, fallacies.
Click to expand...


The butthurt is strong with this one.


----------



## Dan Daly

danielpalos said:


> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK Smart-Azz ... How you gonna infringe on folks with 600,000,000 Guns...
> 
> 
> 
> You make it seem like all gun lovers are going to insurrect or Rebel.  Only those with a Southern Cause rebelled last time and proved beyond any shadow of any doubt, that Only well regulated militias of the Union may not be Infringed when keeping an bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


This has to be about the stupidest thing I have ever read.  You sir, are a moron, whether you think you are or not...that is how you are looking to the rest of us.  Good job!


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> y'all merely need a clue and a Cause.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just one question:
> 
> Did your mother have any children that lived?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just one answer; diversions are just that, fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The butthurt is strong with this one.
Click to expand...

nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy; i got t.  

after thrice, it is just a vice.


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Daly said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK Smart-Azz ... How you gonna infringe on folks with 600,000,000 Guns...
> 
> 
> 
> You make it seem like all gun lovers are going to insurrect or Rebel.  Only those with a Southern Cause rebelled last time and proved beyond any shadow of any doubt, that Only well regulated militias of the Union may not be Infringed when keeping an bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has to be about the stupidest thing I have ever read.  You sir, are a moron, whether you think you are or not...that is how you are looking to the rest of us.  Good job!
Click to expand...

simply claiming that means you already lost the intellectual high ground and have only fallacy for your Cause.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intent and purpose for what, Pumpkin?
> 
> If you wish to assert that the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to place limits and constraints upon, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then you are OBLIGATED to demonstrate it.
> 
> I have no apprehensions that you will even try.
> 
> Because you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will misapply "*Appeal to Ignorance*" again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the term.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will fatuosly cite 10 USC 311 again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the terms "regulated" and "organized" as they are used in their respective documents.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will deny that the USC is SUBJECT to, and constrained by the US Constitution, and like an imbecile, you will insist rather that the US Constitution is subject to the USC.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> You will flatly refuse to acknowledge the obvious logical and factual necessity that a well regulated militia is clearly declared  to be dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And you will be wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the _Militia of the United States_ which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> It's obvious that it is the RIGHT that shall not be infringed.
> 
> The obvious logical and factual necessity is that a well regulated militia is dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 10 USC 311 is no constitution at all. Not even a part of it. Imbecile.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is obvious that only that which is necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not what is asserted. That which shall not be infringed, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms... as explicitly and unambiguously asserted.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a right for Only some of the People who are a well regulated militia.
Click to expand...

That would be an obvious violation of the right of the rest of the People. The first clause clearly was not constructed to be a restriction on the right of the people to keep and bear arms...
_It would be incongruous to suppose _(an "appeal to ignorance" according to your retarded paradigm)_ or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended._​...and it still is not.
_*U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007)*: The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias._​
You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## Dan Daly

danielpalos said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK Smart-Azz ... How you gonna infringe on folks with 600,000,000 Guns...
> 
> 
> 
> You make it seem like all gun lovers are going to insurrect or Rebel.  Only those with a Southern Cause rebelled last time and proved beyond any shadow of any doubt, that Only well regulated militias of the Union may not be Infringed when keeping an bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has to be about the stupidest thing I have ever read.  You sir, are a moron, whether you think you are or not...that is how you are looking to the rest of us.  Good job!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply claiming that means you already lost the intellectual high ground and have only fallacy for your Cause.
Click to expand...


I have the intellectual high ground because I have the facts on my side, while all you have is wishful thinking, junior.   I'm not laughing with you, I am laughing at you.


----------



## Gunman

Well Obuttface did it again ... telling folks he gonna band green tipped .223 ammo... started a run on the ammo stores ... All sold out now and taking back orders... Lets see now ... their are 5,000,000... RA--M-16 type rifles in the USA... Just this week folks bought 100 to 1,000 rounds extra for their rifles ... Round that off to say 250 rounds for each gun .....1,250,000,000 Extra rounds in the hands of American gun owners for this last run on the ammo....Now this Shithead is gonna ask American to give up their new found Ammo... Smart OR Stupid...? ? ?


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> y'all merely need a clue and a Cause.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just one question:
> 
> Did your mother have any children that lived?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just one answer; diversions are just that, fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The butthurt is strong with this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy; i got t.
> 
> after thrice, it is just a vice.
Click to expand...


Hey moron, YOUR butthurt is exactly what this thread is about. How can it be a diversion you stupid fuck? Do you even know the meaning of the words you use? I doubt it.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the _Militia of the United States_ which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> It's obvious that it is the RIGHT that shall not be infringed.
> 
> The obvious logical and factual necessity is that a well regulated militia is dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 10 USC 311 is no constitution at all. Not even a part of it. Imbecile.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is obvious that only that which is necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not what is asserted. That which shall not be infringed, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms... as explicitly and unambiguously asserted.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a right for Only some of the People who are a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be an obvious violation of the right of the rest of the People. The first clause clearly was not constructed to be a restriction on the right of the people to keep and bear arms...
> _It would be incongruous to suppose _(an "appeal to ignorance" according to your retarded paradigm)_ or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended._​...and it still is not.
> _*U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007)*: The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias._​
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...


Yes, it is a constraint upon the People as the South discovered when the Union decided to not honor their legal fiction or their Individual right to keep and bear Arms.


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Daly said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK Smart-Azz ... How you gonna infringe on folks with 600,000,000 Guns...
> 
> 
> 
> You make it seem like all gun lovers are going to insurrect or Rebel.  Only those with a Southern Cause rebelled last time and proved beyond any shadow of any doubt, that Only well regulated militias of the Union may not be Infringed when keeping an bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has to be about the stupidest thing I have ever read.  You sir, are a moron, whether you think you are or not...that is how you are looking to the rest of us.  Good job!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply claiming that means you already lost the intellectual high ground and have only fallacy for your Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have the intellectual high ground because I have the facts on my side, while all you have is wishful thinking, junior.   I'm not laughing with you, I am laughing at you.
Click to expand...

Which facts are those? You seem to have nothing but fallacy for your Cause.  Are you saying it is a fact, that there is any form of appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law?


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> y'all merely need a clue and a Cause.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just one question:
> 
> Did your mother have any children that lived?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just one answer; diversions are just that, fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The butthurt is strong with this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy; i got t.
> 
> after thrice, it is just a vice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey moron, YOUR butthurt is exactly what this thread is about. How can it be a diversion you stupid fuck? Do you even know the meaning of the words you use? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

You have to answer with a valid argument or you are just full of fallacy.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> It's obvious that it is the RIGHT that shall not be infringed.
> 
> The obvious logical and factual necessity is that a well regulated militia is dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 10 USC 311 is no constitution at all. Not even a part of it. Imbecile.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> It is obvious that only that which is necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not what is asserted. That which shall not be infringed, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms... as explicitly and unambiguously asserted.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a right for Only some of the People who are a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be an obvious violation of the right of the rest of the People. The first clause clearly was not constructed to be a restriction on the right of the people to keep and bear arms...
> _It would be incongruous to suppose _(an "appeal to ignorance" according to your retarded paradigm)_ or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended._​...and it still is not.
> _*U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007)*: The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias._​
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a constraint upon the People as the South discovered when the Union decided to not honor their legal fiction or their Individual right to keep and bear Arms.
Click to expand...

Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Doggy

The union never decided a thing.The South did the desiding.The union just followed.Maybe when you get above the second grade,you`ll know what you`re talking about


----------



## Ringel05

Doggy said:


> The union never decided a thing.The South did the desiding.The union just followed.Maybe when you get above the second grade,you`ll know what you`re talking about


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is obvious that only that which is necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what is asserted. That which shall not be infringed, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms... as explicitly and unambiguously asserted.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a right for Only some of the People who are a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be an obvious violation of the right of the rest of the People. The first clause clearly was not constructed to be a restriction on the right of the people to keep and bear arms...
> _It would be incongruous to suppose _(an "appeal to ignorance" according to your retarded paradigm)_ or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended._​...and it still is not.
> _*U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007)*: The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias._​
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a constraint upon the People as the South discovered when the Union decided to not honor their legal fiction or their Individual right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Wrong about what?  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,-- is the Intent and Purpose of our entire, Second Amendment. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of it, it has to color every Thing else that follows, like any good militia Intent and Purpose must.


----------



## danielpalos

Doggy said:


> The union never decided a thing.The South did the desiding.The union just followed.Maybe when you get above the second grade,you`ll know what you`re talking about


Yes, the Union decided to deny and disparage the legal fiction of the South; and, only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, as those of the point of view of the Southern Cause, found out.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what is asserted. That which shall not be infringed, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms... as explicitly and unambiguously asserted.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> It is a right for Only some of the People who are a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be an obvious violation of the right of the rest of the People. The first clause clearly was not constructed to be a restriction on the right of the people to keep and bear arms...
> _It would be incongruous to suppose _(an "appeal to ignorance" according to your retarded paradigm)_ or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended._​...and it still is not.
> _*U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007)*: The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias._​
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a constraint upon the People as the South discovered when the Union decided to not honor their legal fiction or their Individual right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong about what?
Click to expand...

 Everything. *AGAIN. STILL.*



danielpalos said:


> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.


There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*



danielpalos said:


> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,-- is the Intent and Purpose of our entire, Second Amendment.


No. It cannot possibly be so as evidenced above; and by the application of "shall not be infringed" to the "right of the people" rather than any description of militia; and by the actual intent and purpose explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights to "...prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal government's] powers."

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*



danielpalos said:


> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of it, it has to color every Thing else that follows, like any good militia Intent and Purpose must.


There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.


You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a right for Only some of the People who are a well regulated militia.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be an obvious violation of the right of the rest of the People. The first clause clearly was not constructed to be a restriction on the right of the people to keep and bear arms...
> _It would be incongruous to suppose _(an "appeal to ignorance" according to your retarded paradigm)_ or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended._​...and it still is not.
> _*U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007)*: The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias._​
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a constraint upon the People as the South discovered when the Union decided to not honor their legal fiction or their Individual right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong about what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,-- is the Intent and Purpose of our entire, Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It cannot possibly be so as evidenced above; and by the application of "shall not be infringed" to the "right of the people" rather than any description of militia; and by the actual intent and purpose explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights to "...prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal government's] powers."
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of it, it has to color every Thing else that follows, like any good militia Intent and Purpose must.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...


simply claiming that is a fallacy, with out a valid argument to support your currently, unsubstantiated opinion.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be an obvious violation of the right of the rest of the People. The first clause clearly was not constructed to be a restriction on the right of the people to keep and bear arms...
> _It would be incongruous to suppose _(an "appeal to ignorance" according to your retarded paradigm)_ or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended._​...and it still is not.
> _*U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007)*: The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias._​
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a constraint upon the People as the South discovered when the Union decided to not honor their legal fiction or their Individual right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong about what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,-- is the Intent and Purpose of our entire, Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It cannot possibly be so as evidenced above; and by the application of "shall not be infringed" to the "right of the people" rather than any description of militia; and by the actual intent and purpose explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights to "...prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal government's] powers."
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of it, it has to color every Thing else that follows, like any good militia Intent and Purpose must.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> simply claiming that is a fallacy, with out a valid argument to support your currently, unsubstantiated opinion.
Click to expand...

Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument; they are no rebuttal to the valid arguments and substantiated facts I've presented.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a constraint upon the People as the South discovered when the Union decided to not honor their legal fiction or their Individual right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong about what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,-- is the Intent and Purpose of our entire, Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It cannot possibly be so as evidenced above; and by the application of "shall not be infringed" to the "right of the people" rather than any description of militia; and by the actual intent and purpose explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights to "...prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal government's] powers."
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of it, it has to color every Thing else that follows, like any good militia Intent and Purpose must.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> simply claiming that is a fallacy, with out a valid argument to support your currently, unsubstantiated opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument; they are no rebuttal to the valid arguments and substantiated facts I've presented.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Which facts are those?  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong about what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,-- is the Intent and Purpose of our entire, Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It cannot possibly be so as evidenced above; and by the application of "shall not be infringed" to the "right of the people" rather than any description of militia; and by the actual intent and purpose explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights to "...prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal government's] powers."
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of it, it has to color every Thing else that follows, like any good militia Intent and Purpose must.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> simply claiming that is a fallacy, with out a valid argument to support your currently, unsubstantiated opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument; they are no rebuttal to the valid arguments and substantiated facts I've presented.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which facts are those?
Click to expand...

See the discussion above. Your denial of reality is no rebuttal of the uncontested facts and arguments that have demonstrated that you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*



danielpalos said:


> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.


There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong about what?
> 
> 
> 
> Everything. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,-- is the Intent and Purpose of our entire, Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It cannot possibly be so as evidenced above; and by the application of "shall not be infringed" to the "right of the people" rather than any description of militia; and by the actual intent and purpose explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights to "...prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal government's] powers."
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of it, it has to color every Thing else that follows, like any good militia Intent and Purpose must.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> simply claiming that is a fallacy, with out a valid argument to support your currently, unsubstantiated opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument; they are no rebuttal to the valid arguments and substantiated facts I've presented.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which facts are those?  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you didn't have.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> No. It cannot possibly be so as evidenced above; and by the application of "shall not be infringed" to the "right of the people" rather than any description of militia; and by the actual intent and purpose explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights to "...prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal government's] powers."
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> simply claiming that is a fallacy, with out a valid argument to support your currently, unsubstantiated opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument; they are no rebuttal to the valid arguments and substantiated facts I've presented.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which facts are those?  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you didn't have.
Click to expand...

Your denials of reality, non-sequiturs, and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## Gunman

Well Regulated Militia..? ? ? When those seven folks were killed up in MO. took the Sheriff dept. almost one Hr. to respond as the patrol was on the other side of a the county.. If you want to live sometimes YOU gotta be the Well Regulated Militia ....


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> simply claiming that is a fallacy, with out a valid argument to support your currently, unsubstantiated opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument; they are no rebuttal to the valid arguments and substantiated facts I've presented.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which facts are those?  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you didn't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your denials of reality, non-sequiturs, and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

dude, you have no Thing but fallacy for your Cause; why do you believe you are only sometimes right more than twice day, except for this topic.


----------



## danielpalos

Gunman said:


> Well Regulated Militia..? ? ? When those seven folks were killed up in MO. took the Sheriff dept. almost one Hr. to respond as the patrol was on the other side of a the county.. If you want to live sometimes YOU gotta be the Well Regulated Militia ....


Dude, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.  

10USC311 applies to the Militia of the United States in legal fact. 



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.



That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment. 

Any questions?


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument; they are no rebuttal to the valid arguments and substantiated facts I've presented.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> Which facts are those?  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you didn't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your denials of reality, non-sequiturs, and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you have no Thing but fallacy for your Cause; why do you believe you are only sometimes right more than twice day, except for this topic.
Click to expand...

Your made-up argumentative fallacies, denials of reality, non-sequiturs, and appeals to magical thinking are not arguments; they're not rebuttals.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment


Demonstrate.

Your ignorance and denials of reality are not acceptable arguments, so before you attempt a "term of art" demonstration, be sure your assertions can withstand the explicit intent and purpose asserted by the author(s) of the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and over 200 years of jurisprudence demonstrating it's NOT a State's right.

I have no apprehension that you'll try, because....

You're wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which facts are those?  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you didn't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your denials of reality, non-sequiturs, and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you have no Thing but fallacy for your Cause; why do you believe you are only sometimes right more than twice day, except for this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your made-up argumentative fallacies, denials of reality, non-sequiturs, and appeals to magical thinking are not arguments; they're not rebuttals.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

still nothing but diversion; i got it.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate.
> 
> Your ignorance and denials of reality are not acceptable arguments, so before you attempt a "term of art" demonstration, be sure your assertions can withstand the explicit intent and purpose asserted by the author(s) of the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and over 200 years of jurisprudence demonstrating it's NOT a State's right.
> 
> I have no apprehension that you'll try, because....
> 
> You're wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...


_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
_
That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of Any law; not even our Second Article of Amendment.

_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ...._


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you didn't have.
> 
> 
> 
> Your denials of reality, non-sequiturs, and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you have no Thing but fallacy for your Cause; why do you believe you are only sometimes right more than twice day, except for this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your made-up argumentative fallacies, denials of reality, non-sequiturs, and appeals to magical thinking are not arguments; they're not rebuttals.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still nothing but diversion; i got it.
Click to expand...

Your made-up argumentative fallacies, denials of reality, non-sequiturs, and appeals to magical thinking are not arguments; they're not rebuttals.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate.
> 
> Your ignorance and denials of reality are not acceptable arguments, so before you attempt a "term of art" demonstration, be sure your assertions can withstand the explicit intent and purpose asserted by the author(s) of the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and over 200 years of jurisprudence demonstrating it's NOT a State's right.
> 
> I have no apprehension that you'll try, because....
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> _
> That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

That is NOT a description of rights, but rather OBLIGATIONS in the New York State (NOT United States) Constitution.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*



danielpalos said:


> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of Any law; not even our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ...._


*the right of the people* (NOT the State's right) _to keep and bear at arms shall not be infringed. _

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of Any law being made; not even our Second Article of Amendment.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate.
> 
> Your ignorance and denials of reality are not acceptable arguments, so before you attempt a "term of art" demonstration, be sure your assertions can withstand the explicit intent and purpose asserted by the author(s) of the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and over 200 years of jurisprudence demonstrating it's NOT a State's right.
> 
> I have no apprehension that you'll try, because....
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> _
> That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is NOT a description of rights, but rather OBLIGATIONS in the New York State (NOT United States) Constitution.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of Any law; not even our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ...._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *the right of the people* (NOT the State's right) _to keep and bear at arms shall not be infringed. _
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of Any law being made; not even our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Dude, are you really that much of an appealer to ignorance?  That Obligation of the People, is a States' right.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate.
> 
> Your ignorance and denials of reality are not acceptable arguments, so before you attempt a "term of art" demonstration, be sure your assertions can withstand the explicit intent and purpose asserted by the author(s) of the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and over 200 years of jurisprudence demonstrating it's NOT a State's right.
> 
> I have no apprehension that you'll try, because....
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> _
> That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is NOT a description of rights, but rather OBLIGATIONS in the New York State (NOT United States) Constitution.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of Any law; not even our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ...._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *the right of the people* (NOT the State's right) _to keep and bear at arms shall not be infringed. _
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of Any law being made; not even our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, are you really that much of an appealer to ignorance?
Click to expand...

 I have made no appeal to ignorance.

You have made this fatuous accusation several times. I've demonstrated to you--without contest-- that you misuse the term.

Having so conceded, why do you persist?

It is all you have. You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*



danielpalos said:


> That Obligation of the People, is a States' right.


_"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals."_

States' rights are by logical necessity contingent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the rights of the individual sovereigns that comprise the body of the People.

The continued assurance of "a well regulated militia" is by logical necessity contingent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the individual sovereigns that comprise the body of the People to keep and bear arms.

As such, and in accordance with the explicitly asserted intent and purpose for authoring and ratifying the Bill of Rights as the highest law of the land,  _the right of *the people*_ (NOT the State's right) _to keep and bear at arms shall not be infringed.
_
So, unsurprisingly, your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

That Obligation of the People, is a States' right.

That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment

_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. _

It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> That Obligation of the People, is a States' right.
> 
> That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment
> 
> _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. _
> 
> It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.


Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

That Obligation of the People, is a States' right.

That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment

_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. _

It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right. 

You either have a valid argument or you don't have any standing due to a lack of a clue or a Cause.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> That Obligation of the People, is a States' right.
> 
> That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment
> 
> _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. _
> 
> It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> You either have a valid argument or you don't have any standing due to a lack of a clue or a Cause.


Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> That Obligation of the People, is a States' right.
> 
> That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment
> 
> _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. _
> 
> It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> You either have a valid argument or you don't have any standing due to a lack of a clue or a Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...


This is a States' right:

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state.  _

Why do you believe it isn't?


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> That Obligation of the People, is a States' right.
> 
> That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment
> 
> _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. _
> 
> It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> You either have a valid argument or you don't have any standing due to a lack of a clue or a Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a States' right:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state.  _
> 
> Why do you believe it isn't?
Click to expand...

Because it says otherwise. Because your claim is repugnant to the concepts of powers and rights (and their relationship) as clearly asserted in the U.S. Constitution.

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just one question:
> 
> Did your mother have any children that lived?
> 
> 
> 
> Just one answer; diversions are just that, fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The butthurt is strong with this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy; i got t.
> 
> after thrice, it is just a vice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey moron, YOUR butthurt is exactly what this thread is about. How can it be a diversion you stupid fuck? Do you even know the meaning of the words you use? I doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to answer with a valid argument or you are just full of fallacy.
Click to expand...


How stupid are you exactly?


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> That Obligation of the People, is a States' right.
> 
> That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment
> 
> _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. _
> 
> It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> You either have a valid argument or you don't have any standing due to a lack of a clue or a Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a States' right:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state.  _
> 
> Why do you believe it isn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it says otherwise. Because your claim is repugnant to the concepts of powers and rights (and their relationship) as clearly asserted in the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Where does it say otherwise?  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just one answer; diversions are just that, fallacies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The butthurt is strong with this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy; i got t.
> 
> after thrice, it is just a vice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey moron, YOUR butthurt is exactly what this thread is about. How can it be a diversion you stupid fuck? Do you even know the meaning of the words you use? I doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to answer with a valid argument or you are just full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How stupid are you exactly?
Click to expand...

Not as stupid as those who Only have have fallacy for their Cause. Any questions?


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The butthurt is strong with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy; i got t.
> 
> after thrice, it is just a vice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey moron, YOUR butthurt is exactly what this thread is about. How can it be a diversion you stupid fuck? Do you even know the meaning of the words you use? I doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to answer with a valid argument or you are just full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How stupid are you exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as stupid as those who Only have have fallacy for their Cause. Any questions?
Click to expand...


Oh the irony!!!!!!


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy; i got t.
> 
> after thrice, it is just a vice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey moron, YOUR butthurt is exactly what this thread is about. How can it be a diversion you stupid fuck? Do you even know the meaning of the words you use? I doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to answer with a valid argument or you are just full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How stupid are you exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as stupid as those who Only have have fallacy for their Cause. Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the irony!!!!!!
Click to expand...

This is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment:

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey moron, YOUR butthurt is exactly what this thread is about. How can it be a diversion you stupid fuck? Do you even know the meaning of the words you use? I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to answer with a valid argument or you are just full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How stupid are you exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as stupid as those who Only have have fallacy for their Cause. Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the irony!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
Click to expand...

Ah the old cut and paste selective quoting ploy.  Got it.


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to answer with a valid argument or you are just full of fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How stupid are you exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as stupid as those who Only have have fallacy for their Cause. Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the irony!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah the old cut and paste selective quoting ploy.  Got it.
Click to expand...

Nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy; i got it.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How stupid are you exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> Not as stupid as those who Only have have fallacy for their Cause. Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the irony!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah the old cut and paste selective quoting ploy.  Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy; i got it.
Click to expand...

Hypocrite much......?


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as stupid as those who Only have have fallacy for their Cause. Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the irony!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah the old cut and paste selective quoting ploy.  Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hypocrite much......?
Click to expand...

The one who resorts to the most fallacies is the most hypocritical.


----------



## Ringel05

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the irony!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> This is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah the old cut and paste selective quoting ploy.  Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hypocrite much......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one who resorts to the most fallacies is the most hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Then you must be the poster child.......


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> That Obligation of the People, is a States' right.
> 
> That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment
> 
> _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. _
> 
> It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> You either have a valid argument or you don't have any standing due to a lack of a clue or a Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a States' right:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state.  _
> 
> Why do you believe it isn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it says otherwise. Because your claim is repugnant to the concepts of powers and rights (and their relationship) as clearly asserted in the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say otherwise?  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
Click to expand...

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey moron, YOUR butthurt is exactly what this thread is about. How can it be a diversion you stupid fuck? Do you even know the meaning of the words you use? I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to answer with a valid argument or you are just full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How stupid are you exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as stupid as those who Only have have fallacy for their Cause. Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the irony!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
Click to expand...

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL. *


----------



## danielpalos

Ringel05 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> 
> 
> Ah the old cut and paste selective quoting ploy.  Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hypocrite much......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one who resorts to the most fallacies is the most hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you must be the poster child.......
Click to expand...

No.  I always lose to those of the opposing view.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> That Obligation of the People, is a States' right.
> 
> That is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment
> 
> _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. _
> 
> It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> You either have a valid argument or you don't have any standing due to a lack of a clue or a Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a States' right:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state.  _
> 
> Why do you believe it isn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it says otherwise. Because your claim is repugnant to the concepts of powers and rights (and their relationship) as clearly asserted in the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say otherwise?  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...


Nothing but diversion; i got it.  

You have to demonstrate why it is not a States' right.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a States' right:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state.  _
> 
> Why do you believe it isn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it says otherwise. Because your claim is repugnant to the concepts of powers and rights (and their relationship) as clearly asserted in the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say otherwise?  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> _ The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> As unambiguously demonstrated several times, without contest,
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion; i got it.
Click to expand...

No diversion; you've got nothing.

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*



danielpalos said:


> You have to demonstrate why it is not a States' right.


A "States' right" to what, exactly? You see Cupcake, it's not my obligation at all to demonstrate what's not there... it's your obligation to demonstrate it is.

Which will be quite a trick, since the States have no rights with regard to the People. The States only have rights with regard to the Federal government. Your assertions are repugnant to the notions of rights and powers as described in the Constitution.

All you have is a declaration that, "_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state._" No right of the State is asserted by it.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## Gunman

Who gives a s***... I ant gonna give up my guns... and I got lots of Ammo...! ! !  You really think that the US Army is going to go Door to Door collecting Guns.... Stupid .....


----------



## danielpalos

Here it is again, for those of the opposing who won't get it, without the constant repetition of simple propaganda and rhetoric:

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

That Obligation of the People, is a States' right secured by our Second Article of Amendment.

_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. _

It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.

You either have a valid argument or you don't have any standing due to a lack of a clue or a Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

Gunman said:


> Who gives a s***... I ant gonna give up my guns... and I got lots of Ammo...! ! !  You really think that the US Army is going to go Door to Door collecting Guns.... Stupid .....



That is not your problem.

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

Your "problem" is that some on the left believe gun lovers should be drafted first for any wars even on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, simply because they have Arms they are willing to keep and bear.  Because, we have a Ninth Amendment and should not have to be as well regulated as those who do keep and bear Arms.

And, not Only that, but, some on the left are advocating for judicial activism in regards to our aqueducts and our roads, through recourse to gun lovers who may present themselves before the Judicature for any breaches of the domestic Tranquility and security of our free States. 

What State could be worse off with better aqueducts and better roads, by regulating well, gun lovers into acquiring and possessing the character of a "well regulated Militia".

Dear dudes and Esquires,

* “Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” *
― G.K. Chesterton

If this was true of the Militia of Rome, why should it not be even more true of the Militia of the United States.

Why should gun lovers feel any sense of entitlement to literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment if they are unwilling to love their Republic as much as they claim to love their guns?


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Here it is again, for those of the opposing who won't get it, without the constant repetition of simple propaganda and rhetoric:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> That Obligation of the People, is a States' right secured by our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> You either have a valid argument or you don't have any standing due to a lack of a clue or a Cause.


The arguments refuting your errors of fact and faulty logic have been presented, and have not been contested.

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.

P.S. *Your failure to bring any substantive support to your assertions--despite your every opportunity to do so--is rendering you rather boring. Is that what your oft cited " Patton Doctrine (of argumentation) " refers to... boring your opponent into submission?

If so, its working.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The butthurt is strong with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy; i got t.
> 
> after thrice, it is just a vice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey moron, YOUR butthurt is exactly what this thread is about. How can it be a diversion you stupid fuck? Do you even know the meaning of the words you use? I doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to answer with a valid argument or you are just full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How stupid are you exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as stupid as those who Only have have fallacy for their Cause. Any questions?
Click to expand...


Look you stupid nut job. I posted about the butthurt you and the gun grabbing left wing idiots like you have been experiencing lately. You called it a diversion. This thread is about the butthurt. It is not a diversion. Have I dumbed this down enough for your stupid ass?


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is again, for those of the opposing who won't get it, without the constant repetition of simple propaganda and rhetoric:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> That Obligation of the People, is a States' right secured by our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> You either have a valid argument or you don't have any standing due to a lack of a clue or a Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> The arguments refuting your errors of fact and faulty logic have been presented, and have not been contested.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> P.S. *Your failure to bring any substantive support to your assertions--despite your every opportunity to do so--is rendering you rather boring. Is that what your oft cited " Patton Doctrine (of argumentation) " refers to... boring your opponent into submission?
> 
> If so, its working.
Click to expand...


dude; here is the argument you need to rebut:

Here it is again, for those of the opposing who won't get it, without the constant repetition of simple propaganda and rhetoric:

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

That Obligation of the People, is a States' right secured by our Second Article of Amendment.

_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. _

It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy; i got t.
> 
> after thrice, it is just a vice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey moron, YOUR butthurt is exactly what this thread is about. How can it be a diversion you stupid fuck? Do you even know the meaning of the words you use? I doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to answer with a valid argument or you are just full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How stupid are you exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as stupid as those who Only have have fallacy for their Cause. Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look you stupid nut job. I posted about the butthurt you and the gun grabbing left wing idiots like you have been experiencing lately. You called it a diversion. This thread is about the butthurt. It is not a diversion. Have I dumbed this down enough for your stupid ass?
Click to expand...


dude; you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause; how _inferior_ is that.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey moron, YOUR butthurt is exactly what this thread is about. How can it be a diversion you stupid fuck? Do you even know the meaning of the words you use? I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to answer with a valid argument or you are just full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How stupid are you exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as stupid as those who Only have have fallacy for their Cause. Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look you stupid nut job. I posted about the butthurt you and the gun grabbing left wing idiots like you have been experiencing lately. You called it a diversion. This thread is about the butthurt. It is not a diversion. Have I dumbed this down enough for your stupid ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude; you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause; how _inferior_ is that.
Click to expand...


And you have nothing but dodge and diversion. But hey! Thanks for keeping this thread on the first page!

Left wing nut gun grabbing butthurt can be useful.


----------



## danielpalos

dude; here is the argument you need to rebut:

Here it is again, for those of the opposing who won't get it, without the constant repetition of simple propaganda and rhetoric:

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

That Obligation of the People, is a States' right secured by our Second Article of Amendment.

_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. _

It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is again, for those of the opposing who won't get it, without the constant repetition of simple propaganda and rhetoric:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> That Obligation of the People, is a States' right secured by our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> You either have a valid argument or you don't have any standing due to a lack of a clue or a Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> The arguments refuting your errors of fact and faulty logic have been presented, and have not been contested.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> P.S. *Your failure to bring any substantive support to your assertions--despite your every opportunity to do so--is rendering you rather boring. Is that what your oft cited " Patton Doctrine (of argumentation) " refers to... boring your opponent into submission?
> 
> If so, its working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude; here is the argument you need to rebut:
> 
> Here it is again, for those of the opposing who won't get it, without the constant repetition of simple propaganda and rhetoric:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> That Obligation of the People, is a States' right secured by our Second Article of Amendment.
Click to expand...

There is no mention of any States' right, and the right described by the 2nd Amendment quite clealy belongs to the People, rather than the State.

*YOU* are obligated to demonstrate your States' right argument with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Requiring me to refute your unsupported claim is illicitly shifting the burden of proof; it is, ironically, an appeal to ignorance.

_


danielpalos said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

_


danielpalos said:


> It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.


Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to answer with a valid argument or you are just full of fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How stupid are you exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as stupid as those who Only have have fallacy for their Cause. Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look you stupid nut job. I posted about the butthurt you and the gun grabbing left wing idiots like you have been experiencing lately. You called it a diversion. This thread is about the butthurt. It is not a diversion. Have I dumbed this down enough for your stupid ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude; you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause; how _inferior_ is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you have nothing but dodge and diversion. But hey! Thanks for keeping this thread on the first page!
> 
> Left wing nut gun grabbing butthurt can be useful.
Click to expand...

No problem.  I don't  mind all of Your cognitive dissonance, exogenous to myself. I love to prove the efficacy of my medication as a palliative.


----------



## danielpalos

Not sure how you reached your conclusion without appealing to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our own laws.  The term "State" is found in both laws, which are supreme in a State and the Union.

_The defense and protection of the State and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the State. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

_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._

_10USC311-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....

_


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Not sure how you reached your conclusion without appealing to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of four own laws.  The term "State" is found in both laws, which are supreme in a State and the Union.


Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

Here is the argument you need to refute, unless you Only have fallacy for your Cause. 

Not sure how you reached your conclusion without appealing to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our own laws. The term "State" is found in both laws, which are supreme in a State and the Union.

_The defense and protection of the State and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the State. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

_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._

_10USC311-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...._

Any questions?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> dude; here is the argument you need to rebut:
> 
> Here it is again, for those of the opposing who won't get it, without the constant repetition of simple propaganda and rhetoric:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> That Obligation of the People, is a States' right secured by our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.



The Bill of Rights is specifically for individual citizens.   The 1st amendment does not give the states freedom of speech.  It gives it to individuals.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Here is the argument you need to refute, unless you Only have fallacy for your Cause.
> 
> Not sure how you reached your conclusion without appealing to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our own laws. The term "State" is found in both laws, which are supreme in a State and the Union.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the State and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the State. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> _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._
> 
> _10USC311-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...._
> 
> Any questions?



Just one.  Why is the 2nd amendment the only one that applies solely to the state?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude; here is the argument you need to rebut:
> 
> Here it is again, for those of the opposing who won't get it, without the constant repetition of simple propaganda and rhetoric:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> That Obligation of the People, is a States' right secured by our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights is specifically for individual citizens.   The 1st amendment does not give the states freedom of speech.  It gives it to individuals.
Click to expand...

That is a myth.  There is no general rule for our Bill of Rights.  The terms are explicit and leave no room for ambiguity.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the argument you need to refute, unless you Only have fallacy for your Cause.
> 
> Not sure how you reached your conclusion without appealing to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our own laws. The term "State" is found in both laws, which are supreme in a State and the Union.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the State and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the State. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> _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._
> 
> _10USC311-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...._
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just one.  Why is the 2nd amendment the only one that applies solely to the state?
Click to expand...

Because that is the Intent and Purpose for _free_ States.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude; here is the argument you need to rebut:
> 
> Here it is again, for those of the opposing who won't get it, without the constant repetition of simple propaganda and rhetoric:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> That Obligation of the People, is a States' right secured by our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights is specifically for individual citizens.   The 1st amendment does not give the states freedom of speech.  It gives it to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a myth.  There is no general rule for our Bill of Rights.  The terms are explicit and leave no room for ambiguity.
Click to expand...


So you are maintaining that the Bill of Rights is about preserving the rights of the states???    Really?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the argument you need to refute, unless you Only have fallacy for your Cause.
> 
> Not sure how you reached your conclusion without appealing to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our own laws. The term "State" is found in both laws, which are supreme in a State and the Union.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the State and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the State. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> _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._
> 
> _10USC311-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...._
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just one.  Why is the 2nd amendment the only one that applies solely to the state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because that is the Intent and Purpose for _free_ States.
Click to expand...


So only the 2nd amendment is about the states, and the rest of teh Bill of Rights is about individual rights?


----------



## danielpalos

I am saying the Terms denote the Intent and Purpose.  

How do those of your point of view account for the Term "militia" that is found in our Second Article of Amendment?

How do those of your point of view compare and contrast the terms "militia" and "the People", in the context of our Second Article of Amendment?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> I am saying the Terms denote the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> How do those of your point of view account for the Term "militia" that is found in our Second Article of Amendment?
> 
> How do those of your point of view compare and contrast the terms "militia" and "the People", in the context of our Second Article of Amendment?



The term "militia" was not intended to be a state military.  It was intended to be citizens who took up arms to defend their country.   The citizens are who is protected by the Bill of Rights.  That is why James Madison wrote most of them, as a response to requests for safeguards for the individual rights of the citizenry.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws; especially this one--10USC311.

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

Thus, it is easy to recognize that what must be a States right secured by our Second Amendment.

_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. _


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws; especially this one--10USC311.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Thus, it is easy to recognize that what must be a States right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> _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. _



Only if you ignore the second part of the sentence "..._ the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."._

The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled this to be an individual right, not a states right.   The intent was to make sure the population could defend the nation, not to provide for a state military.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws; especially this one--10USC311.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Thus, it is easy to recognize that what must be a States right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you ignore the second part of the sentence "..._ the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."._
> 
> The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled this to be an individual right, not a states right.   The intent was to make sure the population could defend the nation, not to provide for a state military.
Click to expand...

How does applying 10USC311 ignore the second clause?  

Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws; especially this one--10USC311.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Thus, it is easy to recognize that what must be a States right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you ignore the second part of the sentence "..._ the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."._
> 
> The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled this to be an individual right, not a states right.   The intent was to make sure the population could defend the nation, not to provide for a state military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does applying 10USC311 ignore the second clause?
> 
> Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


The citizens become the well regulated militia when needed, and live their lives when it is not.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws; especially this one--10USC311.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Thus, it is easy to recognize that what must be a States right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you ignore the second part of the sentence "..._ the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."._
> 
> The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled this to be an individual right, not a states right.   The intent was to make sure the population could defend the nation, not to provide for a state military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does applying 10USC311 ignore the second clause?
> 
> Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The citizens become the well regulated militia when needed, and live their lives when it is not.
Click to expand...


You are ignoring ("select") militia such as State national guard and State (militia) "self-defense forces" as Part of the (organized) Militia of the United States; the rest of the Militia of the United States is not considered organized--and, that specifically includes gun lovers who refuse to love their Republic as much as they claim to love their guns; and are therefore, not necessary to the security of a free State; as declared in our Second Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

danielpalos said:


> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws; especially this one--10USC311.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Thus, it is easy to recognize that what must be a States right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> _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. _


This is as idiotic as the thread premise, the BoR enshrine individual, not states' rights.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Here is the argument you need to refute, unless you Only have fallacy for your Cause.


Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*



danielpalos said:


> Not sure how you reached your conclusion without appealing to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our own laws.


No appeal to ignorance has been made. The conclusions reached are based upon valid arguments applied to the verifiable and unambiguous facts of reality presented as their basis. Facts and arguments that remain uncontested by you or anyone else.

The repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality constitute no rebuttal at all, but have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*



danielpalos said:


> The term "State" is found in both laws, which are supreme in a State and the Union.


Yet no mention of a "States' right is mentioned.

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*

_


danielpalos said:



			The defense and protection of the State and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the State. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
		
Click to expand...

_


danielpalos said:


> _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._
> 
> _10USC311-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...._
> 
> Any questions?


Yes. What is the argument? None of what you've quoted above constitutes an argument. You must state an argument. Simply citing the NYS Constitution, the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and 10 USC 311 is no argument.

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude; here is the argument you need to rebut:
> 
> Here it is again, for those of the opposing who won't get it, without the constant repetition of simple propaganda and rhetoric:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> That Obligation of the People, is a States' right secured by our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> It really is that simple; except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights is specifically for individual citizens.   The 1st amendment does not give the states freedom of speech.  It gives it to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a myth.  There is no general rule for our Bill of Rights.  The terms are explicit and leave no room for ambiguity.
Click to expand...

"_The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire,* in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added*: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution._"​You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws; especially this one--10USC311.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Thus, it is easy to recognize that what must be a States right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you ignore the second part of the sentence "..._ the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."._
> 
> The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled this to be an individual right, not a states right.   The intent was to make sure the population could defend the nation, not to provide for a state military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does applying 10USC311 ignore the second clause?
Click to expand...

10 USC 311 is *NOT APPLICABLE TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution...10 USC 311 is *SUBJECT TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution... 10 USC 311 *HAS NO BEARING UPON* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. The ENTIRE USC is constrained by, and answerable to, the US Constitution--including the 2nd Amendment.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*



danielpalos said:


> Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.


There can be no assurance of a well regulated militia unless the People can arm themselves, hence the unambiguous assertion in the 2nd that "_...*the right of the People* _(no States' right mentioned) _to keep and bear arms _(forming organized militias NOT mentioned) _shall not be infringed._"

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws; especially this one--10USC311.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Thus, it is easy to recognize that what must be a States right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> 
> 
> This is as idiotic as the thread premise, the BoR enshrine individual, not states' rights.
Click to expand...

What is even more idiotic, is any appeal to ignorance (of the law) while diagnosing the Body politic.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws; especially this one--10USC311.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Thus, it is easy to recognize that what must be a States right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you ignore the second part of the sentence "..._ the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."._
> 
> The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled this to be an individual right, not a states right.   The intent was to make sure the population could defend the nation, not to provide for a state military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does applying 10USC311 ignore the second clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10 USC 311 is *NOT APPLICABLE TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution...10 USC 311 is *SUBJECT TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution... 10 USC 311 *HAS NO BEARING UPON* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. The ENTIRE USC is constrained by, and answerable to, the US Constitution--including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There can be no assurance of a well regulated militia unless the People can arm themselves, hence the unambiguous assertion in the 2nd that "_...*the right of the People* _(no States' right mentioned) _to keep and bear arms _(forming organized militias NOT mentioned) _shall not be infringed._"
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, especially this one--10USC311.  Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## PredFan

Defeat after defeat after defeat has left the Progressive gun grabbers so butthurt that they don't even make sense anymore.

Freaking hilarious.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> Defeat after defeat after defeat has left the Progressive gun grabbers so butthurt that they don't even make sense anymore.
> 
> Freaking hilarious.


 There is no appeal to ignorance of what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## Gunman

Yall  STILL at this Shit  AGAIN ... ? ? ?


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defeat after defeat after defeat has left the Progressive gun grabbers so butthurt that they don't even make sense anymore.
> 
> Freaking hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


And another defeat for this particular gun grabber.


----------



## PredFan

Gunman said:


> Yall  STILL at this Shit  AGAIN ... ? ? ?



Yeah, so what?


----------



## WinterBorn

Gunman said:


> Yall  STILL at this Shit  AGAIN ... ? ? ?



Hey, I showed up late and they graciously kept the party going for me.


----------



## danielpalos

I would like take this time and opportunity to thank those of the opposing view for having nothing but fallacy for their Cause.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> I would like take this time and opportunity to thank those of the opposing view for having nothing but fallacy for their Cause.



Maintaining that the Bill of Rights is exclusively for the individual and not the state is certainly not a fallacy.


----------



## PredFan

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like take this time and opportunity to thank those of the opposing view for having nothing but fallacy for their Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maintaining that the Bill of Rights is exclusively for the individual and not the state is certainly not a fallacy.
Click to expand...


He just learned that word so he's practicing using it. After he gets comfortable with it, he'll look it up to see what it means.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like take this time and opportunity to thank those of the opposing view for having nothing but fallacy for their Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maintaining that the Bill of Rights is exclusively for the individual and not the state is certainly not a fallacy.
Click to expand...

Not the Second Amendment since it is not a Constitution unto itself; as demonstrated previously regarding 10USC311, and Article 1, Section 8 of our federal Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like take this time and opportunity to thank those of the opposing view for having nothing but fallacy for their Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maintaining that the Bill of Rights is exclusively for the individual and not the state is certainly not a fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He just learned that word so he's practicing using it. After he gets comfortable with it, he'll look it up to see what it means.
Click to expand...

I already know it is a fallacy of composition via fallacy of false, via a fallacy of appeal to ignorance.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like take this time and opportunity to thank those of the opposing view for having nothing but fallacy for their Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maintaining that the Bill of Rights is exclusively for the individual and not the state is certainly not a fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He just learned that word so he's practicing using it. After he gets comfortable with it, he'll look it up to see what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know it is a fallacy of composition via fallacy of false, via a fallacy of appeal to ignorance.
Click to expand...


If it is an appeal to ignorance, then I am ignorant.  But then, so were my university professors and the justices on the US Supreme Court.   And since the US Code cannot override the US Constitution, there is no fallacy on my part.

The basic fallacy on your part is the assumption that the 10USC311 defines the militia in any meaningful way.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws; especially this one--10USC311.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Thus, it is easy to recognize that what must be a States right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you ignore the second part of the sentence "..._ the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."._
> 
> The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled this to be an individual right, not a states right.   The intent was to make sure the population could defend the nation, not to provide for a state military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does applying 10USC311 ignore the second clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10 USC 311 is *NOT APPLICABLE TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution...10 USC 311 is *SUBJECT TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution... 10 USC 311 *HAS NO BEARING UPON* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. The ENTIRE USC is constrained by, and answerable to, the US Constitution--including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There can be no assurance of a well regulated militia unless the People can arm themselves, hence the unambiguous assertion in the 2nd that "_...*the right of the People* _(no States' right mentioned) _to keep and bear arms _(forming organized militias NOT mentioned) _shall not be infringed._"
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, especially this one--10USC311.  Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> I would like take this time and opportunity to thank those of the opposing view for having nothing but fallacy for their Cause.


Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are stupid and boring. You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## PredFan

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws; especially this one--10USC311.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Thus, it is easy to recognize that what must be a States right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you ignore the second part of the sentence "..._ the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."._
> 
> The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled this to be an individual right, not a states right.   The intent was to make sure the population could defend the nation, not to provide for a state military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does applying 10USC311 ignore the second clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10 USC 311 is *NOT APPLICABLE TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution...10 USC 311 is *SUBJECT TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution... 10 USC 311 *HAS NO BEARING UPON* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. The ENTIRE USC is constrained by, and answerable to, the US Constitution--including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There can be no assurance of a well regulated militia unless the People can arm themselves, hence the unambiguous assertion in the 2nd that "_...*the right of the People* _(no States' right mentioned) _to keep and bear arms _(forming organized militias NOT mentioned) _shall not be infringed._"
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, especially this one--10USC311.  Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...


He's a liberal. He believes that you say something often enough, it becomes truth.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like take this time and opportunity to thank those of the opposing view for having nothing but fallacy for their Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maintaining that the Bill of Rights is exclusively for the individual and not the state is certainly not a fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He just learned that word so he's practicing using it. After he gets comfortable with it, he'll look it up to see what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know it is a fallacy of composition via fallacy of false, via a fallacy of appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is an appeal to ignorance, then I am ignorant.  But then, so were my university professors and the justices on the US Supreme Court.   And since the US Code cannot override the US Constitution, there is no fallacy on my part.
> 
> The basic fallacy on your part is the assumption that the 10USC311 defines the militia in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.  10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.  Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you ignore the second part of the sentence "..._ the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."._
> 
> The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled this to be an individual right, not a states right.   The intent was to make sure the population could defend the nation, not to provide for a state military.
> 
> 
> 
> How does applying 10USC311 ignore the second clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10 USC 311 is *NOT APPLICABLE TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution...10 USC 311 is *SUBJECT TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution... 10 USC 311 *HAS NO BEARING UPON* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. The ENTIRE USC is constrained by, and answerable to, the US Constitution--including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There can be no assurance of a well regulated militia unless the People can arm themselves, hence the unambiguous assertion in the 2nd that "_...*the right of the People* _(no States' right mentioned) _to keep and bear arms _(forming organized militias NOT mentioned) _shall not be infringed._"
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, especially this one--10USC311.  Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a liberal. He believes that you say something often enough, it becomes truth.
Click to expand...

I am a liberal.  I believe that if I resort to the fewest fallacies, I must be the most correct in the soundness of my line of reasoning.  It really is that simple.


----------



## LOki

PredFan said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you ignore the second part of the sentence "..._ the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."._
> 
> The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled this to be an individual right, not a states right.   The intent was to make sure the population could defend the nation, not to provide for a state military.
> 
> 
> 
> How does applying 10USC311 ignore the second clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10 USC 311 is *NOT APPLICABLE TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution...10 USC 311 is *SUBJECT TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution... 10 USC 311 *HAS NO BEARING UPON* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. The ENTIRE USC is constrained by, and answerable to, the US Constitution--including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There can be no assurance of a well regulated militia unless the People can arm themselves, hence the unambiguous assertion in the 2nd that "_...*the right of the People* _(no States' right mentioned) _to keep and bear arms _(forming organized militias NOT mentioned) _shall not be infringed._"
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, especially this one--10USC311.  Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a liberal. He believes that you say something often enough, it becomes truth.
Click to expand...

Naw. He's just stupid and dishonest. And in his stupid dishonesty, he lacks the integrity to aknowledge his every argument has been thoroughly refuted, and he lacks the imagination to present alternative arguments, so he relies upon repeating the same errors of fact and logical fallacies.

Liberals don't hold a monopoly on being stupid and dishonest. I cite Conservatives who insist the U.S. is more Christian nation than a nation of mostly Christians, and who demand that creationism is anything but an expression of superstition.

The intolerable thing about this asshat is that he's boring and stupid.

I can tolerate someone being stupidly dishonest OR  being boring, but not both at the same time.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does applying 10USC311 ignore the second clause?
> 
> 
> 
> 10 USC 311 is *NOT APPLICABLE TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution...10 USC 311 is *SUBJECT TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution... 10 USC 311 *HAS NO BEARING UPON* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. The ENTIRE USC is constrained by, and answerable to, the US Constitution--including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There can be no assurance of a well regulated militia unless the People can arm themselves, hence the unambiguous assertion in the 2nd that "_...*the right of the People* _(no States' right mentioned) _to keep and bear arms _(forming organized militias NOT mentioned) _shall not be infringed._"
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, especially this one--10USC311.  Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a liberal. He believes that you say something often enough, it becomes truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a liberal.  I believe that if I resort to the fewest fallacies, I must be the most correct in the soundness of my line of reasoning.  It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Yet you employ only fallacies, and errors of fact. And they have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You're just stupid, boring, and wrong. *AGAIN. STILL*.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like take this time and opportunity to thank those of the opposing view for having nothing but fallacy for their Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maintaining that the Bill of Rights is exclusively for the individual and not the state is certainly not a fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He just learned that word so he's practicing using it. After he gets comfortable with it, he'll look it up to see what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know it is a fallacy of composition via fallacy of false, via a fallacy of appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is an appeal to ignorance, then I am ignorant.  But then, so were my university professors and the justices on the US Supreme Court.   And since the US Code cannot override the US Constitution, there is no fallacy on my part.
> 
> The basic fallacy on your part is the assumption that the 10USC311 defines the militia in any meaningful way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.  10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.  Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


The militias of the day were not standing armies but ordinary citizens who formed militias when they were needed.  I am happy to join a militia if it is needed to defend my country.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does applying 10USC311 ignore the second clause?
> 
> 
> 
> 10 USC 311 is *NOT APPLICABLE TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution...10 USC 311 is *SUBJECT TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution... 10 USC 311 *HAS NO BEARING UPON* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. The ENTIRE USC is constrained by, and answerable to, the US Constitution--including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There can be no assurance of a well regulated militia unless the People can arm themselves, hence the unambiguous assertion in the 2nd that "_...*the right of the People* _(no States' right mentioned) _to keep and bear arms _(forming organized militias NOT mentioned) _shall not be infringed._"
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, especially this one--10USC311.  Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a liberal. He believes that you say something often enough, it becomes truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naw. He's just stupid and dishonest. And in his stupid dishonesty, he lacks the integrity to aknowledge his every argument has been thoroughly refuted, and he lacks the imagination to present alternative arguments, so he relies upon repeating the same errors of fact and logical fallacies.
> 
> Liberals don't hold a monopoly on being stupid and dishonest. I cite Conservatives who insist the U.S. is more Christian nation than a nation of mostly Christians, and who demand that creationism is anything but an expression of superstition.
> 
> The intolerable thing about this asshat is that he's boring and stupid.
> 
> I can tolerate someone being stupidly dishonest OR  being boring, but not both at the same time.
Click to expand...

Good, because between You and me; you are the most full of fallacy; and not Only that, i have proof in the public domain.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maintaining that the Bill of Rights is exclusively for the individual and not the state is certainly not a fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He just learned that word so he's practicing using it. After he gets comfortable with it, he'll look it up to see what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know it is a fallacy of composition via fallacy of false, via a fallacy of appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is an appeal to ignorance, then I am ignorant.  But then, so were my university professors and the justices on the US Supreme Court.   And since the US Code cannot override the US Constitution, there is no fallacy on my part.
> 
> The basic fallacy on your part is the assumption that the 10USC311 defines the militia in any meaningful way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.  10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.  Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militias of the day were not standing armies but ordinary citizens who formed militias when they were needed.  I am happy to join a militia if it is needed to defend my country.
Click to expand...


I know the difference between regular military and a militia.  Only one Body politic has literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment if there should be any need to quibble.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10 USC 311 is *NOT APPLICABLE TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution...10 USC 311 is *SUBJECT TO* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution... 10 USC 311 *HAS NO BEARING UPON* the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. The ENTIRE USC is constrained by, and answerable to, the US Constitution--including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> There can be no assurance of a well regulated militia unless the People can arm themselves, hence the unambiguous assertion in the 2nd that "_...*the right of the People* _(no States' right mentioned) _to keep and bear arms _(forming organized militias NOT mentioned) _shall not be infringed._"
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, especially this one--10USC311.  Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a liberal. He believes that you say something often enough, it becomes truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naw. He's just stupid and dishonest. And in his stupid dishonesty, he lacks the integrity to aknowledge his every argument has been thoroughly refuted, and he lacks the imagination to present alternative arguments, so he relies upon repeating the same errors of fact and logical fallacies.
> 
> Liberals don't hold a monopoly on being stupid and dishonest. I cite Conservatives who insist the U.S. is more Christian nation than a nation of mostly Christians, and who demand that creationism is anything but an expression of superstition.
> 
> The intolerable thing about this asshat is that he's boring and stupid.
> 
> I can tolerate someone being stupidly dishonest OR  being boring, but not both at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, because between You and me; you are the most full of fallacy; and not Only that, i have proof in the public domain.
Click to expand...

Strange that you just cannot demonstrate any fallacy I've employed-- you can only accuse.

Nor can you produce this "proof"--you only assert errors of fact.

You're just stupid, boring and wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, especially this one--10USC311. Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, especially this one--10USC311.


Stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*



danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.


Irrelevant and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, especially this one--10USC311.
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Nothing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it.  Why do you believe you are relevant, with Only fallacy for your Cause?


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, especially this one--10USC311.
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it.  Why do you believe you are relevant, with Only fallacy for your Cause?
Click to expand...

For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, especially this one--10USC311.
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it.  Why do you believe you are relevant, with Only fallacy for your Cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Simply claiming that is a fallacy.  You need to post your alleged, good argument each and every time it is contested, merely so the People can see who is the most full of fallacy while claiming to have any Thing more than a shillings worth of care and Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws; especially this one--10USC311.  When are gun lovers and those of that point of view going to have more than fallacy and a shilling for their Cause.

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

Thus, it is easy to recognize that what must be a States right secured by our Second Amendment.

_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. _


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, especially this one--10USC311.
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it.  Why do you believe you are relevant, with Only fallacy for your Cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply claiming that is a fallacy.  You need to post your alleged, good argument each and every time it is contested, merely so the People can see who is the most full of fallacy while claiming to have any Thing more than a shillings worth of care and Cause.
Click to expand...

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and *your mendacious denials of reality* have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
*
For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring*. AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws; especially this one--10USC311.  When are gun lovers and those of that point of view going to have more than fallacy and a shilling for their Cause.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Thus, it is easy to recognize that what must be a States right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> _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. _


For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, especially this one--10USC311.
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it.  Why do you believe you are relevant, with Only fallacy for your Cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply claiming that is a fallacy.  You need to post your alleged, good argument each and every time it is contested, merely so the People can see who is the most full of fallacy while claiming to have any Thing more than a shillings worth of care and Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and *your mendacious denials of reality* have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring*. AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.  It cannot be irrelevant simply on your say so, simply because there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Irrelevant and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it.  Why do you believe you are relevant, with Only fallacy for your Cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply claiming that is a fallacy.  You need to post your alleged, good argument each and every time it is contested, merely so the People can see who is the most full of fallacy while claiming to have any Thing more than a shillings worth of care and Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and *your mendacious denials of reality* have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring*. AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.  It cannot be irrelevant simply on your say so, simply because there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
Click to expand...

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, *your own faulty logic*, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your* mendacious denials of reality* have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL. 
*
For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring*. AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it.  Why do you believe you are relevant, with Only fallacy for your Cause?
> 
> 
> 
> For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply claiming that is a fallacy.  You need to post your alleged, good argument each and every time it is contested, merely so the People can see who is the most full of fallacy while claiming to have any Thing more than a shillings worth of care and Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and *your mendacious denials of reality* have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring*. AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.  It cannot be irrelevant simply on your say so, simply because there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, *your own faulty logic*, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your* mendacious denials of reality* have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring*. AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

 I can't be wrong when You only have fallacy for your Cause.  it really is that simple.  

Why not muster a valid argument to show you really really care and are not just being a wo-man about it.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> Simply claiming that is a fallacy.  You need to post your alleged, good argument each and every time it is contested, merely so the People can see who is the most full of fallacy while claiming to have any Thing more than a shillings worth of care and Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and *your mendacious denials of reality* have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring*. AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.  It cannot be irrelevant simply on your say so, simply because there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, *your own faulty logic*, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your* mendacious denials of reality* have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring*. AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't be wrong when You only have fallacy for your Cause.  it really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Considering all the arguments presented without contest, refuting and rebutting with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality your every assertion, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.* Your meaningless application of your made-up "fallacy for your Cause" notwithstanding.



danielpalos said:


> Why not muster a valid argument to show you really really care and are not just being a wo-man about it.


Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and *your mendacious denials of reality* have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*

For all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring*. AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

Your appeals to ignorance instead of a valid argument, inspire absolutely, no confidence in your sincerity when you claim what you do with your unsubstantiated opinion.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Your appeals to ignorance instead of a valid argument, inspire absolutely, no confidence in your sincerity when you claim what you do with your unsubstantiated opinion.


No appeal to ignorance was ever made. No attempt to demonstrate such an appeal was ever made by you. I predict that no such demonstration with be forthcoming.

Your repeated misapplication of "appeal to ignorance" is both stupid and boring.

Every argument I have asserted was presented with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality. No attempt was made to refute my arguments or facts.

My opinions have been fully substantiated by valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality. I have specifically addressed each of your assertions, and every single one of your assertions has been discredited by applying valid logic to verifiable facts of reality.

You have no argument, only baseless accusations. You have no facts that validate your assertions, and you rely entirely upon logical fallacies, and made-up principles of argumentation to advance your meaningless points. I predict that you will continue with these patently invalid tactics. Your argument (such as it is) is stupid and boring.

Considering that all the arguments against yours were presented without contest; that having refuted and rebutted (with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality) your every assertion; that not once did you present anything resembling a valid counter-argument in response, the only conclusion to be drawn is that you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
*
Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you predictably, once more, to your place of shame.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*

And for all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

Are you claiming you make no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 regarding a description of what Part of the Militia of the United States is Necessary to the security of a free State?


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Are you claiming you make no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 regarding a description of what Part of the Militia of the United States is Necessary to the security of a free State?


Correct. I have specifically addressed your meaningless point regarding 10 USC 311 directly, decisively, and numerous times.

I have made no appeal to ignorance of 10 USC 311.

I defy you to demonstrate (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) that I have made any "*Appeal to Ignorance.*"


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming you make no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 regarding a description of what Part of the Militia of the United States is Necessary to the security of a free State?
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I have specifically addressed your meaningless point regarding 10 USC 311 directly, decisively, and numerous times.
> 
> I have made no appeal to ignorance of 10 USC 311.
> 
> I defy you to demonstrate (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) that I have made any "*Appeal to Ignorance.*"
Click to expand...


There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311?  Can you explain your line of reasoning?  It must not have been very clear or very concise, the first time. 

Not _all_ of the Militia of the United States is organized and well regulated; only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, is expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

_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._

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming you make no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 regarding a description of what Part of the Militia of the United States is Necessary to the security of a free State?
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I have specifically addressed your meaningless point regarding 10 USC 311 directly, decisively, and numerous times.
> 
> I have made no appeal to ignorance of 10 USC 311.
> 
> I defy you to demonstrate (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) that I have made any "*Appeal to Ignorance.*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311?  Can you explain your line of reasoning?  It must not have been very clear or very concise, the first time.
> 
> Not _all_ of the Militia of the United States is organized and well regulated; only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, is expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> _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._
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.
Click to expand...


In the case District of Columbia vs Heller, the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment is, in fact, and individual right.  Since the SCOTUS is the highest authority we have as far as interpreting the US Constitution, your claims that the US Code overrides the US Constitution, is obviously wrong.

from:  The Right to Bear Arms
"In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court considered the following question: Do D.C. Code Section 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns; Section 22-4504(a), which bars carrying a pistol without a license; and Section 7-2507.02, which requires that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are *not affiliated with any state-regulated militia*, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?  
*The Court concluded that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting.  The Court concluded that the D.C. gun ban could not stand.*  At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights.  The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership."


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming you make no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 regarding a description of what Part of the Militia of the United States is Necessary to the security of a free State?
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I have specifically addressed your meaningless point regarding 10 USC 311 directly, decisively, and numerous times.
> 
> I have made no appeal to ignorance of 10 USC 311.
> 
> I defy you to demonstrate (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) that I have made any "*Appeal to Ignorance.*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311?  Can you explain your line of reasoning?  It must not have been very clear or very concise, the first time.
> 
> Not _all_ of the Militia of the United States is organized and well regulated; only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, is expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> _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._
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case District of Columbia vs Heller, the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment is, in fact, and individual right.  Since the SCOTUS is the highest authority we have as far as interpreting the US Constitution, your claims that the US Code overrides the US Constitution, is obviously wrong.
> 
> from:  The Right to Bear Arms
> "In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court considered the following question: Do D.C. Code Section 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns; Section 22-4504(a), which bars carrying a pistol without a license; and Section 7-2507.02, which requires that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are *not affiliated with any state-regulated militia*, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
> *The Court concluded that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting.  The Court concluded that the D.C. gun ban could not stand.*  At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights.  The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership."
Click to expand...


Yes, it was a blatant Appeal to Ignorance of the law and an open book test for the Electorate of the United States.  

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; should it be necessary to quibble in legal venues.

We have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming you make no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 regarding a description of what Part of the Militia of the United States is Necessary to the security of a free State?
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I have specifically addressed your meaningless point regarding 10 USC 311 directly, decisively, and numerous times.
> 
> I have made no appeal to ignorance of 10 USC 311.
> 
> I defy you to demonstrate (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) that I have made any "*Appeal to Ignorance.*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311?  Can you explain your line of reasoning?  It must not have been very clear or very concise, the first time.
> 
> Not _all_ of the Militia of the United States is organized and well regulated; only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, is expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> _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._
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case District of Columbia vs Heller, the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment is, in fact, and individual right.  Since the SCOTUS is the highest authority we have as far as interpreting the US Constitution, your claims that the US Code overrides the US Constitution, is obviously wrong.
> 
> from:  The Right to Bear Arms
> "In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court considered the following question: Do D.C. Code Section 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns; Section 22-4504(a), which bars carrying a pistol without a license; and Section 7-2507.02, which requires that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are *not affiliated with any state-regulated militia*, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
> *The Court concluded that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting.  The Court concluded that the D.C. gun ban could not stand.*  At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights.  The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was a blatant Appeal to Ignorance of the law and an open book test for the Electorate of the United States.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; should it be necessary to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> We have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Click to expand...



yada yada yada

The simple fact of the matter is that most constitutional scholars believe, and our Supreme Court has ruled, that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, even if the individual is not affiliated with any state regulated militia.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming you make no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 regarding a description of what Part of the Militia of the United States is Necessary to the security of a free State?
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I have specifically addressed your meaningless point regarding 10 USC 311 directly, decisively, and numerous times.
> 
> I have made no appeal to ignorance of 10 USC 311.
> 
> I defy you to demonstrate (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) that I have made any "*Appeal to Ignorance.*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311?  Can you explain your line of reasoning?  It must not have been very clear or very concise, the first time.
> 
> Not _all_ of the Militia of the United States is organized and well regulated; only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, is expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> _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._
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.
Click to expand...

I have specifically addressed your meaningless point regarding 10 USC 311 directly, decisively, and numerous times.

I have made no appeal to ignorance of 10 USC 311. 

I defy you to demonstrate (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) that I have made any "*Appeal to Ignorance.*"

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendaciousdenials of reality have lead you predictably, once more, to your place of shame.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*

And for all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.


The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"

To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "_...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..._"

One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:

_"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."_​
The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.

The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."

In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".

In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.
"Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.

"Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.

"Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.

Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming you make no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 regarding a description of what Part of the Militia of the United States is Necessary to the security of a free State?
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I have specifically addressed your meaningless point regarding 10 USC 311 directly, decisively, and numerous times.
> 
> I have made no appeal to ignorance of 10 USC 311.
> 
> I defy you to demonstrate (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) that I have made any "*Appeal to Ignorance.*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311?  Can you explain your line of reasoning?  It must not have been very clear or very concise, the first time.
> 
> Not _all_ of the Militia of the United States is organized and well regulated; only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, is expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> _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._
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case District of Columbia vs Heller, the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment is, in fact, and individual right.  Since the SCOTUS is the highest authority we have as far as interpreting the US Constitution, your claims that the US Code overrides the US Constitution, is obviously wrong.
> 
> from:  The Right to Bear Arms
> "In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court considered the following question: Do D.C. Code Section 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns; Section 22-4504(a), which bars carrying a pistol without a license; and Section 7-2507.02, which requires that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are *not affiliated with any state-regulated militia*, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
> *The Court concluded that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting.  The Court concluded that the D.C. gun ban could not stand.*  At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights.  The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was a blatant Appeal to Ignorance of the law and an open book test for the Electorate of the United States.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; should it be necessary to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> We have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yada yada yada
> 
> The simple fact of the matter is that most constitutional scholars believe, and our Supreme Court has ruled, that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, even if the individual is not affiliated with any state regulated militia.
Click to expand...


So what.  There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.  Those of the opposing view are merely, full of fallacy.  

I already know the supreme court only has an Inferior argument.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.
> 
> 
> 
> The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "_...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..._"
> 
> One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.
> 
> The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."
> 
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
> Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".
> 
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.
> "Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.
> 
> "Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.
> 
> "Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.
> 
> Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...


Nothing but diversion; I got it.

Here are the rules of construction:

_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._

The Federalist Number 40.


The first clause is the End, my friend.  

It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.
> 
> 
> 
> The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "_...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..._"
> 
> One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.
> 
> The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."
> 
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
> Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".
> 
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.
> "Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.
> 
> "Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.
> 
> "Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.
> 
> Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion; I got it.
> 
> Here are the rules of construction:
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> The Federalist Number 40.
> 
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> 
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
Click to expand...

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you  are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.
> 
> 
> 
> The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "_...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..._"
> 
> One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.
> 
> The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."
> 
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
> Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".
> 
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.
> "Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.
> 
> "Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.
> 
> "Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.
> 
> Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion; I got it.
> 
> Here are the rules of construction:
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> The Federalist Number 40.
> 
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> 
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you  are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

The first clause is the End, my friend. 
It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End

It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.
> 
> 
> 
> The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "_...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..._"
> 
> One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.
> 
> The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."
> 
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
> Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".
> 
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.
> "Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.
> 
> "Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.
> 
> "Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.
> 
> Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion; I got it.
> 
> Here are the rules of construction:
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> The Federalist Number 40.
> 
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> 
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you  are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
Click to expand...

Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.

It is stupid and boring.



danielpalos said:


> It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?


For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.

The "end" unabiguously stated is,"_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"

The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment: 

_"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."_​
By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.

The complete meaning of the preforatory clause *requires* that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"

The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.

By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.
> 
> 
> 
> The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "_...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..._"
> 
> One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.
> 
> The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."
> 
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
> Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".
> 
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.
> "Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.
> 
> "Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.
> 
> "Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.
> 
> Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion; I got it.
> 
> Here are the rules of construction:
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> The Federalist Number 40.
> 
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> 
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you  are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.
> 
> It is stupid and boring.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.
> 
> The "end" unabiguously stated is,"_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.
> 
> The complete meaning of the preforatory clause *requires* that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...


The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "_...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..._"
> 
> One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.
> 
> The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."
> 
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
> Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".
> 
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.
> "Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.
> 
> "Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.
> 
> "Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.
> 
> Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion; I got it.
> 
> Here are the rules of construction:
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> The Federalist Number 40.
> 
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> 
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you  are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.
> 
> It is stupid and boring.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.
> 
> The "end" unabiguously stated is,"_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.
> 
> The complete meaning of the preforatory clause *requires* that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.
Click to expand...


Claiming that any part of the Bill of Rights was written to protect the state's rights is the fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion; I got it.
> 
> Here are the rules of construction:
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> The Federalist Number 40.
> 
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> 
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you  are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.
> 
> It is stupid and boring.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.
> 
> The "end" unabiguously stated is,"_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.
> 
> The complete meaning of the preforatory clause *requires* that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming that any part of the Bill of Rights was written to protect the state's rights is the fallacy.
Click to expand...


It is not a fallacy to claim that our Second Amendment secures what is necessary to the security of a free State and not merely some allusion to some conspiracy and some collusion.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you  are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.
> 
> It is stupid and boring.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.
> 
> The "end" unabiguously stated is,"_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.
> 
> The complete meaning of the preforatory clause *requires* that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming that any part of the Bill of Rights was written to protect the state's rights is the fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a fallacy to claim that our Second Amendment secures what is necessary to the security of a free State and not merely some allusion to some conspiracy and some collusion.
Click to expand...


It is a fallacy to claim that the US Code overrides the US Constitution.   And the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right, whether one is affiliated with a state militia or not.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.
> 
> It is stupid and boring.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.
> 
> The "end" unabiguously stated is,"_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.
> 
> The complete meaning of the preforatory clause *requires* that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming that any part of the Bill of Rights was written to protect the state's rights is the fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a fallacy to claim that our Second Amendment secures what is necessary to the security of a free State and not merely some allusion to some conspiracy and some collusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fallacy to claim that the US Code overrides the US Constitution.   And the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right, whether one is affiliated with a state militia or not.
Click to expand...


I am only "over-riding" an appeal to ignorance of the law.  

The terms, militia and the People, are collective and plural not Individual; thus, construing any Individual rights is an appeal to ignorance of our own written law.  That opinion was merely a waste of the Peoples' tax monies.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.
> 
> It is stupid and boring.
> 
> For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.
> 
> The "end" unabiguously stated is,"_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.
> 
> The complete meaning of the preforatory clause *requires* that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming that any part of the Bill of Rights was written to protect the state's rights is the fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a fallacy to claim that our Second Amendment secures what is necessary to the security of a free State and not merely some allusion to some conspiracy and some collusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fallacy to claim that the US Code overrides the US Constitution.   And the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right, whether one is affiliated with a state militia or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am only "over-riding" an appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The terms, militia and the People, are collective and plural not Individual; thus, construing any Individual rights is an appeal to ignorance of our own written law.  That opinion was merely a waste of the Peoples' tax monies.
Click to expand...


So you claim that the US Supreme Court is ignorant and that you have it right?   lol

_"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the *people* peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."_

So only the states have the right to assembly peaceably?


_"The right of the *people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 

_So the states are secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, but individuals are not?


Absolute nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming that any part of the Bill of Rights was written to protect the state's rights is the fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a fallacy to claim that our Second Amendment secures what is necessary to the security of a free State and not merely some allusion to some conspiracy and some collusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fallacy to claim that the US Code overrides the US Constitution.   And the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right, whether one is affiliated with a state militia or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am only "over-riding" an appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The terms, militia and the People, are collective and plural not Individual; thus, construing any Individual rights is an appeal to ignorance of our own written law.  That opinion was merely a waste of the Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you claim that the US Supreme Court is ignorant and that you have it right?   lol
> 
> _"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the *people* peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."_
> 
> So only the states have the right to assembly peaceably?
> 
> 
> _"The right of the *people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> _
> So the states are secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, but individuals are not?
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yes, the People, not the Persons colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes. The People is a Body politic in our republic, as is the Militia of the United States.  There is no Appeal to Ignorance of those legal facts.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming that any part of the Bill of Rights was written to protect the state's rights is the fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a fallacy to claim that our Second Amendment secures what is necessary to the security of a free State and not merely some allusion to some conspiracy and some collusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fallacy to claim that the US Code overrides the US Constitution.   And the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right, whether one is affiliated with a state militia or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am only "over-riding" an appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The terms, militia and the People, are collective and plural not Individual; thus, construing any Individual rights is an appeal to ignorance of our own written law.  That opinion was merely a waste of the Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you claim that the US Supreme Court is ignorant and that you have it right?   lol
> 
> _"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the *people* peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."_
> 
> So only the states have the right to assembly peaceably?
> 
> 
> _"The right of the *people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> _
> So the states are secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, but individuals are not?
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People, not the Persons colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes. The People is a Body politic in our republic, as is the Militia of the United States.  There is no Appeal to Ignorance of those legal facts.
Click to expand...


Colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes would be a crime.  The peaceable assembly would not.

Your claims are ridiculous.  You may couch them in colorful language, to sound more intelligent, but the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.   Unless you have something new to say, as opposed to simply repeating the same nonsense, I will leave you to your fallacies.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a fallacy to claim that our Second Amendment secures what is necessary to the security of a free State and not merely some allusion to some conspiracy and some collusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fallacy to claim that the US Code overrides the US Constitution.   And the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right, whether one is affiliated with a state militia or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am only "over-riding" an appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The terms, militia and the People, are collective and plural not Individual; thus, construing any Individual rights is an appeal to ignorance of our own written law.  That opinion was merely a waste of the Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you claim that the US Supreme Court is ignorant and that you have it right?   lol
> 
> _"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the *people* peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."_
> 
> So only the states have the right to assembly peaceably?
> 
> 
> _"The right of the *people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> _
> So the states are secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, but individuals are not?
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People, not the Persons colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes. The People is a Body politic in our republic, as is the Militia of the United States.  There is no Appeal to Ignorance of those legal facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes would be a crime.  The peaceable assembly would not.
> 
> Your claims are ridiculous.  You may couch them in colorful language, to sound more intelligent, but the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.   Unless you have something new to say, as opposed to simply repeating the same nonsense, I will leave you to your fallacies.
Click to expand...

The point is the Term People is not the same as the the Term Persons; if we have to quibble.

Here is our supreme law of the land:

_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._

Here is what our supreme law of the land would have to look like for your version to be more true rather that less true.

_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of Persons to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed._


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fallacy to claim that the US Code overrides the US Constitution.   And the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right, whether one is affiliated with a state militia or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am only "over-riding" an appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The terms, militia and the People, are collective and plural not Individual; thus, construing any Individual rights is an appeal to ignorance of our own written law.  That opinion was merely a waste of the Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you claim that the US Supreme Court is ignorant and that you have it right?   lol
> 
> _"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the *people* peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."_
> 
> So only the states have the right to assembly peaceably?
> 
> 
> _"The right of the *people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> _
> So the states are secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, but individuals are not?
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People, not the Persons colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes. The People is a Body politic in our republic, as is the Militia of the United States.  There is no Appeal to Ignorance of those legal facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes would be a crime.  The peaceable assembly would not.
> 
> Your claims are ridiculous.  You may couch them in colorful language, to sound more intelligent, but the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.   Unless you have something new to say, as opposed to simply repeating the same nonsense, I will leave you to your fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is the Term People is not the same as the the Term Persons; if we have to quibble.
> 
> Here is our supreme law of the land:
> 
> _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._
> 
> Here is what our supreme law of the land would have to look like for your version to be more true rather that less true.
> 
> _A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of Persons to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed._
Click to expand...


Both the 1st and 4th amendments use the term "People".


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am only "over-riding" an appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The terms, militia and the People, are collective and plural not Individual; thus, construing any Individual rights is an appeal to ignorance of our own written law.  That opinion was merely a waste of the Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you claim that the US Supreme Court is ignorant and that you have it right?   lol
> 
> _"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the *people* peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."_
> 
> So only the states have the right to assembly peaceably?
> 
> 
> _"The right of the *people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> _
> So the states are secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, but individuals are not?
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People, not the Persons colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes. The People is a Body politic in our republic, as is the Militia of the United States.  There is no Appeal to Ignorance of those legal facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes would be a crime.  The peaceable assembly would not.
> 
> Your claims are ridiculous.  You may couch them in colorful language, to sound more intelligent, but the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.   Unless you have something new to say, as opposed to simply repeating the same nonsense, I will leave you to your fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is the Term People is not the same as the the Term Persons; if we have to quibble.
> 
> Here is our supreme law of the land:
> 
> _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._
> 
> Here is what our supreme law of the land would have to look like for your version to be more true rather that less true.
> 
> _A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of Persons to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both the 1st and 4th amendments use the term "People".
Click to expand...


It is irrelevant since the 1st and 4th are not the 2nd.  Words have meaning.

_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._

There is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause which enumerates the End.  It is the second clause which enumerates the Means which is to be sacrificed should there be any conflict of laws or with the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you claim that the US Supreme Court is ignorant and that you have it right?   lol
> 
> _"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the *people* peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."_
> 
> So only the states have the right to assembly peaceably?
> 
> 
> _"The right of the *people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> _
> So the states are secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, but individuals are not?
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the People, not the Persons colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes. The People is a Body politic in our republic, as is the Militia of the United States.  There is no Appeal to Ignorance of those legal facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes would be a crime.  The peaceable assembly would not.
> 
> Your claims are ridiculous.  You may couch them in colorful language, to sound more intelligent, but the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.   Unless you have something new to say, as opposed to simply repeating the same nonsense, I will leave you to your fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is the Term People is not the same as the the Term Persons; if we have to quibble.
> 
> Here is our supreme law of the land:
> 
> _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._
> 
> Here is what our supreme law of the land would have to look like for your version to be more true rather that less true.
> 
> _A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of Persons to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both the 1st and 4th amendments use the term "People".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is irrelevant since the 1st and 4th are not the 2nd.  Words have meaning.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> There is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause which enumerates the End.  It is the second clause which enumerates the Means which is to be sacrificed should there be any conflict of laws or with the law.
Click to expand...


If it is not relevant, why did you try and make the point that "People" is plural and therefore not an individual?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the People, not the Persons colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes. The People is a Body politic in our republic, as is the Militia of the United States.  There is no Appeal to Ignorance of those legal facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes would be a crime.  The peaceable assembly would not.
> 
> Your claims are ridiculous.  You may couch them in colorful language, to sound more intelligent, but the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.   Unless you have something new to say, as opposed to simply repeating the same nonsense, I will leave you to your fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is the Term People is not the same as the the Term Persons; if we have to quibble.
> 
> Here is our supreme law of the land:
> 
> _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._
> 
> Here is what our supreme law of the land would have to look like for your version to be more true rather that less true.
> 
> _A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of Persons to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both the 1st and 4th amendments use the term "People".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is irrelevant since the 1st and 4th are not the 2nd.  Words have meaning.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> There is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause which enumerates the End.  It is the second clause which enumerates the Means which is to be sacrificed should there be any conflict of laws or with the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is not relevant, why did you try and make the point that "People" is plural and therefore not an individual?
Click to expand...

the terms must be relevant simply because there is no willful appeal to ignorance of the law, if we have to keep quibbling.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "_...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..._"
> 
> One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.
> 
> The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."
> 
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
> In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
> Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".
> 
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
> In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.
> "Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.
> 
> "Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.
> 
> "Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.
> 
> Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion; I got it.
> 
> Here are the rules of construction:
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> The Federalist Number 40.
> 
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> 
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you  are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.
> 
> It is stupid and boring.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.
> 
> The "end" unabiguously stated is,"_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.
> 
> The complete meaning of the preforatory clause *requires* that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.
Click to expand...

By your very own crieria, and according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
*
Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are boring and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.
> 
> It is stupid and boring.
> 
> For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.
> 
> The "end" unabiguously stated is,"_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.
> 
> The complete meaning of the preforatory clause *requires* that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming that any part of the Bill of Rights was written to protect the state's rights is the fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a fallacy to claim that our Second Amendment secures what is necessary to the security of a free State and not merely some allusion to some conspiracy and some collusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fallacy to claim that the US Code overrides the US Constitution.   And the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right, whether one is affiliated with a state militia or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am only "over-riding" an appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The terms, militia and the People, are collective and plural not Individual; thus, construing any Individual rights is an appeal to ignorance of our own written law.  That opinion was merely a waste of the Peoples' tax monies.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "militia" or "the People" that is not contingent upon individuals, and does not refer to the individuals that compose those respective groups. Thus, construing anything but an individual right is stupid and boring.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion; I got it.
> 
> Here are the rules of construction:
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> The Federalist Number 40.
> 
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> 
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you  are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.
> 
> It is stupid and boring.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.
> 
> The "end" unabiguously stated is,"_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.
> 
> The complete meaning of the preforatory clause *requires* that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By your very own crieria, and according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

This needs a valid argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion, which is currently indistinguishable from mere, "shillery" due to your lack of a clue and a Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming that any part of the Bill of Rights was written to protect the state's rights is the fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a fallacy to claim that our Second Amendment secures what is necessary to the security of a free State and not merely some allusion to some conspiracy and some collusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fallacy to claim that the US Code overrides the US Constitution.   And the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right, whether one is affiliated with a state militia or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am only "over-riding" an appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The terms, militia and the People, are collective and plural not Individual; thus, construing any Individual rights is an appeal to ignorance of our own written law.  That opinion was merely a waste of the Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a "militia" or "the People" that is not contingent upon individuals, and does not refer to the individuals that compose those respective groups. Thus, construing anything but an individual right is stupid and boring.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

There is no (willful) Appeal to Ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.  It really is that simple.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you  are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.
> 
> It is stupid and boring.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.
> 
> The "end" unabiguously stated is,"_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.
> 
> The complete meaning of the preforatory clause *requires* that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By your very own crieria, and according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This needs a valid argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion, which is currently indistinguishable from mere, "shillery" due to your lack of a clue and a Cause.
Click to expand...

It was demontrated* directly and decisively* by your very own crieria, and according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming that any part of the Bill of Rights was written to protect the state's rights is the fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a fallacy to claim that our Second Amendment secures what is necessary to the security of a free State and not merely some allusion to some conspiracy and some collusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fallacy to claim that the US Code overrides the US Constitution.   And the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right, whether one is affiliated with a state militia or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am only "over-riding" an appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The terms, militia and the People, are collective and plural not Individual; thus, construing any Individual rights is an appeal to ignorance of our own written law.  That opinion was merely a waste of the Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a "militia" or "the People" that is not contingent upon individuals, and does not refer to the individuals that compose those respective groups. Thus, construing anything but an individual right is stupid and boring.
> 
> You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no (willful) Appeal to Ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.  It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

No there isn't. And if there were, you have failed demonstrate it--despite your every opportunity to do so.

Nor is there such thing as a "militia" or "the People" that is not contingent upon individuals, and does not refer to the individuals that compose those respective groups. Thus, construing anything but an individual right is stupid and boring.

You are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are boring and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first clause is the End, my friend.
> It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.
> 
> It is stupid and boring.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.
> 
> The "end" unabiguously stated is,"_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.
> 
> The complete meaning of the preforatory clause *requires* that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By your very own crieria, and according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This needs a valid argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion, which is currently indistinguishable from mere, "shillery" due to your lack of a clue and a Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was demontrated* directly and decisively* by your very own crieria, and according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...


Which faulty logic is that?  There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.
> 
> It is stupid and boring.
> 
> For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.
> 
> The "end" unabiguously stated is,"_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"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."_​
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.
> 
> The complete meaning of the preforatory clause *requires* that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.
> 
> By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By your very own crieria, and according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This needs a valid argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion, which is currently indistinguishable from mere, "shillery" due to your lack of a clue and a Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was demontrated* directly and decisively* by your very own crieria, and according to your very own reference, you are wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which faulty logic is that?  There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.
Click to expand...

Your faulty logic has been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

You seem to be missing the point.  I am claiming you are full of fallacy, simply Because you don't post your alleged good argument, each and every time this issue is contested, until you give up your contention, due to a simple exhaustion of any clue and any Cause you could come up with.

Which faulty logic is that? There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> You seem to be missing the point.  I am claiming you are full of fallacy, simply Because you don't post your alleged good argument, each and every time this issue is contested, until you give up your contention, due to a simple exhaustion of any clue and any Cause you could come up with.
> 
> Which faulty logic is that? There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.


Your faulty logic has been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.

You have not once contested any argument or rebuttal with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

You simply repeat your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality as a response to every direct and decisive rebuttal of your nonsense.

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point.  I am claiming you are full of fallacy, simply Because you don't post your alleged good argument, each and every time this issue is contested, until you give up your contention, due to a simple exhaustion of any clue and any Cause you could come up with.
> 
> Which faulty logic is that? There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.
> 
> 
> 
> Your faulty logic has been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.
> 
> You have not once contested any argument or rebuttal with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You simply repeat your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality as a response to every direct and decisive rebuttal of your nonsense.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Dude, there is no willful appeal to ignorance of the law as codified at 10US311.  You have no refutation, as your current appeals to nothing but fallacy, indicate.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point.  I am claiming you are full of fallacy, simply Because you don't post your alleged good argument, each and every time this issue is contested, until you give up your contention, due to a simple exhaustion of any clue and any Cause you could come up with.
> 
> Which faulty logic is that? There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.
> 
> 
> 
> Your faulty logic has been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.
> 
> You have not once contested any argument or rebuttal with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You simply repeat your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality as a response to every direct and decisive rebuttal of your nonsense.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, there is no willful appeal to ignorance of the law as codified at 10US311.  You have no refutation, as your current appeals to nothing but fallacy, indicate.
Click to expand...

There has not once been any appeal to any kind of ignorance of 10 USC 311.

You have not, and cannot demonstrate any fallacy I have employed. You certainly would have done so by now if it were possible for you.

You are just wrong, for all the reasons clearly posted for you previously. *AGAIN. STILL*.

Your errors of fact and your faulty logic have been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.

You have not once contested any argument or rebuttal with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

You simply repeat your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality as a response to every direct and decisive rebuttal of your nonsense.

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point.  I am claiming you are full of fallacy, simply Because you don't post your alleged good argument, each and every time this issue is contested, until you give up your contention, due to a simple exhaustion of any clue and any Cause you could come up with.
> 
> Which faulty logic is that? There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.
> 
> 
> 
> Your faulty logic has been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.
> 
> You have not once contested any argument or rebuttal with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You simply repeat your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality as a response to every direct and decisive rebuttal of your nonsense.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, there is no willful appeal to ignorance of the law as codified at 10US311.  You have no refutation, as your current appeals to nothing but fallacy, indicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has not once been any appeal to any kind of ignorance of 10 USC 311.
> 
> You have not, and cannot demonstrate any fallacy I have employed. You certainly would have done so by now if it were possible for you.
> 
> You are just wrong, for all the reasons clearly posted for you previously. *AGAIN. STILL*.
> 
> Your errors of fact and your faulty logic have been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.
> 
> You have not once contested any argument or rebuttal with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You simply repeat your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality as a response to every direct and decisive rebuttal of your nonsense.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Yes there has, since not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.

_*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._


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point.  I am claiming you are full of fallacy, simply Because you don't post your alleged good argument, each and every time this issue is contested, until you give up your contention, due to a simple exhaustion of any clue and any Cause you could come up with.
> 
> Which faulty logic is that? There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.
> 
> 
> 
> Your faulty logic has been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.
> 
> You have not once contested any argument or rebuttal with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You simply repeat your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality as a response to every direct and decisive rebuttal of your nonsense.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, there is no willful appeal to ignorance of the law as codified at 10US311.  You have no refutation, as your current appeals to nothing but fallacy, indicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has not once been any appeal to any kind of ignorance of 10 USC 311.
> 
> You have not, and cannot demonstrate any fallacy I have employed. You certainly would have done so by now if it were possible for you.
> 
> You are just wrong, for all the reasons clearly posted for you previously. *AGAIN. STILL*.
> 
> Your errors of fact and your faulty logic have been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.
> 
> You have not once contested any argument or rebuttal with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You simply repeat your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality as a response to every direct and decisive rebuttal of your nonsense.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes there has, since not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
Click to expand...

This has been previously addressed. Your fatuous point was refuted decisively. You could not bring a cogent defense using valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality. You were wrong then, just as you are now. *AGAIN. STILL.
*
Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point.  I am claiming you are full of fallacy, simply Because you don't post your alleged good argument, each and every time this issue is contested, until you give up your contention, due to a simple exhaustion of any clue and any Cause you could come up with.
> 
> Which faulty logic is that? There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.
> 
> 
> 
> Your faulty logic has been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.
> 
> You have not once contested any argument or rebuttal with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You simply repeat your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality as a response to every direct and decisive rebuttal of your nonsense.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, there is no willful appeal to ignorance of the law as codified at 10US311.  You have no refutation, as your current appeals to nothing but fallacy, indicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has not once been any appeal to any kind of ignorance of 10 USC 311.
> 
> You have not, and cannot demonstrate any fallacy I have employed. You certainly would have done so by now if it were possible for you.
> 
> You are just wrong, for all the reasons clearly posted for you previously. *AGAIN. STILL*.
> 
> Your errors of fact and your faulty logic have been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.
> 
> You have not once contested any argument or rebuttal with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You simply repeat your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality as a response to every direct and decisive rebuttal of your nonsense.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes there has, since not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has been previously addressed. Your fatuous point was refuted decisively. You could not bring a cogent defense using valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality. You were wrong then, just as you are now. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...


Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.

_*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._

You only claim that; but have no valid argument to show for it, like usual. 

There is no willful appeal to ignorance any Militia laws; simply because our Second Amendment expressly declares and terms, what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your faulty logic has been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.
> 
> You have not once contested any argument or rebuttal with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You simply repeat your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality as a response to every direct and decisive rebuttal of your nonsense.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and *your mendacious denials of reality* have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no willful appeal to ignorance of the law as codified at 10US311.  You have no refutation, as your current appeals to nothing but fallacy, indicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has not once been any appeal to any kind of ignorance of 10 USC 311.
> 
> You have not, and cannot demonstrate any fallacy I have employed. You certainly would have done so by now if it were possible for you.
> 
> You are just wrong, for all the reasons clearly posted for you previously. *AGAIN. STILL*.
> 
> Your errors of fact and your faulty logic have been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.
> 
> You have not once contested any argument or rebuttal with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You simply repeat your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality as a response to every direct and decisive rebuttal of your nonsense.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes there has, since not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has been previously addressed. Your fatuous point was refuted decisively. You could not bring a cogent defense using valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality. You were wrong then, just as you are now. *AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> You only claim that; but have no valid argument to show for it, like usual.
> 
> There is no willful appeal to ignorance any Militia laws; simply because our Second Amendment expressly declares and terms, what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...

This has been previously addressed. *Your fatuous point was refuted decisively.* You could not bring a cogent defense using valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality. You were wrong then, just as you are now. *AGAIN. STILL.
*
Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and *your mendacious denials of reality* have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You are boring and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

No, it hasn't or I would not be asking you;  You either have a valid or you are just full of fallacy.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> No, it hasn't or I would not be asking you;  You either have a valid or you are just full of fallacy.


*Your fatuous point was refuted decisively. *Several times, with several arguments.

You could not bring a cogent defense using valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality. You just repeated your unsupported and discredited notions. You were wrong then, just as you are now. *AGAIN. STILL.
*
You _could_ attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations previously submitted. I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time.

Until then:

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

*You are boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground:

Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.

_*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._

You only claim that; but have no valid argument to show for it, like usual.

There is no willful appeal to ignorance any Militia laws (i.e. 10USC311); simply because our Second Amendment expressly declares and terms, what is _necessary_ to the security of a free State.

You are welcome to try to achieve any "concentration of intellectual superiority", if you are able; but, that requires a valid argument--so, you may only be as useful as JEB Stuart at Gettysburg.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground:
> 
> Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> You only claim that; but have no valid argument to show for it, like usual.
> 
> There is no willful appeal to ignorance any Militia laws (i.e. 10USC311); simply because our Second Amendment expressly declares and terms, what is _necessary_ to the security of a free State.
> 
> You are welcome to try to achieve any "concentration of intellectual superiority", if you are able; but, that requires a valid argument--so, you may only be as useful as JEB Stuart at Gettysburg.


*This fatuous point of yours was refuted decisively. *Several times, with several arguments.

You could not bring a cogent defense using valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality. You just repeated your unsupported and discredited notions. You were wrong then, just as you are now. *AGAIN. STILL.*

*You could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations previously submitted*. I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time.

Until then:

*AGAIN. STILL.*


danielpalos said:


> Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground:
> 
> Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> You only claim that; but have no valid argument to show for it, like usual.
> 
> There is no willful appeal to ignorance any Militia laws (i.e. 10USC311); simply because our Second Amendment expressly declares and terms, what is _necessary_ to the security of a free State.
> 
> You are welcome to try to achieve any "concentration of intellectual superiority", if you are able; but, that requires a valid argument--so, you may only be as useful as JEB Stuart at Gettysburg.


Yes. You have made this argument before. I addressed it directly. Several times.

*This fatuous point of yours was refuted decisively. *Several times, with several arguments.

You could not bring a cogent defense using valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality. You just repeated your unsupported and discredited notions. You were wrong then, just as you are now. *AGAIN. STILL.

You could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations previously submitted. *I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.

Until then:

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

*You are boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground:
> 
> Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> You only claim that; but have no valid argument to show for it, like usual.
> 
> There is no willful appeal to ignorance any Militia laws (i.e. 10USC311); simply because our Second Amendment expressly declares and terms, what is _necessary_ to the security of a free State.
> 
> You are welcome to try to achieve any "concentration of intellectual superiority", if you are able; but, that requires a valid argument--so, you may only be as useful as JEB Stuart at Gettysburg.
> 
> 
> 
> *This fatuous point of yours was refuted decisively. *Several times, with several arguments.
> 
> You could not bring a cogent defense using valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality. You just repeated your unsupported and discredited notions. You were wrong then, just as you are now. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> *You could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations previously submitted*. I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time.
> 
> Until then:
> 
> *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground:
> 
> Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> You only claim that; but have no valid argument to show for it, like usual.
> 
> There is no willful appeal to ignorance any Militia laws (i.e. 10USC311); simply because our Second Amendment expressly declares and terms, what is _necessary_ to the security of a free State.
> 
> You are welcome to try to achieve any "concentration of intellectual superiority", if you are able; but, that requires a valid argument--so, you may only be as useful as JEB Stuart at Gettysburg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. You have made this argument before. I addressed it directly. Several times.
> 
> *This fatuous point of yours was refuted decisively. *Several times, with several arguments.
> 
> You could not bring a cogent defense using valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality. You just repeated your unsupported and discredited notions. You were wrong then, just as you are now. *AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> You could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations previously submitted. *I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.
> 
> Until then:
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> *You are boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...


dude, you are just full of fallacy if you don't advance a valid rebuttal with supporting argument, each and every time this issue is contested.

In any Case, non-sequiturs, which are usually considered fallacies, are considered non-responsive in legal venues.  You would have lost already in a real legal venue, due to a lack of a clue and a Cause.  

So, go ahead and be useless for your team.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground:
> 
> Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> You only claim that; but have no valid argument to show for it, like usual.
> 
> There is no willful appeal to ignorance any Militia laws (i.e. 10USC311); simply because our Second Amendment expressly declares and terms, what is _necessary_ to the security of a free State.
> 
> You are welcome to try to achieve any "concentration of intellectual superiority", if you are able; but, that requires a valid argument--so, you may only be as useful as JEB Stuart at Gettysburg.
> 
> 
> 
> *This fatuous point of yours was refuted decisively. *Several times, with several arguments.
> 
> You could not bring a cogent defense using valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality. You just repeated your unsupported and discredited notions. You were wrong then, just as you are now. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> *You could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations previously submitted*. I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time.
> 
> Until then:
> 
> *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground:
> 
> Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> You only claim that; but have no valid argument to show for it, like usual.
> 
> There is no willful appeal to ignorance any Militia laws (i.e. 10USC311); simply because our Second Amendment expressly declares and terms, what is _necessary_ to the security of a free State.
> 
> You are welcome to try to achieve any "concentration of intellectual superiority", if you are able; but, that requires a valid argument--so, you may only be as useful as JEB Stuart at Gettysburg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. You have made this argument before. I addressed it directly. Several times.
> 
> *This fatuous point of yours was refuted decisively. *Several times, with several arguments.
> 
> You could not bring a cogent defense using valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality. You just repeated your unsupported and discredited notions. You were wrong then, just as you are now. *AGAIN. STILL.
> 
> You could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations previously submitted. *I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time.
> 
> Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.
> 
> Until then:
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> *You are boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude, you are just full of fallacy if you don't advance a valid rebuttal with supporting argument, each and every time this issue is contested.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

*This fatuous point of yours was refuted decisively. *Several times, with several arguments.

You could not bring a cogent defense using valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality. You just repeated your unsupported and discredited notions.

*There is no requirement or obligation to refute them again.*

You were wrong then, just as you are now. *AGAIN. STILL.

You could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations previously submitted. *I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. 

Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.



danielpalos said:


> In any Case, non-sequiturs, which are usually considered fallacies, are considered non-responsive in legal venues.  You would have lost already in a real legal venue, due to a lack of a clue and a Cause.
> 
> So, go ahead and be useless for your team.


Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

*You are boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

Nothing but fallacy for your Cause, like usual.

dudes and Esquires, after thrice, non responsiveness in legal venues should be considered, just a vice.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Nothing but fallacy for your Cause, like usual.
> 
> dudes and Esquires, after thrice, non responsiveness in legal venues should be considered, just a vice.


Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

You have had ample opportunity to bring valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality to defend the rebuttals brought against your dopey assertions.

Indicted by your own criteria;

*You are boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

Still nothing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Still nothing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it.


You've got nothing but boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL*.


----------



## danielpalos

What?!  Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument?  Are you really really serious this time 

Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.

Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.

_*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._

Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?


----------



## Gunman

How dumb can you be 98% of American are not in the Militia ... 75% of those folks own Guns .. AND .. they
ARE NOT going to give them up just because  some azzhole in congress don't like guns... The reason for a well
Regulated Militia was back then when you were in the Militia you took your gun Home with you every night... and you kept your gun when you got out... Some Country's still do that today... BUT not the USA.... STUPID ....


----------



## danielpalos

Gunman said:


> How dumb can you be 98% of American are not in the Militia ... 75% of those folks own Guns .. AND .. they
> ARE NOT going to give them up just because  some azzhole in congress don't like guns... The reason for a well
> Regulated Militia was back then when you were in the Militia you took your gun Home with you every night... and you kept your gun when you got out... Some Country's still do that today... BUT not the USA.... STUPID ....


Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?

Only gun lovers believe "fire-base fallacy" is tenable.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumb can you be 98% of American are not in the Militia ... 75% of those folks own Guns .. AND .. they
> ARE NOT going to give them up just because  some azzhole in congress don't like guns... The reason for a well
> Regulated Militia was back then when you were in the Militia you took your gun Home with you every night... and you kept your gun when you got out... Some Country's still do that today... BUT not the USA.... STUPID ....
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?
> 
> Only gun lovers believe "fire-base fallacy" is tenable.
Click to expand...


It is not relevant because the US Code cannot override the US Constitution, which has repeatedly been ruled to preserve an individual right to keep and bear arms.    It is ignorance to argue otherwise.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumb can you be 98% of American are not in the Militia ... 75% of those folks own Guns .. AND .. they
> ARE NOT going to give them up just because  some azzhole in congress don't like guns... The reason for a well
> Regulated Militia was back then when you were in the Militia you took your gun Home with you every night... and you kept your gun when you got out... Some Country's still do that today... BUT not the USA.... STUPID ....
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?
> 
> Only gun lovers believe "fire-base fallacy" is tenable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not relevant because the US Code cannot override the US Constitution, which has repeatedly been ruled to preserve an individual right to keep and bear arms.    It is ignorance to argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

Where is this Individual right to be found?  The People is a collective Term not an Individual Term, as is the Term Militia; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumb can you be 98% of American are not in the Militia ... 75% of those folks own Guns .. AND .. they
> ARE NOT going to give them up just because  some azzhole in congress don't like guns... The reason for a well
> Regulated Militia was back then when you were in the Militia you took your gun Home with you every night... and you kept your gun when you got out... Some Country's still do that today... BUT not the USA.... STUPID ....
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?
> 
> Only gun lovers believe "fire-base fallacy" is tenable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not relevant because the US Code cannot override the US Constitution, which has repeatedly been ruled to preserve an individual right to keep and bear arms.    It is ignorance to argue otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is this Individual right to be found?  The People is a collective Term not an Individual Term, as is the Term Militia; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.
Click to expand...


You also said that this grammar rule is irrelevant in the other amendments which use the phrase "the people".   

But "the people" means just that, the people or the citizens.   That is what the SCOTUS has ruled and what the other writings of the founding fathers show that they believed.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumb can you be 98% of American are not in the Militia ... 75% of those folks own Guns .. AND .. they
> ARE NOT going to give them up just because  some azzhole in congress don't like guns... The reason for a well
> Regulated Militia was back then when you were in the Militia you took your gun Home with you every night... and you kept your gun when you got out... Some Country's still do that today... BUT not the USA.... STUPID ....
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?
> 
> Only gun lovers believe "fire-base fallacy" is tenable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not relevant because the US Code cannot override the US Constitution, which has repeatedly been ruled to preserve an individual right to keep and bear arms.    It is ignorance to argue otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is this Individual right to be found?  The People is a collective Term not an Individual Term, as is the Term Militia; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You also said that this grammar rule is irrelevant in the other amendments which use the phrase "the people".
> 
> But "the people" means just that, the people or the citizens.   That is what the SCOTUS has ruled and what the other writings of the founding fathers show that they believed.
Click to expand...

Yes, the People as compared and contrasted to the Persons--it makes _all_ of the difference in the world simply because, if our Founding Fathers had meant what gun lovers claim, they would have used the term Persons if they had meant an Individual right.

The People and Militia are collective not Individual as is the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumb can you be 98% of American are not in the Militia ... 75% of those folks own Guns .. AND .. they
> ARE NOT going to give them up just because  some azzhole in congress don't like guns... The reason for a well
> Regulated Militia was back then when you were in the Militia you took your gun Home with you every night... and you kept your gun when you got out... Some Country's still do that today... BUT not the USA.... STUPID ....
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?
> 
> Only gun lovers believe "fire-base fallacy" is tenable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not relevant because the US Code cannot override the US Constitution, which has repeatedly been ruled to preserve an individual right to keep and bear arms.    It is ignorance to argue otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is this Individual right to be found?  The People is a collective Term not an Individual Term, as is the Term Militia; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You also said that this grammar rule is irrelevant in the other amendments which use the phrase "the people".
> 
> But "the people" means just that, the people or the citizens.   That is what the SCOTUS has ruled and what the other writings of the founding fathers show that they believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People as compared and contrasted to the Persons--it makes _all_ of the difference in the world simply because, if our Founding Fathers had meant what gun lovers claim, they would have used the term Persons if they had meant an Individual right.
> 
> The People and Militia are collective not Individual as is the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


_"*Amendment I*
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of* the people* peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."_

As I said before, your claim means that only states have the right to peaceably assemble.   The founding fathers used "the people" in the first amendment.


_*"Amendment IV*
The right of* the people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."_

Are the states the only ones to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects?   The founding fathers used "the people" in the 4th amendment too.

So the phrase "the people" is used in 3 of the first 4 amendments in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?
> 
> Only gun lovers believe "fire-base fallacy" is tenable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not relevant because the US Code cannot override the US Constitution, which has repeatedly been ruled to preserve an individual right to keep and bear arms.    It is ignorance to argue otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is this Individual right to be found?  The People is a collective Term not an Individual Term, as is the Term Militia; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You also said that this grammar rule is irrelevant in the other amendments which use the phrase "the people".
> 
> But "the people" means just that, the people or the citizens.   That is what the SCOTUS has ruled and what the other writings of the founding fathers show that they believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People as compared and contrasted to the Persons--it makes _all_ of the difference in the world simply because, if our Founding Fathers had meant what gun lovers claim, they would have used the term Persons if they had meant an Individual right.
> 
> The People and Militia are collective not Individual as is the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"*Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of* the people* peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."_
> 
> As I said before, your claim means that only states have the right to peaceably assemble.   The founding fathers used "the people" in the first amendment.
> 
> 
> _*"Amendment IV*
> The right of* the people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."_
> 
> Are the states the only ones to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects?   The founding fathers used "the people" in the 4th amendment too.
> 
> So the phrase "the people" is used in 3 of the first 4 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...


yes, the People as the collective of the (citizenry of the) United States; and that Body politic as the Electorate in that office of public trust.

Both terms, Militia and the People are collective, not Individual; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent, Letter, Purpose, or Spirit of the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not relevant because the US Code cannot override the US Constitution, which has repeatedly been ruled to preserve an individual right to keep and bear arms.    It is ignorance to argue otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this Individual right to be found?  The People is a collective Term not an Individual Term, as is the Term Militia; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You also said that this grammar rule is irrelevant in the other amendments which use the phrase "the people".
> 
> But "the people" means just that, the people or the citizens.   That is what the SCOTUS has ruled and what the other writings of the founding fathers show that they believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People as compared and contrasted to the Persons--it makes _all_ of the difference in the world simply because, if our Founding Fathers had meant what gun lovers claim, they would have used the term Persons if they had meant an Individual right.
> 
> The People and Militia are collective not Individual as is the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"*Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of* the people* peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."_
> 
> As I said before, your claim means that only states have the right to peaceably assemble.   The founding fathers used "the people" in the first amendment.
> 
> 
> _*"Amendment IV*
> The right of* the people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."_
> 
> Are the states the only ones to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects?   The founding fathers used "the people" in the 4th amendment too.
> 
> So the phrase "the people" is used in 3 of the first 4 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, the People as the collective of the (citizenry of the) United States; and that Body politic as the Electorate in that office of public trust.
> 
> Both terms, Militia and the People are collective, not Individual; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent, Letter, Purpose, or Spirit of the law.
Click to expand...


So you think that only the collective, not the individual, have the right to be secure against unreasonable search & seizures and to assemble peaceably?    That is nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this Individual right to be found?  The People is a collective Term not an Individual Term, as is the Term Militia; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also said that this grammar rule is irrelevant in the other amendments which use the phrase "the people".
> 
> But "the people" means just that, the people or the citizens.   That is what the SCOTUS has ruled and what the other writings of the founding fathers show that they believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People as compared and contrasted to the Persons--it makes _all_ of the difference in the world simply because, if our Founding Fathers had meant what gun lovers claim, they would have used the term Persons if they had meant an Individual right.
> 
> The People and Militia are collective not Individual as is the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"*Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of* the people* peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."_
> 
> As I said before, your claim means that only states have the right to peaceably assemble.   The founding fathers used "the people" in the first amendment.
> 
> 
> _*"Amendment IV*
> The right of* the people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."_
> 
> Are the states the only ones to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects?   The founding fathers used "the people" in the 4th amendment too.
> 
> So the phrase "the people" is used in 3 of the first 4 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, the People as the collective of the (citizenry of the) United States; and that Body politic as the Electorate in that office of public trust.
> 
> Both terms, Militia and the People are collective, not Individual; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent, Letter, Purpose, or Spirit of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that only the collective, not the individual, have the right to be secure against unreasonable search & seizures and to assemble peaceably?    That is nonsense.
Click to expand...

You are resorting to a fallacy of composition; any allusion to any conspiracy or any collusion, could be just hearsay.  Do those other amendments also have a first clause that comprises the Intent and Purpose, which the second clause must faithfully execute or, potentially, get shot.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also said that this grammar rule is irrelevant in the other amendments which use the phrase "the people".
> 
> But "the people" means just that, the people or the citizens.   That is what the SCOTUS has ruled and what the other writings of the founding fathers show that they believed.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the People as compared and contrasted to the Persons--it makes _all_ of the difference in the world simply because, if our Founding Fathers had meant what gun lovers claim, they would have used the term Persons if they had meant an Individual right.
> 
> The People and Militia are collective not Individual as is the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"*Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of* the people* peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."_
> 
> As I said before, your claim means that only states have the right to peaceably assemble.   The founding fathers used "the people" in the first amendment.
> 
> 
> _*"Amendment IV*
> The right of* the people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."_
> 
> Are the states the only ones to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects?   The founding fathers used "the people" in the 4th amendment too.
> 
> So the phrase "the people" is used in 3 of the first 4 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, the People as the collective of the (citizenry of the) United States; and that Body politic as the Electorate in that office of public trust.
> 
> Both terms, Militia and the People are collective, not Individual; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent, Letter, Purpose, or Spirit of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that only the collective, not the individual, have the right to be secure against unreasonable search & seizures and to assemble peaceably?    That is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are resorting to a fallacy of composition; any allusion to any conspiracy or any collusion, could be just hearsay.  Do those other amendments also have a first clause that comprises the Intent and Purpose, which the second clause must faithfully execute or, potentially, get shot.
Click to expand...


No, I am answering your claim that "the people" refers to society as a whole and not to the individual.

You made the claim.  I proved it wrong.

As for the first clause in the sentence, it merely provides reasoning for the second part of the sentence.   The second part of the sentence clearly is for the individual to be allowed arms.  It is that simple.  That is why the SCOTUS has ruled as they have over and over.

Your claim that the militia be under state control comes from your claim that "the people" means the state.  Once that is shown to be wrong, the rest of your argument falls apart.  If you read the writings of the men who wrote the constitution, it is obvious that they believed that the armed citizen was the best way to have a ready militia if needed.  They did not want the standing army, under the control of the central gov't, to be the only armed force available.  That specific issue would prevent future generations from maintaining a free people.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the People as compared and contrasted to the Persons--it makes _all_ of the difference in the world simply because, if our Founding Fathers had meant what gun lovers claim, they would have used the term Persons if they had meant an Individual right.
> 
> The People and Militia are collective not Individual as is the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"*Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of* the people* peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."_
> 
> As I said before, your claim means that only states have the right to peaceably assemble.   The founding fathers used "the people" in the first amendment.
> 
> 
> _*"Amendment IV*
> The right of* the people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."_
> 
> Are the states the only ones to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects?   The founding fathers used "the people" in the 4th amendment too.
> 
> So the phrase "the people" is used in 3 of the first 4 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, the People as the collective of the (citizenry of the) United States; and that Body politic as the Electorate in that office of public trust.
> 
> Both terms, Militia and the People are collective, not Individual; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent, Letter, Purpose, or Spirit of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that only the collective, not the individual, have the right to be secure against unreasonable search & seizures and to assemble peaceably?    That is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are resorting to a fallacy of composition; any allusion to any conspiracy or any collusion, could be just hearsay.  Do those other amendments also have a first clause that comprises the Intent and Purpose, which the second clause must faithfully execute or, potentially, get shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am answering your claim that "the people" refers to society as a whole and not to the individual.
> 
> You made the claim.  I proved it wrong.
> 
> As for the first clause in the sentence, it merely provides reasoning for the second part of the sentence.   The second part of the sentence clearly is for the individual to be allowed arms.  It is that simple.  That is why the SCOTUS has ruled as they have over and over.
> 
> Your claim that the militia be under state control comes from your claim that "the people" means the state.  Once that is shown to be wrong, the rest of your argument falls apart.  If you read the writings of the men who wrote the constitution, it is obvious that they believed that the armed citizen was the best way to have a ready militia if needed.  They did not want the standing army, under the control of the central gov't, to be the only armed force available.  That specific issue would prevent future generations from maintaining a free people.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it is a fallacy of composition and appeal to ignorance when discussing our Second Amendment.  Words have meaning.

Yes, State militias are under State control.  Governors are commanders in chief of that which is necessary to the security of a free State.

10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.  There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the law.

Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.

Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

_*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._

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).


----------



## danielpalos

Dear Persons on the right, and any gun lovers in support, I hope y'all understand and recognize that you are losing any credibility you may have in the affirmative action threads, if you continue to blindly support _inferior_ arguments for _superior_ or even _supreme_ pay.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Dear Persons on the right, and any gun lovers in support, I hope y'all understand and recognize that you are losing any credibility you may have in the affirmative action threads, if you continue to blindly support _inferior_ arguments for _superior_ or even _supreme_ pay.



Except our credibility is not our concern.   What counts is that most constitutional scholars, and more importantly the SCOTUS disagree with your silly assumptions.

As for affirmative action, I have no idea how that comes in to the discussion of 2nd amendment rights.


----------



## Uncensored2008

danielpalos said:


> Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the _Militia of the United States_ which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.



False, SCOTUS already ruled against you anti-liberty nuts on this.

The rights of the people referenced in the 2nd Amendment means exactly the same as the rights of the people referenced in the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Persons on the right, and any gun lovers in support, I hope y'all understand and recognize that you are losing any credibility you may have in the affirmative action threads, if you continue to blindly support _inferior_ arguments for _superior_ or even _supreme_ pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except our credibility is not our concern.   What counts is that most constitutional scholars, and more importantly the SCOTUS disagree with your silly assumptions.
> 
> As for affirmative action, I have no idea how that comes in to the discussion of 2nd amendment rights.
Click to expand...

What counts most, is Any lack of Appeal to Ignorance of the law as that form of fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the _Militia of the United States_ which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False, SCOTUS already ruled against you anti-liberty nuts on this.
> 
> The rights of the people referenced in the 2nd Amendment means exactly the same as the rights of the people referenced in the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th.
Click to expand...

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law.  10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the _Militia of the United States_ which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False, SCOTUS already ruled against you anti-liberty nuts on this.
> 
> The rights of the people referenced in the 2nd Amendment means exactly the same as the rights of the people referenced in the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law.  10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not?
Click to expand...


For the same reason any law written in an attempt to override the US Constitution would be ignored or overruled.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Persons on the right, and any gun lovers in support, I hope y'all understand and recognize that you are losing any credibility you may have in the affirmative action threads, if you continue to blindly support _inferior_ arguments for _superior_ or even _supreme_ pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except our credibility is not our concern.   What counts is that most constitutional scholars, and more importantly the SCOTUS disagree with your silly assumptions.
> 
> As for affirmative action, I have no idea how that comes in to the discussion of 2nd amendment rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What counts most, is Any lack of Appeal to Ignorance of the law as that form of fallacy.
Click to expand...


I am certainly not appealing to ignorance.  I am applying the same standards to "the people" in the entire Bill of Rights.


----------



## Uncensored2008

danielpalos said:


> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law.  10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not?



I'm not sure that you are at all aware of what you are attempting to say.

The issue is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I understand that an armed populace is difficult to rule, but you lost.


----------



## danielpalos

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law.  10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that you are at all aware of what you are attempting to say.
> 
> The issue is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I understand that an armed populace is difficult to rule, but you lost.
Click to expand...

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law.  10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that you are at all aware of what you are attempting to say.
> 
> The issue is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I understand that an armed populace is difficult to rule, but you lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
Click to expand...


I already have.   But you chose to ignore it in favor of that silly "'The People' is plural, therefore no individual right is protected" nonsense.

In Heller v. District of Columbia the SCOTUS held:

"_Held: _

 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

 (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

So the highest court in the land has ruled *"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."*


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law.  10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that you are at all aware of what you are attempting to say.
> 
> The issue is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I understand that an armed populace is difficult to rule, but you lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have.   But you chose to ignore it in favor of that silly "'The People' is plural, therefore no individual right is protected" nonsense.
> 
> In Heller v. District of Columbia the SCOTUS held:
> 
> "_Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> 
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."
> 
> So the highest court in the land has ruled *"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."*
Click to expand...

In other words, you cannot cite where this concept was covered.  I got it. 

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law.  10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that you are at all aware of what you are attempting to say.
> 
> The issue is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I understand that an armed populace is difficult to rule, but you lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have.   But you chose to ignore it in favor of that silly "'The People' is plural, therefore no individual right is protected" nonsense.
> 
> In Heller v. District of Columbia the SCOTUS held:
> 
> "_Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> 
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."
> 
> So the highest court in the land has ruled *"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you cannot cite where this concept was covered.  I got it.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
Click to expand...


I quoted where the SCOTUS ruled on this.   There is no higher authority.  That they have ruled that it is, in fact, and individual right, that it is not connected to service in a state militia, and that the first clause does not limit the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.  This makes the US Code a moot point, since it cannot override the US Constitution and the SCOTUS has ruled contrary to that code.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law.  10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that you are at all aware of what you are attempting to say.
> 
> The issue is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I understand that an armed populace is difficult to rule, but you lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have.   But you chose to ignore it in favor of that silly "'The People' is plural, therefore no individual right is protected" nonsense.
> 
> In Heller v. District of Columbia the SCOTUS held:
> 
> "_Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> 
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."
> 
> So the highest court in the land has ruled *"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you cannot cite where this concept was covered.  I got it.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted where the SCOTUS ruled on this.   There is no higher authority.  That they have ruled that it is, in fact, and individual right, that it is not connected to service in a state militia, and that the first clause does not limit the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.  This makes the US Code a moot point, since it cannot override the US Constitution and the SCOTUS has ruled contrary to that code.
Click to expand...

They appealed to ignorance of 10USC311.  

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that you are at all aware of what you are attempting to say.
> 
> The issue is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I understand that an armed populace is difficult to rule, but you lost.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have.   But you chose to ignore it in favor of that silly "'The People' is plural, therefore no individual right is protected" nonsense.
> 
> In Heller v. District of Columbia the SCOTUS held:
> 
> "_Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> 
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."
> 
> So the highest court in the land has ruled *"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you cannot cite where this concept was covered.  I got it.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted where the SCOTUS ruled on this.   There is no higher authority.  That they have ruled that it is, in fact, and individual right, that it is not connected to service in a state militia, and that the first clause does not limit the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.  This makes the US Code a moot point, since it cannot override the US Constitution and the SCOTUS has ruled contrary to that code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They appealed to ignorance of 10USC311.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
Click to expand...


Since the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is about an individual right and is not connected to service in a state militia, the US Code does not apply.  Your descriptions were of state militia.  Service in them is not required in order to own and bear arms.

Perhaps a basic civics class could teach you that when the SCOTUS rules, it cannot be overridden by the US Code.  The US Code describes the militia ect ect.    But that is not relevant in this discussion.


----------



## PredFan

Poor poor liberal gun grabbers, defeated yet again:

Gun Groups Celebrate Defeat of Proposed ATF Ammo Ban Washington Free Beacon


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.   But you chose to ignore it in favor of that silly "'The People' is plural, therefore no individual right is protected" nonsense.
> 
> In Heller v. District of Columbia the SCOTUS held:
> 
> "_Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> 
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."
> 
> So the highest court in the land has ruled *"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you cannot cite where this concept was covered.  I got it.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted where the SCOTUS ruled on this.   There is no higher authority.  That they have ruled that it is, in fact, and individual right, that it is not connected to service in a state militia, and that the first clause does not limit the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.  This makes the US Code a moot point, since it cannot override the US Constitution and the SCOTUS has ruled contrary to that code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They appealed to ignorance of 10USC311.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is about an individual right and is not connected to service in a state militia, the US Code does not apply.  Your descriptions were of state militia.  Service in them is not required in order to own and bear arms.
> 
> Perhaps a basic civics class could teach you that when the SCOTUS rules, it cannot be overridden by the US Code.  The US Code describes the militia ect ect.    But that is not relevant in this discussion.
Click to expand...

How did they reach that conclusion, without appealing to ignorance of 10USC311?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.   But you chose to ignore it in favor of that silly "'The People' is plural, therefore no individual right is protected" nonsense.
> 
> In Heller v. District of Columbia the SCOTUS held:
> 
> "_Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> 
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."
> 
> So the highest court in the land has ruled *"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."*
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you cannot cite where this concept was covered.  I got it.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted where the SCOTUS ruled on this.   There is no higher authority.  That they have ruled that it is, in fact, and individual right, that it is not connected to service in a state militia, and that the first clause does not limit the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.  This makes the US Code a moot point, since it cannot override the US Constitution and the SCOTUS has ruled contrary to that code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They appealed to ignorance of 10USC311.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is about an individual right and is not connected to service in a state militia, the US Code does not apply.  Your descriptions were of state militia.  Service in them is not required in order to own and bear arms.
> 
> Perhaps a basic civics class could teach you that when the SCOTUS rules, it cannot be overridden by the US Code.  The US Code describes the militia ect ect.    But that is not relevant in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did they reach that conclusion, without appealing to ignorance of 10USC311?
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  The only thing relevant in 10USCODE311 is the description of the militia.  The justices are educated about what the founding fathers thought and wrote about an armed population.  They made their ruling based on the US Constitution.  The item you keep quoting, 10USCODE311, simply defines the official militia.  But even that would not restrict the 2nd amendment.

"(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" 


There are two types of militia recognized by the US Code.   But SCOTUS has ruled that we gun owners are not required to belong to either of them.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> What?!  Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument?  Are you really really serious this time
> 
> Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.
> 
> Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?


Your repeated reference to *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.

At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:

There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.

There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.

There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.

There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

10 USC 311 literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.

Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still DEPENDENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.

You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right--not any militia's, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.

There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.

*Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. *I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.

Until then:

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

Wrong. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you cannot cite where this concept was covered.  I got it.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted where the SCOTUS ruled on this.   There is no higher authority.  That they have ruled that it is, in fact, and individual right, that it is not connected to service in a state militia, and that the first clause does not limit the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.  This makes the US Code a moot point, since it cannot override the US Constitution and the SCOTUS has ruled contrary to that code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They appealed to ignorance of 10USC311.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is about an individual right and is not connected to service in a state militia, the US Code does not apply.  Your descriptions were of state militia.  Service in them is not required in order to own and bear arms.
> 
> Perhaps a basic civics class could teach you that when the SCOTUS rules, it cannot be overridden by the US Code.  The US Code describes the militia ect ect.    But that is not relevant in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did they reach that conclusion, without appealing to ignorance of 10USC311?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  The only thing relevant in 10USCODE311 is the description of the militia.  The justices are educated about what the founding fathers thought and wrote about an armed population.  They made their ruling based on the US Constitution.  The item you keep quoting, 10USCODE311, simply defines the official militia.  But even that would not restrict the 2nd amendment.
> 
> "(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"
> 
> There are two types of militia recognized by the US Code.   But SCOTUS has ruled that we gun owners are not required to belong to either of them.
Click to expand...

Dude, only the right is that obtuse.  A well regulated militia must be an organized militia.  It really is that simple.  Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?!  Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument?  Are you really really serious this time
> 
> Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.
> 
> Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?
> 
> 
> 
> Your repeated reference to *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.
> 
> At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:
> 
> There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.
> 
> There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.
> 
> There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 10 USC 311 literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.
> 
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still DEPENDENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right--not any militia's, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.
> 
> *Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. *I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.
> 
> Until then:
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> Wrong. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?!  Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument?  Are you really really serious this time
> 
> Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.
> 
> Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?
> 
> 
> 
> Your repeated reference to *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.
> 
> At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:
> 
> There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.
> 
> There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.
> 
> There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 10 USC 311 literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.
> 
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still DEPENDENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right--not any militia's, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.
> 
> *Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. *I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.
> 
> Until then:
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> Wrong. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".
Click to expand...

*Indicted by your own criteria*;

You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?!  Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument?  Are you really really serious this time
> 
> Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.
> 
> Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?
> 
> 
> 
> Your repeated reference to *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.
> 
> At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:
> 
> There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.
> 
> There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.
> 
> There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 10 USC 311 literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.
> 
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still DEPENDENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right--not any militia's, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.
> 
> *Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. *I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.
> 
> Until then:
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> Wrong. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Indicted by your own criteria*;
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?!  Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument?  Are you really really serious this time
> 
> Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.
> 
> Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?
> 
> 
> 
> Your repeated reference to *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.
> 
> At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:
> 
> There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.
> 
> There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.
> 
> There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 10 USC 311 literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.
> 
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still DEPENDENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right--not any militia's, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.
> 
> *Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. *I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.
> 
> Until then:
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> Wrong. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Indicted by your own criteria*;
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.
Click to expand...


Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've  dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?!  Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument?  Are you really really serious this time
> 
> Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.
> 
> Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?
> 
> 
> 
> Your repeated reference to *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.
> 
> At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:
> 
> There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.
> 
> There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.
> 
> There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 10 USC 311 literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.
> 
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still DEPENDENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right--not any militia's, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.
> 
> *Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. *I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.
> 
> Until then:
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> Wrong. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Indicted by your own criteria*;
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.
Click to expand...

You have had ample opportunity to bring valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality to defend the rebuttals repeatedly brought against your dopey assertions.

My arguments are clearly superior to yours, or you would have made an attempt to refute them by now. 

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.

You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?!  Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument?  Are you really really serious this time
> 
> Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.
> 
> Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?
> 
> 
> 
> Your repeated reference to *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.
> 
> At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:
> 
> There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.
> 
> There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.
> 
> There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 10 USC 311 literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.
> 
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still DEPENDENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right--not any militia's, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.
> 
> *Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. *I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.
> 
> Until then:
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> Wrong. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Indicted by your own criteria*;
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've  dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!
Click to expand...

dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.

Dude, only the right is that obtuse. A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple. Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?!  Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument?  Are you really really serious this time
> 
> Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.
> 
> Not all of the *Militia of the United States* is well regulated.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?
> 
> 
> 
> Your repeated reference to *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.
> 
> At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:
> 
> There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.
> 
> There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.
> 
> There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 10 USC 311 literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.
> 
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still DEPENDENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right--not any militia's, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.
> 
> *Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. *I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.
> 
> Until then:
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> Wrong. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Indicted by your own criteria*;
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've  dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!
Click to expand...

dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.

Dude, only the right is that obtuse. A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple. Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your repeated reference to *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.
> 
> At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:
> 
> There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.
> 
> There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.
> 
> There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 10 USC 311 literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.
> 
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still DEPENDENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right--not any militia's, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.
> 
> *Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. *I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.
> 
> Until then:
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> Wrong. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Indicted by your own criteria*;
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've  dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.
> 
> Dude, only the right is that obtuse. A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple. Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.
Click to expand...


Ah, the old "Doubling down on stupid" ploy eh? Good luck with that.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted where the SCOTUS ruled on this.   There is no higher authority.  That they have ruled that it is, in fact, and individual right, that it is not connected to service in a state militia, and that the first clause does not limit the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.  This makes the US Code a moot point, since it cannot override the US Constitution and the SCOTUS has ruled contrary to that code.
> 
> 
> 
> They appealed to ignorance of 10USC311.
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.
> 
> Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is about an individual right and is not connected to service in a state militia, the US Code does not apply.  Your descriptions were of state militia.  Service in them is not required in order to own and bear arms.
> 
> Perhaps a basic civics class could teach you that when the SCOTUS rules, it cannot be overridden by the US Code.  The US Code describes the militia ect ect.    But that is not relevant in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did they reach that conclusion, without appealing to ignorance of 10USC311?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  The only thing relevant in 10USCODE311 is the description of the militia.  The justices are educated about what the founding fathers thought and wrote about an armed population.  They made their ruling based on the US Constitution.  The item you keep quoting, 10USCODE311, simply defines the official militia.  But even that would not restrict the 2nd amendment.
> 
> "(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"
> 
> There are two types of militia recognized by the US Code.   But SCOTUS has ruled that we gun owners are not required to belong to either of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, only the right is that obtuse.  A well regulated militia must be an organized militia.  It really is that simple.  Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.
Click to expand...


That is your contention, and you are welcome to it.

But the SCOTUS has ruled that teh 2nd amendment is not a collective right, but an individual one.  And it does not hinge on the person being a member of any gov't run militia.

A militia can be formed when it is needed.   Having an armed population allows that.  And the 2nd is specifically to allow for the formation of a militia both to repel foreign invaders AND to remove a tyrannical gov't.   That is what the framers intended.

That you choose to ignore what the highest constitutional authority has said, and continue to focus solely on the US Code shows a complete lack of knowledge about how our system works.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your repeated reference to *10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes)* is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.
> 
> At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:
> 
> There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.
> 
> There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.
> 
> There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.
> 
> Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 10 USC 311 literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.
> 
> Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still DEPENDENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.
> 
> You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right--not any militia's, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.
> 
> *Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. *I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.
> 
> Until then:
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.
> 
> Wrong. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Indicted by your own criteria*;
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've  dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Yet you fail to identify and demonstrate that any fallacy has been applied.

Why is that, Pumpkin?



danielpalos said:


> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple.


Really? Then demonstrate. I have no apprehensions that you will dare make an attempt.

Why do you suppose that is, Pumpkin?



danielpalos said:


> Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--


Is that so, Pumpkin? Why then can you not demonstrate it as such with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality?



danielpalos said:


> ...there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.


You repeatedly make this accusation, yet not once have you demonstrated that it is in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.

You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## PredFan

Time to ignore the troll people.

This thread is about how badly the gun grabbers are getting bitch slapped.

Like being forced to back off of their stupid attempt to ban green tip 223.


----------



## WinterBorn

PredFan said:


> Time to ignore the troll people.
> 
> This thread is about how badly the gun grabbers are getting bitch slapped.
> 
> Like being forced to back off of their stupid attempt to ban green tip 223.



The upside is that dannyboy here showed the futility of one argument.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".
> 
> 
> 
> *Indicted by your own criteria*;
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've  dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.
> 
> Dude, only the right is that obtuse. A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple. Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the old "Doubling down on stupid" ploy eh? Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

good luck with having nothing but fallacy for your Cause.  don't let me catch You in the affirmative action threads.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".
> 
> 
> 
> *Indicted by your own criteria*;
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've  dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you fail to identify and demonstrate that any fallacy has been applied.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then demonstrate. I have no apprehensions that you will dare make an attempt.
> 
> Why do you suppose that is, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that so, Pumpkin? Why then can you not demonstrate it as such with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You repeatedly make this accusation, yet not once have you demonstrated that it is in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.
> 
> You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

It is right here pumpkin, why still Only fallacy for your Cause?

Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Indicted by your own criteria*;
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've  dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you fail to identify and demonstrate that any fallacy has been applied.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then demonstrate. I have no apprehensions that you will dare make an attempt.
> 
> Why do you suppose that is, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that so, Pumpkin? Why then can you not demonstrate it as such with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You repeatedly make this accusation, yet not once have you demonstrated that it is in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.
> 
> You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is right here pumpkin, why still Only fallacy for your Cause?
> 
> Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--
Click to expand...


And the highest authority we have in the US has ruled that the clause concerning "well regulated militia" does not limit the clause that states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The US Constitution is the law of the land.  Any laws that run counter to it are to be struck down.   The highest authority on what is or is not constitutional is the US Supreme Court.

For all your claims about anyone else's fallacy of appealing to ignorance is wrong.   The fallacy is that you choose to ignore what the US Constitution says and what the US Supreme Court has ruled.   It really is that simple.

You would do will to learn to admit when you are wrong.  Or at least stop arguing when your point has been shown to be wrong.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Indicted by your own criteria*;
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've  dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.
> 
> Dude, only the right is that obtuse. A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple. Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the old "Doubling down on stupid" ploy eh? Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good luck with having nothing but fallacy for your Cause.  don't let me catch You in the affirmative action threads.
Click to expand...


You keep bringing up affirmative action.   I do not see the connection.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Indicted by your own criteria*;
> 
> You are boring and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've  dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you fail to identify and demonstrate that any fallacy has been applied.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then demonstrate. I have no apprehensions that you will dare make an attempt.
> 
> Why do you suppose that is, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that so, Pumpkin? Why then can you not demonstrate it as such with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You repeatedly make this accusation, yet not once have you demonstrated that it is in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.
> 
> You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is right here pumpkin, why still Only fallacy for your Cause?
> 
> Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--
Click to expand...

Still can't manage to demonstrate the validity of any assertion you make with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence, can you?

Why do you suppose that is, Pumpkin?

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.

You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## Gunman

All dis fancy talk is giving me a headache ... You ant getting my guns  ... so fur-get it and go back to your little fancy place of shames or whatever... you are just filling up the forum with bullpoop ...! ! !


----------



## PredFan

Gunman said:


> All dis fancy talk is giving me a headache ... You ant getting my guns  ... so fur-get it and go back to your little fancy place of shames or whatever... you are just filling up the forum with bullpoop ...! ! !



The more that the NRA and the 2nd Amendment kick their asses, the more ignorant bull shit they spew. It's funny to watch.

Gonna go out and buy a few hundred rounds of green tip 556 tomorrow.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've  dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you fail to identify and demonstrate that any fallacy has been applied.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then demonstrate. I have no apprehensions that you will dare make an attempt.
> 
> Why do you suppose that is, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that so, Pumpkin? Why then can you not demonstrate it as such with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You repeatedly make this accusation, yet not once have you demonstrated that it is in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.
> 
> You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is right here pumpkin, why still Only fallacy for your Cause?
> 
> Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the highest authority we have in the US has ruled that the clause concerning "well regulated militia" does not limit the clause that states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> The US Constitution is the law of the land.  Any laws that run counter to it are to be struck down.   The highest authority on what is or is not constitutional is the US Supreme Court.
> 
> For all your claims about anyone else's fallacy of appealing to ignorance is wrong.   The fallacy is that you choose to ignore what the US Constitution says and what the US Supreme Court has ruled.   It really is that simple.
> 
> You would do will to learn to admit when you are wrong.  Or at least stop arguing when your point has been shown to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was an appeal to ignorance of the law.  Our (senior) Elders should be ashamed of themselves for establishing that "moral", as if by custom and habit; which may corrupt their juniors.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've  dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you fail to identify and demonstrate that any fallacy has been applied.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then demonstrate. I have no apprehensions that you will dare make an attempt.
> 
> Why do you suppose that is, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that so, Pumpkin? Why then can you not demonstrate it as such with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You repeatedly make this accusation, yet not once have you demonstrated that it is in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.
> 
> You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is right here pumpkin, why still Only fallacy for your Cause?
> 
> Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still can't manage to demonstrate the validity of any assertion you make with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence, can you?
> 
> Why do you suppose that is, Pumpkin?
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.
> 
> You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Sure pumpkin, 10USC311 is still an actual law on the books.  It would need to be repealed for those of your point of view to willfully appeal ignorance of it, as you are now.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've  dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!
> 
> 
> 
> dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you fail to identify and demonstrate that any fallacy has been applied.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then demonstrate. I have no apprehensions that you will dare make an attempt.
> 
> Why do you suppose that is, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that so, Pumpkin? Why then can you not demonstrate it as such with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You repeatedly make this accusation, yet not once have you demonstrated that it is in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.
> 
> You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is right here pumpkin, why still Only fallacy for your Cause?
> 
> Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still can't manage to demonstrate the validity of any assertion you make with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence, can you?
> 
> Why do you suppose that is, Pumpkin?
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.
> 
> You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure pumpkin, 10USC311 is still an actual law on the books.
Click to expand...

Not in contention, Sis.



danielpalos said:


> It would need to be repealed for those of your point of view to willfully appeal ignorance of it, as you are now.


Why can't you demonstrate this with valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality, Sis?

You repeatedly make these claims and accusations, yet not once have you demonstrated that they are in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Sis?

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.

You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

Yes, it will be dear, if some on the left have to quibble before the Judicature. 

Those of your point of view don't have a good argument or any previous ruling on that specific legal topic.

That means, you are going to lose by default; pumpkin.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've  dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!
> 
> 
> 
> dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you fail to identify and demonstrate that any fallacy has been applied.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then demonstrate. I have no apprehensions that you will dare make an attempt.
> 
> Why do you suppose that is, Pumpkin?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that so, Pumpkin? Why then can you not demonstrate it as such with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You repeatedly make this accusation, yet not once have you demonstrated that it is in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.
> 
> You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is right here pumpkin, why still Only fallacy for your Cause?
> 
> Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still can't manage to demonstrate the validity of any assertion you make with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence, can you?
> 
> Why do you suppose that is, Pumpkin?
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.
> 
> You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure pumpkin, 10USC311 is still an actual law on the books.  It would need to be repealed for those of your point of view to willfully appeal ignorance of it, as you are now.
Click to expand...


No, it does not effect our view of the 2nd amendment at all.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Yes, it will be dear, if some on the left have to quibble before the Judicature.
> 
> Those of your point of view don't have a good argument or any previous ruling on that specific legal topic.
> 
> That means, you are going to lose by default; pumpkin.



There has been a ruling by the highest court in the land that said, specifically, that membership in a state militia is not required to exercise your 2nd amendment rights.  Nor is the "militia clause" in the amendment a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.

And why won't you answer my questions concerning your repeated referral to affirmative action?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it will be dear, if some on the left have to quibble before the Judicature.
> 
> Those of your point of view don't have a good argument or any previous ruling on that specific legal topic.
> 
> That means, you are going to lose by default; pumpkin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a ruling by the highest court in the land that said, specifically, that membership in a state militia is not required to exercise your 2nd amendment rights.  Nor is the "militia clause" in the amendment a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> And why won't you answer my questions concerning your repeated referral to affirmative action?
Click to expand...

That was an appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--as any form of equal work for equal pay.


----------



## Gunman

Seams that the attempt to band the Green tip .223 ammo went down the crapper with the rest of the BS...
Was at one of the local sporting good stores yesterday an was told that they were expecting a big shipment
in next week to make up for the run on ALL .223 ammo.. they expecting another run for folks that missed the 1st
run on .223 ammo...! ! ! Looks like the gun grabbers are the Best thing that happen to the sales of Guns & ammo
in the history of the USA....  More folks are armed and have more ammo than ever before.....! ! !  THANKS....
    NOW... We have to get those folks out to the gun ranges to learn how to use the Guns.. As it stands now
we have a lot of folks that do not know how to shoot,,, with guns....  Not So Good ....


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Yes, it will be dear, if some on the left have to quibble before the Judicature.


Wrong. *AGAIN. STILL.*



danielpalos said:


> Those of your point of view don't have a good argument...


Then why can't you demonstrate this with valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality, Sis?

You repeatedly make these claims and accusations, yet not once have you demonstrated that they are in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Sis?



danielpalos said:


> ... or any previous ruling on that specific legal topic.


Now that, right there, is an Appeal to Ignorance. How ironically played, Sis.



danielpalos said:


> That means, you are going to lose by default; pumpkin.


Nope.

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your *mendacious denials of reality *have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.

You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

Which errors in reasoning are those, pumkin?


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Which errors in reasoning are those, pumkin?


Every single one that has been explained to you in detail, several times over.

Those examples precisely.

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your *mendacious denials of reality *have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.

You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which errors in reasoning are those, pumkin?
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one that has been explained to you in detail, several times over.
> 
> Those examples precisely.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your *mendacious denials of reality *have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.
> 
> You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

You said that already; it is a simple fallacy of appeal to ignorance and trying to influence the masses, without any equal work for equal pay being involved.  What to try again in the affirmative action threads?


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which errors in reasoning are those, pumkin?
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one that has been explained to you in detail, several times over.
> 
> Those examples precisely.
> 
> Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your *mendacious denials of reality *have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.
> 
> You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said that already;...
Click to expand...

Of course. That is now my standard reply to your every assertion featuring obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality.

Those exact rebuttals that you cannot manage to contest with anything other than *repetition of your unsubstantiated assertions*.



danielpalos said:


> ... it is a simple fallacy of appeal to ignorance and trying to influence the masses,....


Yet you fail (*AGAIN.STILL.*) to demonstrate these claims and accusations, despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Sis?



danielpalos said:


> ...without any equal work for equal pay being involved.  What to try again in the affirmative action threads?



Add idiotic non-sequiturs and patent irrelevancies to the evidence that you are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

You claim that, like usual for an affirmative action thread, but you no clue or Cause or work, to show for it.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> You claim that, like usual for an affirmative action thread, but you no clue or Cause or work, to show for it.


For all the reasons previously submitted;

You are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

mine were better and don't resort to any affirmative action of fallacy, like yours do.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> mine were better and don't resort to any affirmative action of fallacy, like yours do.


Add repetition of idiotic non-sequiturs and patent irrelevancies to the evidence that you are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## Doggy

Fuck you,Danielpalos.....Go suck Obumgo`s dick.,you sob.Go stay in England with the rest of the crybabies.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> mine were better and don't resort to any affirmative action of fallacy, like yours do.
> 
> 
> 
> Add repetition of idiotic non-sequiturs and patent irrelevancies to the evidence that you are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Too bad yours are worse.


----------



## danielpalos

Doggy said:


> Fuck you,Danielpalos.....Go suck Obumgo`s dick.,you sob.Go stay in England with the rest of the crybabies.


The only ones crying are gun lovers who don't have a clue or a Cause; well regulated militias of the United States, already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

crybabys


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Doggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you,Danielpalos.....Go suck Obumgo`s dick.,you sob.Go stay in England with the rest of the crybabies.
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones crying are gun lovers who don't have a clue or a Cause; well regulated militias of the United States, already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> crybabys
Click to expand...


Individual citizens already enjoy the benefits of the 2nd amendment as well.  And membership in a state run militia is not a requirement to enjoy this right (per SCOTUS ruling in Heller v. DC).


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you,Danielpalos.....Go suck Obumgo`s dick.,you sob.Go stay in England with the rest of the crybabies.
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones crying are gun lovers who don't have a clue or a Cause; well regulated militias of the United States, already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> crybabys
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Individual citizens already enjoy the benefits of the 2nd amendment as well.  And membership in a state run militia is not a requirement to enjoy this right (per SCOTUS ruling in Heller v. DC).
Click to expand...

That is patently False, as noted in the "fine print" of paragraph (2).


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you,Danielpalos.....Go suck Obumgo`s dick.,you sob.Go stay in England with the rest of the crybabies.
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones crying are gun lovers who don't have a clue or a Cause; well regulated militias of the United States, already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> crybabys
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Individual citizens already enjoy the benefits of the 2nd amendment as well.  And membership in a state run militia is not a requirement to enjoy this right (per SCOTUS ruling in Heller v. DC).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is patently False, as noted in the "fine print" of paragraph (2).
Click to expand...


I did not say there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.  What I said was that individual citizens enjoy this right and that it is not dependent on membership in a gov't militia.

If you have some evidence to dispute that, feel free to post it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you,Danielpalos.....Go suck Obumgo`s dick.,you sob.Go stay in England with the rest of the crybabies.
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones crying are gun lovers who don't have a clue or a Cause; well regulated militias of the United States, already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> crybabys
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Individual citizens already enjoy the benefits of the 2nd amendment as well.  And membership in a state run militia is not a requirement to enjoy this right (per SCOTUS ruling in Heller v. DC).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is patently False, as noted in the "fine print" of paragraph (2).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.  What I said was that individual citizens enjoy this right and that it is not dependent on membership in a gov't militia.
> 
> If you have some evidence to dispute that, feel free to post it.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the point about well regulated militias of of the People being exempt from paragraph two (by our Second Amendment), but not gun lovers who can't be bothered to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> mine were better and don't resort to any affirmative action of fallacy, like yours do.
> 
> 
> 
> Add repetition of idiotic non-sequiturs and patent irrelevancies to the evidence that you are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad yours are worse.
Click to expand...

Why can't you demonstrate this with valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality, Sis?

You repeatedly make these claims and accusations, yet not once have you demonstrated that they are in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Sis?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you,Danielpalos.....Go suck Obumgo`s dick.,you sob.Go stay in England with the rest of the crybabies.
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones crying are gun lovers who don't have a clue or a Cause; well regulated militias of the United States, already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> crybabys
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Individual citizens already enjoy the benefits of the 2nd amendment as well.  And membership in a state run militia is not a requirement to enjoy this right (per SCOTUS ruling in Heller v. DC).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is patently False, as noted in the "fine print" of paragraph (2).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.  What I said was that individual citizens enjoy this right and that it is not dependent on membership in a gov't militia.
> 
> If you have some evidence to dispute that, feel free to post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you miss the point about well regulated militias of of the People being exempt from paragraph two (by our Second Amendment), but not gun lovers who can't be bothered to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?
Click to expand...


Paragraph 2 where?    I do not know which "paragraph (2)" you are referring to.   If it is the heller v. Dc decision, paragraph 2 does not refer to any exemption.   Link?


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> mine were better and don't resort to any affirmative action of fallacy, like yours do.
> 
> 
> 
> Add repetition of idiotic non-sequiturs and patent irrelevancies to the evidence that you are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad yours are worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you demonstrate this with valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality, Sis?
> 
> You repeatedly make these claims and accusations, yet not once have you demonstrated that they are in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Sis?
Click to expand...

I did pumkin; you simply are not competent enough to understand.  Why not revisit this issue when you can be more adult.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones crying are gun lovers who don't have a clue or a Cause; well regulated militias of the United States, already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> crybabys
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual citizens already enjoy the benefits of the 2nd amendment as well.  And membership in a state run militia is not a requirement to enjoy this right (per SCOTUS ruling in Heller v. DC).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is patently False, as noted in the "fine print" of paragraph (2).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.  What I said was that individual citizens enjoy this right and that it is not dependent on membership in a gov't militia.
> 
> If you have some evidence to dispute that, feel free to post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you miss the point about well regulated militias of of the People being exempt from paragraph two (by our Second Amendment), but not gun lovers who can't be bothered to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paragraph 2 where?    I do not know which "paragraph (2)" you are referring to.   If it is the heller v. Dc decision, paragraph 2 does not refer to any exemption.   Link?
Click to expand...

Dude, stop being disingenuous; it does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.  Have you read the paragraph that follows the paragraph many gun lovers cite?


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> mine were better and don't resort to any affirmative action of fallacy, like yours do.
> 
> 
> 
> Add repetition of idiotic non-sequiturs and patent irrelevancies to the evidence that you are stupid and boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad yours are worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you demonstrate this with valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality, Sis?
> 
> You repeatedly make these claims and accusations, yet not once have you demonstrated that they are in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.
> 
> Why is that, Sis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did pumkin; you simply are not competent enough to understand.  Why not revisit this issue when you can be more adult.
Click to expand...

You did no such thing, or you'd link to it.

Now is your clear opportunity to level up, Cupcake.

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

Wrong. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of _all_ of the other ones; as, even the South found out.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual citizens already enjoy the benefits of the 2nd amendment as well.  And membership in a state run militia is not a requirement to enjoy this right (per SCOTUS ruling in Heller v. DC).
> 
> 
> 
> That is patently False, as noted in the "fine print" of paragraph (2).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.  What I said was that individual citizens enjoy this right and that it is not dependent on membership in a gov't militia.
> 
> If you have some evidence to dispute that, feel free to post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you miss the point about well regulated militias of of the People being exempt from paragraph two (by our Second Amendment), but not gun lovers who can't be bothered to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paragraph 2 where?    I do not know which "paragraph (2)" you are referring to.   If it is the heller v. Dc decision, paragraph 2 does not refer to any exemption.   Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, stop being disingenuous; it does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.  Have you read the paragraph that follows the paragraph many gun lovers cite?
Click to expand...


I am not being disingenuous.  You are being intentionally vague.

I understand that you are talking about the second paragraph.  But of WHAT?

Is this what you are referring to?
"The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of _all_ of the other ones; as, even the South found out.



Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is patently False, as noted in the "fine print" of paragraph (2).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.  What I said was that individual citizens enjoy this right and that it is not dependent on membership in a gov't militia.
> 
> If you have some evidence to dispute that, feel free to post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you miss the point about well regulated militias of of the People being exempt from paragraph two (by our Second Amendment), but not gun lovers who can't be bothered to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paragraph 2 where?    I do not know which "paragraph (2)" you are referring to.   If it is the heller v. Dc decision, paragraph 2 does not refer to any exemption.   Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, stop being disingenuous; it does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.  Have you read the paragraph that follows the paragraph many gun lovers cite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not being disingenuous.  You are being intentionally vague.
> 
> I understand that you are talking about the second paragraph.  But of WHAT?
> 
> Is this what you are referring to?
> "The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."
Click to expand...

dude and Esquires; there is no willful appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State.  There is also, no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.  What I said was that individual citizens enjoy this right and that it is not dependent on membership in a gov't militia.
> 
> If you have some evidence to dispute that, feel free to post it.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss the point about well regulated militias of of the People being exempt from paragraph two (by our Second Amendment), but not gun lovers who can't be bothered to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paragraph 2 where?    I do not know which "paragraph (2)" you are referring to.   If it is the heller v. Dc decision, paragraph 2 does not refer to any exemption.   Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, stop being disingenuous; it does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.  Have you read the paragraph that follows the paragraph many gun lovers cite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not being disingenuous.  You are being intentionally vague.
> 
> I understand that you are talking about the second paragraph.  But of WHAT?
> 
> Is this what you are referring to?
> "The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude and Esquires; there is no willful appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State.  There is also, no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose.
Click to expand...


You keep quoting the US Code.  Unless the SCOTUS reverses their rulings (and rules as it has never done), the US Code is simply a description of militias as they stand.  The founding fathers intent was clear.  They want civilians ready to become militia when needed.   The SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd is, in fact, an individual right and is not contingent on membership in a militia.  It is really quite simple.  But you keep trying to bring in the US Code as if that has some power to override what the US Constitution says and what the SCOTUS has ruled.  It does not.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of _all_ of the other ones; as, even the South found out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.
Click to expand...

no, it doesn't.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.

There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.

The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of _all_ of the other ones; as, even the South found out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.
> 
> The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.
Click to expand...


No, not at all correct.    The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed.  The founding fathers were quite clear on this.  That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did.   If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen.  But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code.  Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of _all_ of the other ones; as, even the South found out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.
> 
> The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all correct.    The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed.  The founding fathers were quite clear on this.  That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did.   If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen.  But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code.  Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.


----------



## Doggy

Gun lovers are not crying..The queers such as Danielpolasie are doing the crying.Go back to your basement and axe your Momma to let you come out,queer.


----------



## danielpalos

Doggy said:


> Gun lovers are not crying..The queers such as Danielpolasie are doing the crying.Go back to your basement and axe your Momma to let you come out,queer.


Nothing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.  What I said was that individual citizens enjoy this right and that it is not dependent on membership in a gov't militia.
> 
> If you have some evidence to dispute that, feel free to post it.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss the point about well regulated militias of of the People being exempt from paragraph two (by our Second Amendment), but not gun lovers who can't be bothered to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paragraph 2 where?    I do not know which "paragraph (2)" you are referring to.   If it is the heller v. Dc decision, paragraph 2 does not refer to any exemption.   Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, stop being disingenuous; it does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.  Have you read the paragraph that follows the paragraph many gun lovers cite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not being disingenuous.  You are being intentionally vague.
> 
> I understand that you are talking about the second paragraph.  But of WHAT?
> 
> Is this what you are referring to?
> "The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude and Esquires; there is no willful appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State.  There is also, no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose.
Click to expand...

Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of _all_ of the other ones; as, even the South found out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.
> 
> The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of _all_ of the other ones; as, even the South found out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.
> 
> The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all correct.    The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed.  The founding fathers were quite clear on this.  That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did.   If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen.  But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code.  Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it wasn't.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of _all_ of the other ones; as, even the South found out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.
> 
> The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all correct.    The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed.  The founding fathers were quite clear on this.  That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did.   If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen.  But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code.  Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it wasn't.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


I am not appealing to anything.  I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of _all_ of the other ones; as, even the South found out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.
> 
> The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Clueless and Causeless; i got it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of _all_ of the other ones; as, even the South found out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.
> 
> The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all correct.    The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed.  The founding fathers were quite clear on this.  That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did.   If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen.  But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code.  Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it wasn't.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not appealing to anything.  I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.
Click to expand...

To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.
> 
> 
> 
> no, it doesn't.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.
> 
> The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all correct.    The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed.  The founding fathers were quite clear on this.  That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did.   If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen.  But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code.  Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it wasn't.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not appealing to anything.  I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
Click to expand...


Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.

The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed.  The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this.  In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, it doesn't.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.
> 
> The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all correct.    The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed.  The founding fathers were quite clear on this.  That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did.   If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen.  But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code.  Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it wasn't.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not appealing to anything.  I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.
> 
> The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed.  The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this.  In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which _all_ of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of _all_ of the other ones; as, even the South found out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.
> 
> The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clueless and Causeless; i got it.
Click to expand...

Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.
> 
> 
> 
> no, it doesn't.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.
> 
> The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all correct.    The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed.  The founding fathers were quite clear on this.  That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did.   If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen.  But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code.  Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it wasn't.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not appealing to anything.  I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.
> 
> 
> 
> no, it doesn't.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.
> 
> The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all correct.    The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed.  The founding fathers were quite clear on this.  That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did.   If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen.  But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code.  Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it wasn't.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not appealing to anything.  I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
Click to expand...

Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all correct.    The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed.  The founding fathers were quite clear on this.  That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did.   If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen.  But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code.  Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wasn't.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not appealing to anything.  I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.
> 
> The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed.  The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this.  In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which _all_ of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.
Click to expand...

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wasn't.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not appealing to anything.  I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.
> 
> The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed.  The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this.  In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which _all_ of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...


It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not appealing to anything.  I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.
> 
> 
> 
> To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.
> 
> The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed.  The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this.  In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which _all_ of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.
Click to expand...

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all correct.    The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed.  The founding fathers were quite clear on this.  That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did.   If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen.  But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code.  Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wasn't.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not appealing to anything.  I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.
> 
> The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed.  The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this.  In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which _all_ of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.
Click to expand...


What??   What basis do you have for bringing a case before the SCOTUS?

And what questions could you ask that have not already been answered by previous rulings?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not appealing to anything.  I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.
> 
> 
> 
> To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.
> 
> The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed.  The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this.  In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which _all_ of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.
Click to expand...


And when would those adults be arriving?   Your arguments are simply ridiculous points hidden in vague language and intentionally verbose nonsense.

Big words are nice.  But since language is about communication, being more to the point would be far more helpful than showing off your access to a thesaurus,


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.
> 
> The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed.  The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this.  In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which _all_ of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

where is your more intelligent argument?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.
> 
> The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed.  The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this.  In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which _all_ of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when would those adults be arriving?   Your arguments are simply ridiculous points hidden in vague language and intentionally verbose nonsense.
> 
> Big words are nice.  But since language is about communication, being more to the point would be far more helpful than showing off your access to a thesaurus,
Click to expand...

It is simple, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; that includes the Intent and Purpose.


----------



## Wildman

in the first ten amendments there are the words, "THE PEOPLE"..,

the people in the second amendment are the same people mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th, therefore, the people in the 2nd have the same right e.g., *"The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"*

got it now you stupid fucking liberscum ???


----------



## danielpalos

Wildman said:


> in the first ten amendments there are the words, "THE PEOPLE"..,
> 
> the people in the second amendment are the same people mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th, therefore, the people in the 2nd have the same right e.g., *"The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"*
> 
> got it now you stupid fucking liberscum ???


so what; only our Second Amendment declares what is necessary to the security of a free State; appealer to ignorance of the law and fuller of fallacy


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.
> 
> The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed.  The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this.  In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which _all_ of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when would those adults be arriving?   Your arguments are simply ridiculous points hidden in vague language and intentionally verbose nonsense.
> 
> Big words are nice.  But since language is about communication, being more to the point would be far more helpful than showing off your access to a thesaurus,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is simple, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; that includes the Intent and Purpose.
Click to expand...


You keep repeating that.    Given that the SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd amendment is, in fact, an individual right, and that the right is not contingent on membership in a gov't run militia, where are they appealing to ignorance of the law?

Or better yet, to what law are they appealing to ignorance of?

As for Intent & Purpose, the founding fathers made their intent quite clear in numerous other writings.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> in the first ten amendments there are the words, "THE PEOPLE"..,
> 
> the people in the second amendment are the same people mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th, therefore, the people in the 2nd have the same right e.g., *"The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"*
> 
> got it now you stupid fucking liberscum ???
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only our Second Amendment declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


And what the founding fathers saw as necessary is armed citizens.   The SCOTUS has already ruled that the first clause does not alter or limit the statement "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".

To try and suggest that "the people" in the 2nd amendment refers to the state, while the exact same phrase in the other amendments refers to citizens is simply laughable.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which _all_ of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when would those adults be arriving?   Your arguments are simply ridiculous points hidden in vague language and intentionally verbose nonsense.
> 
> Big words are nice.  But since language is about communication, being more to the point would be far more helpful than showing off your access to a thesaurus,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is simple, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep repeating that.    Given that the SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd amendment is, in fact, an individual right, and that the right is not contingent on membership in a gov't run militia, where are they appealing to ignorance of the law?
> 
> Or better yet, to what law are they appealing to ignorance of?
> 
> As for Intent & Purpose, the founding fathers made their intent quite clear in numerous other writings.
Click to expand...

It was how they arrived at _any_ Individual rights in private property secured by our Second Article of Amendment; it would require an appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose.

And, our supreme law of the land is not reducible to mere fractions.

It is not the fault of the left, that the right may not be competent enough to understand those simple, but adult concepts.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when would those adults be arriving?   Your arguments are simply ridiculous points hidden in vague language and intentionally verbose nonsense.
> 
> Big words are nice.  But since language is about communication, being more to the point would be far more helpful than showing off your access to a thesaurus,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is simple, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; that includes the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep repeating that.    Given that the SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd amendment is, in fact, an individual right, and that the right is not contingent on membership in a gov't run militia, where are they appealing to ignorance of the law?
> 
> Or better yet, to what law are they appealing to ignorance of?
> 
> As for Intent & Purpose, the founding fathers made their intent quite clear in numerous other writings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was how they arrived at _any_ Individual rights in private property secured by our Second Article of Amendment; it would require an appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> And, our supreme law of the land is not reducible to mere fractions.
> 
> It is not the fault of the left, that the right may not be competent enough to understand those simple, but adult concepts.
Click to expand...


You are simply being obtuse.   There is no reasoning in your arguments.   You can imply that those who disagree are not intelligent enough to understand your argument.  But you are absolutely wrong.   I am intelligent enough to see that you have no argument.  Intelligent enough to see that you have tried over and over to bend the 2nd amendment to the US Code, which is ridiculous.  Intelligent enough to see that you think repeating " there is no appeal to ignorance of the law" actually means something in this context (I kinda doubt the justices of teh US Supreme Court are ignorant of the law).   And I am intelligent enough to see that you want "the People" to mean one thing in the 2nd amendment and to have a totally different meaning in all the other amendments of the Bill of Rights.  That is called hypocrisy.

If you have an actual argument, I will happily discuss it.  If you are going to continue this verbose and vague nonsense, I will add you to the very short list of people I ignore.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.
> 
> The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed.  The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this.  In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which _all_ of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where is your more intelligent argument?
Click to expand...

The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"

To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "_...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..._"

One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:

_"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."_

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.

The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."

In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".

In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.
"Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.

"Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.

"Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.

Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.



The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.
Click to expand...

Unsubstantiated. Discredited. Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. *AGAIN. STILL.*

_"Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""_​


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.
Click to expand...


The intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to preserve the right for citizens to keep and bear arms.  That was certainly the intent.  And they wrote the amendment for that purpose.   Forming militia is NOT the intent nor the purpose.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.
Click to expand...


Daniel, what is your education background and your career history?   Just a general idea, if you don't mind?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to preserve the right for citizens to keep and bear arms.  That was certainly the intent.  And they wrote the amendment for that purpose.   Forming militia is NOT the intent nor the purpose.
Click to expand...


There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, what is your education background and your career history?   Just a general idea, if you don't mind?
Click to expand...

reading comprehension.


----------



## danielpalos

I believe our (senior) elders should be ashamed of themselves for corrupting their juniors instead of teaching more sound lines of reasoning.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to preserve the right for citizens to keep and bear arms.  That was certainly the intent.  And they wrote the amendment for that purpose.   Forming militia is NOT the intent nor the purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
Click to expand...

Your repeated, meaningless, and unsubstantiated claim.

Boring. Stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to preserve the right for citizens to keep and bear arms.  That was certainly the intent.  And they wrote the amendment for that purpose.   Forming militia is NOT the intent nor the purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
Click to expand...


No, it is not.  It is a subordinate clause for the actual purpose of the amendment, which is to secure and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd amendment does not create or preserve militias, other than guaranteeing armed citizens.  The intent and purpose is to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, what is your education background and your career history?   Just a general idea, if you don't mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> reading comprehension.
Click to expand...


And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?

Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise.  And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof._


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> I believe our (senior) elders should be ashamed of themselves for corrupting their juniors instead of teaching more sound lines of reasoning.



I believe that those who seek to twist the truth to limit the rights of our citizens should be ashamed.


But let me ask you, (and hope you will actually answer for a change) what would you have our gun laws be?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, what is your education background and your career history?   Just a general idea, if you don't mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?
> 
> Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise.  And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof._
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.

_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe our (senior) elders should be ashamed of themselves for corrupting their juniors instead of teaching more sound lines of reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those who seek to twist the truth to limit the rights of our citizens should be ashamed.
> 
> 
> But let me ask you, (and hope you will actually answer for a change) what would you have our gun laws be?
Click to expand...

I would end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and simply hold State governors accountable for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, what is your education background and your career history?   Just a general idea, if you don't mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?
> 
> Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise.  And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty
Click to expand...


The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all.   The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe our (senior) elders should be ashamed of themselves for corrupting their juniors instead of teaching more sound lines of reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those who seek to twist the truth to limit the rights of our citizens should be ashamed.
> 
> 
> But let me ask you, (and hope you will actually answer for a change) what would you have our gun laws be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and simply hold State governors accountable for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


Hold them responsible?   How?

And when you say you would "end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror", what exactly do you mean?    Surely you do not mean to allow those things to run rampant.

And as for private gun ownership, what would you do?  I am asking for specifics, if you don't mind.  Would citizens be allowed to keep and bear arms for their own defense?  For sport?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, what is your education background and your career history?   Just a general idea, if you don't mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?
> 
> Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise.  And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all.   The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...


What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe our (senior) elders should be ashamed of themselves for corrupting their juniors instead of teaching more sound lines of reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those who seek to twist the truth to limit the rights of our citizens should be ashamed.
> 
> 
> But let me ask you, (and hope you will actually answer for a change) what would you have our gun laws be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and simply hold State governors accountable for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold them responsible?   How?
> 
> And when you say you would "end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror", what exactly do you mean?    Surely you do not mean to allow those things to run rampant.
> 
> And as for private gun ownership, what would you do?  I am asking for specifics, if you don't mind.  Would citizens be allowed to keep and bear arms for their own defense?  For sport?
Click to expand...

Governors are Commanders in Chief of that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and would enable me to goad the right; by simply asking blue States for volunteer select militia to help out any red States whenever they should need a bailout.  And, not Only that, but, also reimburse them for it, (if the guys with the purse strings aren't too stingy for that.)


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, what is your education background and your career history?   Just a general idea, if you don't mind?
> 
> 
> 
> reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?
> 
> Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise.  And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all.   The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
> 
> Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?
Click to expand...


It seems to be an explanation of why citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms.  But the point (intent & purpose) of teh amendment is to establish and preserve the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe our (senior) elders should be ashamed of themselves for corrupting their juniors instead of teaching more sound lines of reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those who seek to twist the truth to limit the rights of our citizens should be ashamed.
> 
> 
> But let me ask you, (and hope you will actually answer for a change) what would you have our gun laws be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and simply hold State governors accountable for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold them responsible?   How?
> 
> And when you say you would "end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror", what exactly do you mean?    Surely you do not mean to allow those things to run rampant.
> 
> And as for private gun ownership, what would you do?  I am asking for specifics, if you don't mind.  Would citizens be allowed to keep and bear arms for their own defense?  For sport?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Governors are Commanders in Chief of that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and would enable me to goad the right; by simply asking blue States for volunteer select militia to help out any red States whenever they should need a bailout.  And, not Only that, but, also reimburse them for it, (if the guys with the purse strings aren't too stingy for that.)
Click to expand...


So you allow the states to create their own gun laws, independent of the federal gov't?

And what would red states need to be bailed out of that would require a militia?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?
> 
> Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise.  And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all.   The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
> 
> Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to be an explanation of why citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms.  But the point (intent & purpose) of teh amendment is to establish and preserve the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...


Do you really really believe that?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"  Only the security of a free State is of any concern, in our Second Amendment.

It is a States' sovereign right, expressly declared.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe our (senior) elders should be ashamed of themselves for corrupting their juniors instead of teaching more sound lines of reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those who seek to twist the truth to limit the rights of our citizens should be ashamed.
> 
> 
> But let me ask you, (and hope you will actually answer for a change) what would you have our gun laws be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and simply hold State governors accountable for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold them responsible?   How?
> 
> And when you say you would "end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror", what exactly do you mean?    Surely you do not mean to allow those things to run rampant.
> 
> And as for private gun ownership, what would you do?  I am asking for specifics, if you don't mind.  Would citizens be allowed to keep and bear arms for their own defense?  For sport?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Governors are Commanders in Chief of that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and would enable me to goad the right; by simply asking blue States for volunteer select militia to help out any red States whenever they should need a bailout.  And, not Only that, but, also reimburse them for it, (if the guys with the purse strings aren't too stingy for that.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you allow the states to create their own gun laws, independent of the federal gov't?
> 
> And what would red states need to be bailed out of that would require a militia?
Click to expand...

They already do; I would merely hold them accountable for excess above any fixed Standard, I may convince our "Congressionals", may be necessary and proper to faithfully execute.

I believe elements of State defense forces (militia) should be tasked with supporting "first responders" to any natural disasters that may or may not cross State lines.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, what is your education background and your career history?   Just a general idea, if you don't mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?
> 
> Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise.  And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty
Click to expand...

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.

Setting the prefatory clause separate from the operative clause renders it meaningless, in direct violation of your very own refence... just as it did the first time you sailed this out.

The preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?
> 
> Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise.  And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof._
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all.   The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
> 
> Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to be an explanation of why citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms.  But the point (intent & purpose) of teh amendment is to establish and preserve the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really really believe that?
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"  Only the security of a free State is of any concern, in our Second Amendment.
> 
> It is a States' sovereign right, expressly declared.
Click to expand...

I see a States' dependency expressly declared, but you say otherwise.

What exact "States' sovereign right" is "expressly declared."


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those who seek to twist the truth to limit the rights of our citizens should be ashamed.
> 
> 
> But let me ask you, (and hope you will actually answer for a change) what would you have our gun laws be?
> 
> 
> 
> I would end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and simply hold State governors accountable for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold them responsible?   How?
> 
> And when you say you would "end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror", what exactly do you mean?    Surely you do not mean to allow those things to run rampant.
> 
> And as for private gun ownership, what would you do?  I am asking for specifics, if you don't mind.  Would citizens be allowed to keep and bear arms for their own defense?  For sport?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Governors are Commanders in Chief of that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and would enable me to goad the right; by simply asking blue States for volunteer select militia to help out any red States whenever they should need a bailout.  And, not Only that, but, also reimburse them for it, (if the guys with the purse strings aren't too stingy for that.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you allow the states to create their own gun laws, independent of the federal gov't?
> 
> And what would red states need to be bailed out of that would require a militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They already do; I would merely hold them accountable for excess above any fixed Standard, I may convince our "Congressionals", may be necessary and proper to faithfully execute.
> 
> I believe elements of State defense forces (militia) should be tasked with supporting "first responders" to any natural disasters that may or may not cross State lines.
Click to expand...


So you will have a militia (National Guard).    But will your system allow citizens to own guns? Or will all those guns be kept in armories?  And what of self defense or sporting uses?


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, what is your education background and your career history?   Just a general idea, if you don't mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?
> 
> Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise.  And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> Setting the prefatory clause separate from the operative clause renders it meaningless, in direct violation of your very own refence... just as it did the first time you sailed this out.
> 
> The preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...



_The prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose._

"_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."  _Is the Intent and purpose.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all.   The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
> 
> Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to be an explanation of why citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms.  But the point (intent & purpose) of teh amendment is to establish and preserve the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really really believe that?
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"  Only the security of a free State is of any concern, in our Second Amendment.
> 
> It is a States' sovereign right, expressly declared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see a States' dependency expressly declared, but you say otherwise.
> 
> What exact "States' sovereign right" is "expressly declared."
Click to expand...


One that cannot be Infringed upon by the general government.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and simply hold State governors accountable for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold them responsible?   How?
> 
> And when you say you would "end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror", what exactly do you mean?    Surely you do not mean to allow those things to run rampant.
> 
> And as for private gun ownership, what would you do?  I am asking for specifics, if you don't mind.  Would citizens be allowed to keep and bear arms for their own defense?  For sport?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Governors are Commanders in Chief of that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and would enable me to goad the right; by simply asking blue States for volunteer select militia to help out any red States whenever they should need a bailout.  And, not Only that, but, also reimburse them for it, (if the guys with the purse strings aren't too stingy for that.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you allow the states to create their own gun laws, independent of the federal gov't?
> 
> And what would red states need to be bailed out of that would require a militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They already do; I would merely hold them accountable for excess above any fixed Standard, I may convince our "Congressionals", may be necessary and proper to faithfully execute.
> 
> I believe elements of State defense forces (militia) should be tasked with supporting "first responders" to any natural disasters that may or may not cross State lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you will have a militia (National Guard).    But will your system allow citizens to own guns? Or will all those guns be kept in armories?  And what of self defense or sporting uses?
Click to expand...

Two separate issues; natural rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the terms, acquire and posses.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, what is your education background and your career history?   Just a general idea, if you don't mind?
> 
> 
> 
> reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?
> 
> Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise.  And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> Setting the prefatory clause separate from the operative clause renders it meaningless, in direct violation of your very own refence... just as it did the first time you sailed this out.
> 
> The preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _The prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose._
> 
> "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."  _Is the Intent and purpose.
Click to expand...

You have never demonstrated that, but it remains irrelevant... for even if you were right about the intent and purpose, _the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose._


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hold them responsible?   How?
> 
> And when you say you would "end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror", what exactly do you mean?    Surely you do not mean to allow those things to run rampant.
> 
> And as for private gun ownership, what would you do?  I am asking for specifics, if you don't mind.  Would citizens be allowed to keep and bear arms for their own defense?  For sport?
> 
> 
> 
> Governors are Commanders in Chief of that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and would enable me to goad the right; by simply asking blue States for volunteer select militia to help out any red States whenever they should need a bailout.  And, not Only that, but, also reimburse them for it, (if the guys with the purse strings aren't too stingy for that.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you allow the states to create their own gun laws, independent of the federal gov't?
> 
> And what would red states need to be bailed out of that would require a militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They already do; I would merely hold them accountable for excess above any fixed Standard, I may convince our "Congressionals", may be necessary and proper to faithfully execute.
> 
> I believe elements of State defense forces (militia) should be tasked with supporting "first responders" to any natural disasters that may or may not cross State lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you will have a militia (National Guard).    But will your system allow citizens to own guns? Or will all those guns be kept in armories?  And what of self defense or sporting uses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two separate issues; natural rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the terms, acquire and posses.
Click to expand...


Then what you have described is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that is aimed at giving the states more rights or power.  Nothing else in the Bill of Rights does anything close.

So, under your version of the US, the states can legally disarm its population?   No thanks.  Not what the founders intended at all.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all.   The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
> 
> Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to be an explanation of why citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms.  But the point (intent & purpose) of teh amendment is to establish and preserve the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really really believe that?
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"  Only the security of a free State is of any concern, in our Second Amendment.
> 
> It is a States' sovereign right, expressly declared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see a States' dependency expressly declared, but you say otherwise.
> 
> What exact "States' sovereign right" is "expressly declared."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One that cannot be Infringed upon by the general government.
Click to expand...

What exact "States' sovereign right" is "expressly declared."

Please identify it specifically.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, what is your education background and your career history?   Just a general idea, if you don't mind?
> 
> 
> 
> reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?
> 
> Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise.  And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all.   The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
> 
> Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?
Click to expand...








Read your history.  The "militia" was every able bodied man (yes they were sexist back then) between the ages of 18 and 60.  There are two types of militia, the organized and unorganized.  All people are members of the unorganized militia.  The organized militias are the various State Guards, and of course the National Guard which is a Federal construct.

One of the oldest organized militia groups in existence is the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston but it is a civilian group.  Not governmental.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?
> 
> Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise.  And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof._
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all.   The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
> 
> Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to be an explanation of why citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms.  But the point (intent & purpose) of teh amendment is to establish and preserve the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really really believe that?
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"  Only the security of a free State is of any concern, in our Second Amendment.
> 
> It is a States' sovereign right, expressly declared.
Click to expand...







Wow you have a very poor understanding of the English language.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?
> 
> Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise.  And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> Setting the prefatory clause separate from the operative clause renders it meaningless, in direct violation of your very own refence... just as it did the first time you sailed this out.
> 
> The preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _The prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose._
> 
> "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."  _Is the Intent and purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never demonstrated that, but it remains irrelevant... for even if you were right about the intent and purpose, _the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose._
Click to expand...

Yes, I did; you are merely too incompetent to understand, pumkin.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Governors are Commanders in Chief of that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and would enable me to goad the right; by simply asking blue States for volunteer select militia to help out any red States whenever they should need a bailout.  And, not Only that, but, also reimburse them for it, (if the guys with the purse strings aren't too stingy for that.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you allow the states to create their own gun laws, independent of the federal gov't?
> 
> And what would red states need to be bailed out of that would require a militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They already do; I would merely hold them accountable for excess above any fixed Standard, I may convince our "Congressionals", may be necessary and proper to faithfully execute.
> 
> I believe elements of State defense forces (militia) should be tasked with supporting "first responders" to any natural disasters that may or may not cross State lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you will have a militia (National Guard).    But will your system allow citizens to own guns? Or will all those guns be kept in armories?  And what of self defense or sporting uses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two separate issues; natural rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the terms, acquire and posses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what you have described is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that is aimed at giving the states more rights or power.  Nothing else in the Bill of Rights does anything close.
> 
> So, under your version of the US, the states can legally disarm its population?   No thanks.  Not what the founders intended at all.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?  Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms, acquire and posses.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?
> 
> Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise.  And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all.   The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
> 
> Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read your history.  The "militia" was every able bodied man (yes they were sexist back then) between the ages of 18 and 60.  There are two types of militia, the organized and unorganized.  All people are members of the unorganized militia.  The organized militias are the various State Guards, and of course the National Guard which is a Federal construct.
> 
> One of the oldest organized militia groups in existence is the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston but it is a civilian group.  Not governmental.
Click to expand...

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law--10USC311.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all.   The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
> 
> Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to be an explanation of why citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms.  But the point (intent & purpose) of teh amendment is to establish and preserve the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really really believe that?
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"  Only the security of a free State is of any concern, in our Second Amendment.
> 
> It is a States' sovereign right, expressly declared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you have a very poor understanding of the English language.
Click to expand...

Wow, you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause regardless of language used.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?
> 
> Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise.  And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof._
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> Setting the prefatory clause separate from the operative clause renders it meaningless, in direct violation of your very own refence... just as it did the first time you sailed this out.
> 
> The preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _The prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose._
> 
> "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."  _Is the Intent and purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never demonstrated that, but it remains irrelevant... for even if you were right about the intent and purpose, _the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I did; you are merely too incompetent to understand, pumkin.
Click to expand...

"... for even if you were right about the intent and purpose, _the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose."_​
You are wrong, boring, and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> 
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> Setting the prefatory clause separate from the operative clause renders it meaningless, in direct violation of your very own refence... just as it did the first time you sailed this out.
> 
> The preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _The prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose._
> 
> "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."  _Is the Intent and purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never demonstrated that, but it remains irrelevant... for even if you were right about the intent and purpose, _the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I did; you are merely too incompetent to understand, pumkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "... for even if you were right about the intent and purpose, _the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose."_​
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

How can the Intent and Purpose be repugnant to itself or violate the stated intent and purpose?


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.
> 
> Setting the prefatory clause separate from the operative clause renders it meaningless, in direct violation of your very own refence... just as it did the first time you sailed this out.
> 
> The preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.
> 
> The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.
> 
> The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose._
> 
> "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."  _Is the Intent and purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never demonstrated that, but it remains irrelevant... for even if you were right about the intent and purpose, _the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I did; you are merely too incompetent to understand, pumkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "... for even if you were right about the intent and purpose, _the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose."_​
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can the Intent and Purpose be repugnant to itself or violate the stated intent and purpose?
Click to expand...

Your reference says, "..._every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning...".
_
Your construction disallows meaning for the main, operative clause, AS WELL AS the dependent, subordinate, preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment--the "intent and purpose", as you would have it.

When you set the prefatory clause separate from the operative clause you render it meaningless, in direct violation of your very own refence... just as you did the first time you sailed this out.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._"; it is a dependent (or subordinant) clause; meaning that, while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is NOT a sentence and CANNOT alone.

The preforatory clause expresses an incomplete thought--its complete meaning is dependent upon (is subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause REQUIRES that_ "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"

Since the meaning of the prefatory clause is dependent upon the complete, and unabridged assertion of the operative clause, the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's "intent and purpose", as you would have it.

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no, "main operative clause" it is an open book test; don't let our (senior) elders fool you with unsound lines of reasoning.  There is an End, and the Means; any Thing more technical than that, is a diversion.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> There is no, "main operative clause" it is an open book test; don't let our (senior) elders fool you with unsound lines of reasoning.  There is an End, and the Means; any Thing more technical than that, is a diversion.


You're just denying the realities of sentence construction.

From the author(s) of the 2nd amendment, to every expert on written English, to every Supreme Court Justice with an opinion on the topic, to everyone with a competent grasp of the English language... all agree unanimously that the 2nd Amendment indeed contains a main operative clause, and that clause states that,_ "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
_
Everyone but you, Cupcake. Why do you suppose that is?

Perhaps it Its because of an appeal to "the fallacy of your Cause."

Or maybe you're just boring... and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no, "main operative clause" it is an open book test; don't let our (senior) elders fool you with unsound lines of reasoning.  There is an End, and the Means; any Thing more technical than that, is a diversion.
> 
> 
> 
> You're just denying the realities of sentence construction.
> 
> From the author(s) of the 2nd amendment, to every expert on written English, to every Supreme Court Justice with an opinion on the topic, to everyone with a competent grasp of the English language... all agree unanimously that the 2nd Amendment indeed contains a main operative clause, and that clause states that,_ "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> Everyone but you, Cupcake. Why do you suppose that is?
> 
> Perhaps it Its because of an appeal to "the fallacy of your Cause."
> 
> Or maybe you're just boring... and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...


sorry, pumkin; simply appealing to authority with only fallacy in support does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.

_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ - The Federalist Number Forty


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no, "main operative clause" it is an open book test; don't let our (senior) elders fool you with unsound lines of reasoning.  There is an End, and the Means; any Thing more technical than that, is a diversion.
> 
> 
> 
> You're just denying the realities of sentence construction.
> 
> From the author(s) of the 2nd amendment, to every expert on written English, to every Supreme Court Justice with an opinion on the topic, to everyone with a competent grasp of the English language... all agree unanimously that the 2nd Amendment indeed contains a main operative clause, and that clause states that,_ "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> Everyone but you, Cupcake. Why do you suppose that is?
> 
> Perhaps it Its because of an appeal to "the fallacy of your Cause."
> 
> Or maybe you're just boring... and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry, pumkin; simply appealing to authority with only fallacy in support does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ - The Federalist Number Forty
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to authority being made by me; no fallacies what-so-ever brought to support my argument. You have leveled such accusations before, but have never demonstrated their validity... they are baseless in fact and valid logic. As are all your arguments.

The proper construction, that I have presented and you deny, does not offer any conflict between the clauses. There is no need to sacrifice one or the other.

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing for the *sole purpose* of "sacrificing" _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." _serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. You own bullshit defeats you, and the reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.
*
(Watching you punch yourself in your stupid face is hilarious!)


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no, "main operative clause" it is an open book test; don't let our (senior) elders fool you with unsound lines of reasoning.  There is an End, and the Means; any Thing more technical than that, is a diversion.
> 
> 
> 
> You're just denying the realities of sentence construction.
> 
> From the author(s) of the 2nd amendment, to every expert on written English, to every Supreme Court Justice with an opinion on the topic, to everyone with a competent grasp of the English language... all agree unanimously that the 2nd Amendment indeed contains a main operative clause, and that clause states that,_ "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> Everyone but you, Cupcake. Why do you suppose that is?
> 
> Perhaps it Its because of an appeal to "the fallacy of your Cause."
> 
> Or maybe you're just boring... and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry, pumkin; simply appealing to authority with only fallacy in support does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ - The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to authority being made by me; no fallacies what-so-ever brought to support my argument. You have leveled such accusations before, but have never demonstrated their validity... they are baseless in fact and valid logic. As are all your arguments.
> 
> The proper construction, that I have presented and you deny, does not offer any conflict between the clauses. There is no need to sacrifice one or the other.
> 
> In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing for the *sole purpose* of "sacrificing" _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." _serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. You own bullshit defeats you, and the reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> (Watching you punch yourself in your stupid face is hilarious!)
Click to expand...


Dude, you can't get any better explanation of the rules of construction than the federalist one, in The Federalist Number Forty.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no, "main operative clause" it is an open book test; don't let our (senior) elders fool you with unsound lines of reasoning.  There is an End, and the Means; any Thing more technical than that, is a diversion.
> 
> 
> 
> You're just denying the realities of sentence construction.
> 
> From the author(s) of the 2nd amendment, to every expert on written English, to every Supreme Court Justice with an opinion on the topic, to everyone with a competent grasp of the English language... all agree unanimously that the 2nd Amendment indeed contains a main operative clause, and that clause states that,_ "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> Everyone but you, Cupcake. Why do you suppose that is?
> 
> Perhaps it Its because of an appeal to "the fallacy of your Cause."
> 
> Or maybe you're just boring... and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry, pumkin; simply appealing to authority with only fallacy in support does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ - The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to authority being made by me; no fallacies what-so-ever brought to support my argument. You have leveled such accusations before, but have never demonstrated their validity... they are baseless in fact and valid logic. As are all your arguments.
> 
> The proper construction, that I have presented and you deny, does not offer any conflict between the clauses. There is no need to sacrifice one or the other.
> 
> In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing for the *sole purpose* of "sacrificing" _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." _serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. You own bullshit defeats you, and the reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> (Watching you punch yourself in your stupid face is hilarious!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you can't get any better explanation of the rules of construction than the federalist one, in The Federalist Number Forty.
Click to expand...

That's right; and as clearly demonstrated, according to those rules of construction that you cited in support of your retarded notions, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.
*
(Watching you punch yourself in your stupid face again is hilarious!)**


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no, "main operative clause" it is an open book test; don't let our (senior) elders fool you with unsound lines of reasoning.  There is an End, and the Means; any Thing more technical than that, is a diversion.
> 
> 
> 
> You're just denying the realities of sentence construction.
> 
> From the author(s) of the 2nd amendment, to every expert on written English, to every Supreme Court Justice with an opinion on the topic, to everyone with a competent grasp of the English language... all agree unanimously that the 2nd Amendment indeed contains a main operative clause, and that clause states that,_ "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> Everyone but you, Cupcake. Why do you suppose that is?
> 
> Perhaps it Its because of an appeal to "the fallacy of your Cause."
> 
> Or maybe you're just boring... and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry, pumkin; simply appealing to authority with only fallacy in support does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ - The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to authority being made by me; no fallacies what-so-ever brought to support my argument. You have leveled such accusations before, but have never demonstrated their validity... they are baseless in fact and valid logic. As are all your arguments.
> 
> The proper construction, that I have presented and you deny, does not offer any conflict between the clauses. There is no need to sacrifice one or the other.
> 
> In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing for the *sole purpose* of "sacrificing" _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." _serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. You own bullshit defeats you, and the reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> (Watching you punch yourself in your stupid face is hilarious!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you can't get any better explanation of the rules of construction than the federalist one, in The Federalist Number Forty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, and as clearly demonstrated, according to those rules of construction that you cited in support of your retarded notions, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

the only Thing unsound, is your line of reasoning, grasshopper.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just denying the realities of sentence construction.
> 
> From the author(s) of the 2nd amendment, to every expert on written English, to every Supreme Court Justice with an opinion on the topic, to everyone with a competent grasp of the English language... all agree unanimously that the 2nd Amendment indeed contains a main operative clause, and that clause states that,_ "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> Everyone but you, Cupcake. Why do you suppose that is?
> 
> Perhaps it Its because of an appeal to "the fallacy of your Cause."
> 
> Or maybe you're just boring... and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, pumkin; simply appealing to authority with only fallacy in support does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._ - The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to authority being made by me; no fallacies what-so-ever brought to support my argument. You have leveled such accusations before, but have never demonstrated their validity... they are baseless in fact and valid logic. As are all your arguments.
> 
> The proper construction, that I have presented and you deny, does not offer any conflict between the clauses. There is no need to sacrifice one or the other.
> 
> In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing for the *sole purpose* of "sacrificing" _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." _serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. You own bullshit defeats you, and the reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid.* AGAIN. STILL.
> *
> (Watching you punch yourself in your stupid face is hilarious!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you can't get any better explanation of the rules of construction than the federalist one, in The Federalist Number Forty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, and as clearly demonstrated, according to those rules of construction that you cited in support of your retarded notions, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the only Thing unsound, is your line of reasoning, grasshopper.
Click to expand...

You're just as wrong, stupid, and boring as you were from the start. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

i can't be wrong, pumkin; you are the who only has fallacy for your Cause.

_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the *means* should be sacrificed to the *end*, rather than the end to the means._

Can you cite any mention of any "main operative clause"?


----------



## LOki

danielpclause said:


> i can't be wrong, pumkin; you are the who only has fallacy for your Cause.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the *means* should be sacrificed to the *end*, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> Can you cite any mention of any "main operative clause"?


The existence of a main operative clause, and its relationship to subordinate, dependent clauses is not mentioned, because they are understood by every competent user of the English language. The reason for this is that, *every complete sentence ever spoken or written in the English language, in the entire history of the English language, is its own main operative clause, or contains a main operative clause. There are no exceptions. NONE.*

It is a fact of reality that ONLY YOU are in denial of.

Without a main operative clause, a sentence is incomplete at the least and meaningless at the most. The authors of the Federalist papers understood  this; the authors of the 2nd Amendment understood this; the SCOTUS understands this; I understand this, as does every competent user of the English language.

The only person who does not understand this basic fact of communicating in English is YOU.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpclause said:
> 
> 
> 
> i can't be wrong, pumkin; you are the who only has fallacy for your Cause.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the *means* should be sacrificed to the *end*, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> Can you cite any mention of any "main operative clause"?
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of a main operative clause, and its relationship to subordinate, dependent clauses is not mentioned, because they are understood by every competent user of the English language. The reason for this is that, *every complete sentence ever spoken or written in the English language, in the entire history of the English language, is its own main operative clause, or contains a main operative clause. There are no exceptions. NONE.*
> 
> It is a fact of reality that ONLY YOU are in denial of.
> 
> Without a main operative clause, a sentence is incomplete at the least and meaningless at the most. The authors of the Federalist papers understood  this; the authors of the 2nd Amendment understood this; the SCOTUS understands this; I understand this, as does every competent user of the English language.
> 
> The only person who does not understand this basic fact of communicating in English is YOU.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

sorry, pumkin; that is a fallacy.  You have to show the End and Means; not any silly "main operative clause".


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpclause said:
> 
> 
> 
> i can't be wrong, pumkin; you are the who only has fallacy for your Cause.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the *means* should be sacrificed to the *end*, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> Can you cite any mention of any "main operative clause"?
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of a main operative clause, and its relationship to subordinate, dependent clauses is not mentioned, because they are understood by every competent user of the English language. The reason for this is that, *every complete sentence ever spoken or written in the English language, in the entire history of the English language, is its own main operative clause, or contains a main operative clause. There are no exceptions. NONE.*
> 
> It is a fact of reality that ONLY YOU are in denial of.
> 
> Without a main operative clause, a sentence is incomplete at the least and meaningless at the most. The authors of the Federalist papers understood  this; the authors of the 2nd Amendment understood this; the SCOTUS understands this; I understand this, as does every competent user of the English language.
> 
> The only person who does not understand this basic fact of communicating in English is YOU.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry, pumkin; that is a fallacy.  You have to show the End and Means; not any silly "main operative clause".
Click to expand...

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the *sole purpose* of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." _serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

Since there's no reason for anyone to expect that you'll identify, explain, or demonstrate this " fallacy" you're accusing me of applying, we'll just move on to identifying the reason no such exposition will be forthcoming.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.

The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.

If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.



> When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.



You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.
> 
> The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.
> 
> If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.
Click to expand...

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the *sole purpose* of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." _serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

*When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.*

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.
> 
> The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.
> 
> If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the *sole purpose* of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." _serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.*
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...


yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.
> 
> The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.
> 
> If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the *sole purpose* of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." _serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.*
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,
Click to expand...

Boring and stupid non-sequitur.




danielpalos said:


> Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._"

It simply does not say, "_Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union._"

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.
> 
> The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.
> 
> If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the *sole purpose* of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." _serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.*
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boring and stupid non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._"
> 
> It simply does not say, "_Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union._"
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.
> 
> The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.
> 
> If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the *sole purpose* of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." _serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.*
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boring and stupid non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._"
> 
> It simply does not say, "_Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union._"
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.
Click to expand...









Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.
> 
> The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.
> 
> If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the *sole purpose* of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." _serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.*
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boring and stupid non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._"
> 
> It simply does not say, "_Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union._"
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.
Click to expand...

"_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._" is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Yes.

Then we are in agreement.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.
> 
> The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.
> 
> If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the *sole purpose* of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." _serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.*
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boring and stupid non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._"
> 
> It simply does not say, "_Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union._"
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.
Click to expand...

You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.
> 
> The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.
> 
> If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the *sole purpose* of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." _serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.*
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boring and stupid non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._"
> 
> It simply does not say, "_Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union._"
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._" is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Then we are in agreement.
Click to expand...

If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the *sole purpose* of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." _serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.*
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boring and stupid non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._"
> 
> It simply does not say, "_Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union._"
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the *sole purpose* of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing _"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." _serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> *
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boring and stupid non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._"
> 
> It simply does not say, "_Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union._"
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._" is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Then we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
Click to expand...

*When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
*
It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,
> 
> 
> 
> Boring and stupid non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._"
> 
> It simply does not say, "_Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union._"
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boring and stupid non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._"
> 
> It simply does not say, "_Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union._"
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._" is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Then we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> *
> It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...


You keep resorting to fallacy: the _End_ is the Intent and Purpose for which the _Means_ must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, _End_, Intent, and Purpose.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boring and stupid non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._"
> 
> It simply does not say, "_Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union._"
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boring and stupid non-sequitur.
> I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._"
> 
> It simply does not say, "_Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union._"
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._" is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Then we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> *
> It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the _End_ is the Intent and Purpose for which the _Means_ must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, _End_, Intent, and Purpose.
Click to expand...

Since there's no reason for anyone to expect that you'll identify, explain, or demonstrate this "fallacy" you're accusing me of applying, we'll just move on to identifying the reason no such exposition will be forthcoming.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._" is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Then we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> *
> It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the _End_ is the Intent and Purpose for which the _Means_ must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, _End_, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since there's no reason for anyone to expect that you'll identify, explain, or demonstrate this "fallacy" you're accusing me of applying, we'll just move on to identifying the reason no such exposition will be forthcoming.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

I can do this all day long, grasshopper.  here it is again for Your ease and Your convenience:

If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boring and stupid non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._"
> 
> It simply does not say, "_Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union._"
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boring and stupid non-sequitur.
> I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._"
> 
> It simply does not say, "_Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union._"
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._" is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Then we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> *
> It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the _End_ is the Intent and Purpose for which the _Means_ must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, _End_, Intent, and Purpose.
Click to expand...








Let's take a look at the "end" then, shall we?  

*"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."*-Thomas Jefferson


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._" is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Then we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> *
> It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the _End_ is the Intent and Purpose for which the _Means_ must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, _End_, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the "end" then, shall we?
> 
> *"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."*-Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

dude and Esquires,

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

_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._

This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._" is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Then we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> *
> It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the _End_ is the Intent and Purpose for which the _Means_ must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, _End_, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the "end" then, shall we?
> 
> *"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."*-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude and Esquires,
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> _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._
> 
> This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
Click to expand...








No, it's most certainly not.  The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do, and one final option.  You can put that in your pipe and smoke it!


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> *
> It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the _End_ is the Intent and Purpose for which the _Means_ must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, _End_, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the "end" then, shall we?
> 
> *"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."*-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude and Esquires,
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> _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._
> 
> This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's most certainly not.  The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do, and one final option.  You can put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Click to expand...

smoke it yourself; i am not the one being non-responsive in this, pre-legal venue.


----------



## danielpalos

dear Esquires,

non responsiveness, after thrice, it should be considered a moral turpitude of a vice.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> *
> It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the _End_ is the Intent and Purpose for which the _Means_ must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, _End_, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the "end" then, shall we?
> 
> *"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."*-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude and Esquires,
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> _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._
> 
> This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's most certainly not.  The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do, and one final option.  You can put that in your pipe and smoke it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> smoke it yourself; i am not the one being non-responsive in this, pre-legal venue.
Click to expand...







No, but your responses are ignorant and based on nothing but your simple minded opinion.  In other words you have descended into trolldom.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the _End_ is the Intent and Purpose for which the _Means_ must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, _End_, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the "end" then, shall we?
> 
> *"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."*-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude and Esquires,
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> _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._
> 
> This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's most certainly not.  The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do, and one final option.  You can put that in your pipe and smoke it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> smoke it yourself; i am not the one being non-responsive in this, pre-legal venue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but your responses are ignorant and based on nothing but your simple minded opinion.  In other words you have descended into trolldom.
Click to expand...

projecting much, pumkin?

dude and Esquires,

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

_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._

This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._" is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Then we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> *
> It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the _End_ is the Intent and Purpose for which the _Means_ must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, _End_, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since there's no reason for anyone to expect that you'll identify, explain, or demonstrate this "fallacy" you're accusing me of applying, we'll just move on to identifying the reason no such exposition will be forthcoming.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can do this all day long, grasshopper.  here it is again for Your ease and Your convenience:
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
Click to expand...

1) It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."
_
You clearly and disingenuously misapply the principle you cite. Your argument is patently invalid.

2) If the security of a free State is "the ends," then _"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."  _is not "the means", a well regulated militia is "the means" to the security of a free State.

3) The purpose and intent you have arbitrarily assigned to the 2nd Amendment is in direct conflict with the "ends" that were explicitly articulated for enumerating and asserting that "_the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
_
4) The main operative clause of the 2nd Amendment CANNOT be ignored, or it renders the ENTIRE sentence incomplete and/or meaningless.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._" is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Then we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> *
> It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the _End_ is the Intent and Purpose for which the _Means_ must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, _End_, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the "end" then, shall we?
> 
> *"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."*-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude and Esquires,
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> _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._
> 
> This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
Click to expand...

Your assertion is entirely unfounded, and since there's no reason for anyone to expect that you'll explain, or demonstrate this assertion of yours with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, we'll just move on to identifying the reason no such exposition will be forthcoming.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> *
> It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the _End_ is the Intent and Purpose for which the _Means_ must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, _End_, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since there's no reason for anyone to expect that you'll identify, explain, or demonstrate this "fallacy" you're accusing me of applying, we'll just move on to identifying the reason no such exposition will be forthcoming.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can do this all day long, grasshopper.  here it is again for Your ease and Your convenience:
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."
> _
> You clearly and disingenuously misapply the principle you cite. Your argument is patently invalid.
> 
> 2) If the security of a free State is "the ends," then _"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."  _is not "the means", a well regulated militia is "the means" to the security of a free State.
> 
> 3) The purpose and intent you have arbitrarily assigned to the 2nd Amendment is in direct conflict with the "ends" that were explicitly articulated for enumerating and asserting that "_the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> 4) The main operative clause of the 2nd Amendment CANNOT be ignored, or it renders the ENTIRE sentence incomplete and/or meaningless.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.
> *
> It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."_
> 
> Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the _End_ is the Intent and Purpose for which the _Means_ must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, _End_, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since there's no reason for anyone to expect that you'll identify, explain, or demonstrate this "fallacy" you're accusing me of applying, we'll just move on to identifying the reason no such exposition will be forthcoming.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can do this all day long, grasshopper.  here it is again for Your ease and Your convenience:
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."
> _
> You clearly and disingenuously misapply the principle you cite. Your argument is patently invalid.
> 
> 2) If the security of a free State is "the ends," then _"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."  _is not "the means", a well regulated militia is "the means" to the security of a free State.
> 
> 3) The purpose and intent you have arbitrarily assigned to the 2nd Amendment is in direct conflict with the "ends" that were explicitly articulated for enumerating and asserting that "_the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> 4) The main operative clause of the 2nd Amendment CANNOT be ignored, or it renders the ENTIRE sentence incomplete and/or meaningless.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
Click to expand...

If you could demonstrate that is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

The reality is that it is not. This has been proven definitively, several times.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep resorting to fallacy: the _End_ is the Intent and Purpose for which the _Means_ must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, _End_, Intent, and Purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> Since there's no reason for anyone to expect that you'll identify, explain, or demonstrate this "fallacy" you're accusing me of applying, we'll just move on to identifying the reason no such exposition will be forthcoming.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can do this all day long, grasshopper.  here it is again for Your ease and Your convenience:
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."
> _
> You clearly and disingenuously misapply the principle you cite. Your argument is patently invalid.
> 
> 2) If the security of a free State is "the ends," then _"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."  _is not "the means", a well regulated militia is "the means" to the security of a free State.
> 
> 3) The purpose and intent you have arbitrarily assigned to the 2nd Amendment is in direct conflict with the "ends" that were explicitly articulated for enumerating and asserting that "_the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> 4) The main operative clause of the 2nd Amendment CANNOT be ignored, or it renders the ENTIRE sentence incomplete and/or meaningless.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could demonstrate that is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.
> 
> The reality is that it is not. This has been proven definitively, several times.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_

Your problem is there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws should we need to quibble that specific point in legal venues.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there's no reason for anyone to expect that you'll identify, explain, or demonstrate this "fallacy" you're accusing me of applying, we'll just move on to identifying the reason no such exposition will be forthcoming.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> I can do this all day long, grasshopper.  here it is again for Your ease and Your convenience:
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."
> _
> You clearly and disingenuously misapply the principle you cite. Your argument is patently invalid.
> 
> 2) If the security of a free State is "the ends," then _"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."  _is not "the means", a well regulated militia is "the means" to the security of a free State.
> 
> 3) The purpose and intent you have arbitrarily assigned to the 2nd Amendment is in direct conflict with the "ends" that were explicitly articulated for enumerating and asserting that "_the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> 4) The main operative clause of the 2nd Amendment CANNOT be ignored, or it renders the ENTIRE sentence incomplete and/or meaningless.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could demonstrate that is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.
> 
> The reality is that it is not. This has been proven definitively, several times.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
Click to expand...

If you could demonstrate that is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.



danielpalos said:


> Your problem is there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws should we need to quibble that specific point in legal venues.


No.  I don't have this problem. If I did, you'd be able to demonstrate it using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

Since the likelihood that you'll produce such a demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## Geaux4it




----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can do this all day long, grasshopper.  here it is again for Your ease and Your convenience:
> 
> If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the _Means_ rather than the Clause with the _End_.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."
> _
> You clearly and disingenuously misapply the principle you cite. Your argument is patently invalid.
> 
> 2) If the security of a free State is "the ends," then _"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."  _is not "the means", a well regulated militia is "the means" to the security of a free State.
> 
> 3) The purpose and intent you have arbitrarily assigned to the 2nd Amendment is in direct conflict with the "ends" that were explicitly articulated for enumerating and asserting that "_the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> 4) The main operative clause of the 2nd Amendment CANNOT be ignored, or it renders the ENTIRE sentence incomplete and/or meaningless.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could demonstrate that is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.
> 
> The reality is that it is not. This has been proven definitively, several times.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could demonstrate that is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws should we need to quibble that specific point in legal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I don't have this problem. If I did, you'd be able to demonstrate it using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> Since the likelihood that you'll produce such a demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...


This is the End, my friend: "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"_

This is the Means, which must be sacrificed to the End, even if for insubordination and willful disobedience: _"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."_

it really is that simple, grasshopper.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the _*sole purpose*_ of "sacrificing"_"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."
> _
> You clearly and disingenuously misapply the principle you cite. Your argument is patently invalid.
> 
> 2) If the security of a free State is "the ends," then _"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."  _is not "the means", a well regulated militia is "the means" to the security of a free State.
> 
> 3) The purpose and intent you have arbitrarily assigned to the 2nd Amendment is in direct conflict with the "ends" that were explicitly articulated for enumerating and asserting that "_the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> 4) The main operative clause of the 2nd Amendment CANNOT be ignored, or it renders the ENTIRE sentence incomplete and/or meaningless.
> 
> You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could demonstrate that is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.
> 
> The reality is that it is not. This has been proven definitively, several times.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the End, my friend: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could demonstrate that is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws should we need to quibble that specific point in legal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I don't have this problem. If I did, you'd be able to demonstrate it using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> Since the likelihood that you'll produce such a demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the End, my friend: "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"_
Click to expand...


If you could demonstrate that this is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.



danielpalos said:


> This is the Means, which must be sacrificed to the End, even if for insubordination and willful disobedience: _"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."_



If you could demonstrate that this is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

Since the likelihood that you'll produce such a demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

Here is it is again, for your ease and your convenience; grasshopper:

_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Here is it is again, for your ease and your convenience; grasshopper:
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._


Yes. We saw it the first time.

It *STILL* *PROVES* you wrong. And stupid. And boring. *AGAIN*.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is it is again, for your ease and your convenience; grasshopper:
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We saw it the first time.
> 
> It *STILL* *PROVES* you wrong. And stupid. And boring. *AGAIN*.
Click to expand...

It Only proves no Thing to you, grasshopper simply because you are still incompetent.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is it is again, for your ease and your convenience; grasshopper:
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We saw it the first time.
> 
> It *STILL* *PROVES* you wrong. And stupid. And boring. *AGAIN*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It Only proves no Thing to you, grasshopper simply because you are still incompetent.
Click to expand...

If you could demonstrate that this is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

Since the likelihood that you'll produce any such demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is it is again, for your ease and your convenience; grasshopper:
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We saw it the first time.
> 
> It *STILL* *PROVES* you wrong. And stupid. And boring. *AGAIN*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It Only proves no Thing to you, grasshopper simply because you are still incompetent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could demonstrate that this is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.
> 
> Since the likelihood that you'll produce any such demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Here is it is again, for Your ease and Your convenience; grasshopper:

_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; _the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

This is the End, my friend: "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"_

This is the Means, which must be sacrificed to the End, even if for insubordination and willful disobedience: _"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."_

it really is that simple, grasshopper.


----------



## Gunman

Yah ... 68 pages of BS ...and yall still ant gonna get my Guns....! ! !


----------



## danielpalos

Gunman said:


> Yah ... 68 pages of BS ...and yall still ant gonna get my Guns....! ! !


nobody claimed they were.

it is just the right practicing their _communism_ with Commerce.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is it is again, for your ease and your convenience; grasshopper:
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We saw it the first time.
> 
> It *STILL* *PROVES* you wrong. And stupid. And boring. *AGAIN*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It Only proves no Thing to you, grasshopper simply because you are still incompetent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could demonstrate that this is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.
> 
> Since the likelihood that you'll produce any such demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is it is again, for Your ease and Your convenience; grasshopper:
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; _the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the End, my friend: "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"_
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Means, which must be sacrificed to the End, even if for insubordination and willful disobedience: _"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could demonstrate that this is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.
> 
> Since the likelihood that you'll produce any such demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is it is again, for your ease and your convenience; grasshopper:
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We saw it the first time.
> 
> It *STILL* *PROVES* you wrong. And stupid. And boring. *AGAIN*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It Only proves no Thing to you, grasshopper simply because you are still incompetent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could demonstrate that this is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.
> 
> Since the likelihood that you'll produce any such demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is it is again, for Your ease and Your convenience; grasshopper:
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; _the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.
Click to expand...

Yes. We saw it the first time.

It *STILL* *PROVES* you wrong. And stupid. And boring. *AGAIN*.



danielpalos said:


> This is the End, my friend: "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"_
> 
> This is the Means, which must be sacrificed to the End, even if for insubordination and willful disobedience: _"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."_
> 
> it really is that simple, grasshopper.


If you could demonstrate that this is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

Since the likelihood that you'll produce any such demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## Doggy

danielpalos said:


> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yah ... 68 pages of BS ...and yall still ant gonna get my Guns....! ! !
> 
> 
> 
> nobody claimed they were.
> 
> it is just the right practicing their _communism_ with Commerce.
Click to expand...



Glad you`re GONE,you stupid son of a bitch.I hope you drown in blood of a pig..You`re the most worthless queer that ever was


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> It hasn't been a good year for them. The NRA is winning major battles despite the super Rich's money going against them. Gun sales and ownership is up, more and more women are toting, and crime is going down because of it. Liberals weep for the non-loss of life:
> What Happened to Chicago s Crime Rate When Illinois Relaxed Gun Control Laws


special pleading much; why are State governors still getting a free pass regarding that which is declared necessary to the security of a free State?


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't been a good year for them. The NRA is winning major battles despite the super Rich's money going against them. Gun sales and ownership is up, more and more women are toting, and crime is going down because of it. Liberals weep for the non-loss of life:
> What Happened to Chicago s Crime Rate When Illinois Relaxed Gun Control Laws
> 
> 
> 
> special pleading much; why are State governors still getting a free pass regarding that which is declared necessary to the security of a free State?
Click to expand...


Who cares? It's irrelevant.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

_*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._


----------



## 2aguy

danielpalos said:


> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.
> 
> _*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._



Here....let me fix that for you.....

_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*_*.*

there you go............


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.
> 
> _*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._



Yeah it's itrelevant to this thread dumbass.


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here....let me fix that for you.....
> 
> _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*_*.*
> 
> there you go............
Click to expand...

What part of there is _no Appeal to Ignorance_ of any part of our federal supreme law of the land, are you too incompetent to comprehend?


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here....let me fix that for you.....
> 
> _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*_*.*
> 
> there you go............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of there is _no Appeal to Ignorance_ of any part of our federal supreme law of the land, are you too incompetent to comprehend?
Click to expand...

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## usfan

danielpalos said:


> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.
> 
> _*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._


Are we going by your personal opinion, the democratic platform, or the supreme court rulings, as to what the 2nd amendment means?

Or maybe you'd prefer Bubba's view, living in rural Kentucky?


----------



## danielpalos

usfan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> 
> 
> Are we going by your personal opinion, the democratic platform, or the supreme court rulings, as to what the 2nd amendment means?
> 
> Or maybe you'd prefer Bubba's view, living in rural Kentucky?
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

"_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*"_  it must mean something and it cannot be irrelevant to the topic of our Second Amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> usfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> 
> 
> Are we going by your personal opinion, the democratic platform, or the supreme court rulings, as to what the 2nd amendment means?
> 
> Or maybe you'd prefer Bubba's view, living in rural Kentucky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.
> 
> "_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*"_  it must mean something and it cannot be irrelevant to the topic of our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


It is not irrelevant.  But it is only a modifier to the actual subject of the sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

Also, given the fact that our founding fathers relied on an armed population that could be formed into a militia in short order, the supposition that the 2nd preserves a state's right is ridiculous.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> 
> 
> Are we going by your personal opinion, the democratic platform, or the supreme court rulings, as to what the 2nd amendment means?
> 
> Or maybe you'd prefer Bubba's view, living in rural Kentucky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.
> 
> "_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*"_  it must mean something and it cannot be irrelevant to the topic of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not irrelevant.  But it is only a modifier to the actual subject of the sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> Also, given the fact that our founding fathers relied on an armed population that could be formed into a militia in short order, the supposition that the 2nd preserves a state's right is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It is the Intend and Purpose for the Clause that Follows.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> 
> 
> Are we going by your personal opinion, the democratic platform, or the supreme court rulings, as to what the 2nd amendment means?
> 
> Or maybe you'd prefer Bubba's view, living in rural Kentucky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.
> 
> "_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*"_  it must mean something and it cannot be irrelevant to the topic of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not irrelevant.  But it is only a modifier to the actual subject of the sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> Also, given the fact that our founding fathers relied on an armed population that could be formed into a militia in short order, the supposition that the 2nd preserves a state's right is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the Intend and Purpose for the Clause that Follows.
Click to expand...


I have not argued that.  Where we differ is on whether or not the 2nd protects the state's right to have a militia, or whether it protects the individual's right to bear arms and be ready to become the militia when needed.


----------



## danielpalos

dude, our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean


WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.
> 
> _*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._
> 
> 
> 
> Are we going by your personal opinion, the democratic platform, or the supreme court rulings, as to what the 2nd amendment means?
> 
> Or maybe you'd prefer Bubba's view, living in rural Kentucky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.
> 
> "_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*"_  it must mean something and it cannot be irrelevant to the topic of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not irrelevant.  But it is only a modifier to the actual subject of the sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> Also, given the fact that our founding fathers relied on an armed population that could be formed into a militia in short order, the supposition that the 2nd preserves a state's right is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the Intend and Purpose for the Clause that Follows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not argued that.  Where we differ is on whether or not the 2nd protects the state's right to have a militia, or whether it protects the individual's right to bear arms and be ready to become the militia when needed.
Click to expand...

our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean one thing when you don't appeal to ignorance of the lead Clause and its Cause.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> dude, our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we going by your personal opinion, the democratic platform, or the supreme court rulings, as to what the 2nd amendment means?
> 
> Or maybe you'd prefer Bubba's view, living in rural Kentucky?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.
> 
> "_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*"_  it must mean something and it cannot be irrelevant to the topic of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not irrelevant.  But it is only a modifier to the actual subject of the sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> Also, given the fact that our founding fathers relied on an armed population that could be formed into a militia in short order, the supposition that the 2nd preserves a state's right is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the Intend and Purpose for the Clause that Follows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not argued that.  Where we differ is on whether or not the 2nd protects the state's right to have a militia, or whether it protects the individual's right to bear arms and be ready to become the militia when needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean one thing when you don't appeal to ignorance of the lead Clause and its Cause.
Click to expand...


I agree with you again.  It can only mean that the individual's right to own guns is protected.  

There are several reasons I says this.

#1 - The Bill of Rights was written solely to protect the rights of the individuals, not any gov't entity.
#2 - The founding fathers believed in an armed civilian population that could be called up to form a militia if needed.
#3 - The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" speaks very clearly.  
#4 - Some of the greatest constitutional scholars in our nation's history (including the SCOTUS) agree with me.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.
> 
> "_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*"_  it must mean something and it cannot be irrelevant to the topic of our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not irrelevant.  But it is only a modifier to the actual subject of the sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> Also, given the fact that our founding fathers relied on an armed population that could be formed into a militia in short order, the supposition that the 2nd preserves a state's right is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the Intend and Purpose for the Clause that Follows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not argued that.  Where we differ is on whether or not the 2nd protects the state's right to have a militia, or whether it protects the individual's right to bear arms and be ready to become the militia when needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean one thing when you don't appeal to ignorance of the lead Clause and its Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you again.  It can only mean that the individual's right to own guns is protected.
> 
> There are several reasons I says this.
> 
> #1 - The Bill of Rights was written solely to protect the rights of the individuals, not any gov't entity.
> #2 - The founding fathers believed in an armed civilian population that could be called up to form a militia if needed.
> #3 - The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" speaks very clearly.
> #4 - Some of the greatest constitutional scholars in our nation's history (including the SCOTUS) agree with me.
Click to expand...

Why would it say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property.

This is what our Second Amendment secures:

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not irrelevant.  But it is only a modifier to the actual subject of the sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> Also, given the fact that our founding fathers relied on an armed population that could be formed into a militia in short order, the supposition that the 2nd preserves a state's right is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Intend and Purpose for the Clause that Follows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not argued that.  Where we differ is on whether or not the 2nd protects the state's right to have a militia, or whether it protects the individual's right to bear arms and be ready to become the militia when needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean one thing when you don't appeal to ignorance of the lead Clause and its Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you again.  It can only mean that the individual's right to own guns is protected.
> 
> There are several reasons I says this.
> 
> #1 - The Bill of Rights was written solely to protect the rights of the individuals, not any gov't entity.
> #2 - The founding fathers believed in an armed civilian population that could be called up to form a militia if needed.
> #3 - The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" speaks very clearly.
> #4 - Some of the greatest constitutional scholars in our nation's history (including the SCOTUS) agree with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would it say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property.
> 
> This is what our Second Amendment secures:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.
Click to expand...


The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the individual from being usurped by the state.  That is it.  Nothing more and nothing less.

You have tried to maintain this "The 2nd amendment is about the rights of the state" nonsense for page after page after page.  The constitutional scholars disagree and the SCOTUS disagrees.   Who is in a better position to say it?


----------



## PredFan

Poor liberal gun grabbers. They are so beaten that they have lost their minds.


----------



## WinterBorn

PredFan said:


> Poor liberal gun grabbers. They are so beaten that they have lost their minds.



Yeah, I'll let him keep repeating his claim.  The SCOTUS has ruled.


----------



## PredFan

WinterBorn said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor liberal gun grabbers. They are so beaten that they have lost their minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'll let him keep repeating his claim.  The SCOTUS has ruled.
Click to expand...


That's all he does is repeat the same thing over and over.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not irrelevant.  But it is only a modifier to the actual subject of the sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> Also, given the fact that our founding fathers relied on an armed population that could be formed into a militia in short order, the supposition that the 2nd preserves a state's right is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Intend and Purpose for the Clause that Follows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not argued that.  Where we differ is on whether or not the 2nd protects the state's right to have a militia, or whether it protects the individual's right to bear arms and be ready to become the militia when needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean one thing when you don't appeal to ignorance of the lead Clause and its Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you again.  It can only mean that the individual's right to own guns is protected.
> 
> There are several reasons I says this.
> 
> #1 - The Bill of Rights was written solely to protect the rights of the individuals, not any gov't entity.
> #2 - The founding fathers believed in an armed civilian population that could be called up to form a militia if needed.
> #3 - The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" speaks very clearly.
> #4 - Some of the greatest constitutional scholars in our nation's history (including the SCOTUS) agree with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would it say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property.
> 
> This is what our Second Amendment secures:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.
Click to expand...

The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"

To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "_...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..._"

One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:

_"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."_​
The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.

The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."

In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".

In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.
"Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.

"Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.

"Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.

Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Intend and Purpose for the Clause that Follows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not argued that.  Where we differ is on whether or not the 2nd protects the state's right to have a militia, or whether it protects the individual's right to bear arms and be ready to become the militia when needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean one thing when you don't appeal to ignorance of the lead Clause and its Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you again.  It can only mean that the individual's right to own guns is protected.
> 
> There are several reasons I says this.
> 
> #1 - The Bill of Rights was written solely to protect the rights of the individuals, not any gov't entity.
> #2 - The founding fathers believed in an armed civilian population that could be called up to form a militia if needed.
> #3 - The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" speaks very clearly.
> #4 - Some of the greatest constitutional scholars in our nation's history (including the SCOTUS) agree with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would it say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property.
> 
> This is what our Second Amendment secures:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the individual from being usurped by the state.  That is it.  Nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> You have tried to maintain this "The 2nd amendment is about the rights of the state" nonsense for page after page after page.  The constitutional scholars disagree and the SCOTUS disagrees.   Who is in a better position to say it?
Click to expand...



No it doesn't; Each amendment has to be read in their severalty--_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._--The Federalist Number Forty-One

Why would our Second Amendment say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property--"_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*"_

This is what our Second Amendment secures:

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.

Those of the opposing view are welcome to argue their point here.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not argued that.  Where we differ is on whether or not the 2nd protects the state's right to have a militia, or whether it protects the individual's right to bear arms and be ready to become the militia when needed.
> 
> 
> 
> our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean one thing when you don't appeal to ignorance of the lead Clause and its Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you again.  It can only mean that the individual's right to own guns is protected.
> 
> There are several reasons I says this.
> 
> #1 - The Bill of Rights was written solely to protect the rights of the individuals, not any gov't entity.
> #2 - The founding fathers believed in an armed civilian population that could be called up to form a militia if needed.
> #3 - The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" speaks very clearly.
> #4 - Some of the greatest constitutional scholars in our nation's history (including the SCOTUS) agree with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would it say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property.
> 
> This is what our Second Amendment secures:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the individual from being usurped by the state.  That is it.  Nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> You have tried to maintain this "The 2nd amendment is about the rights of the state" nonsense for page after page after page.  The constitutional scholars disagree and the SCOTUS disagrees.   Who is in a better position to say it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't; Each amendment has to be read in their severalty--_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._--The Federalist Number Forty-One
> 
> Why would our Second Amendment say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property--"_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*"_
> 
> This is what our Second Amendment secures:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.
> 
> Those of the opposing view are welcome to argue their point here.
Click to expand...

"_The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end."_​
It is NOT possible for the subordinate clause of the 2nd Amendment to have meaning without the main, operative clause--any meaning that the subordinate clause has is DEPENDENT UPON the main clause.

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"

The "common end" is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:    "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"

_"The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means."_​
Since the parts of the 2nd Amendment DO coincide to conspire to a common end, your insistence that any part of the 2nd Amendment be sacrificed is entirely misapplied.

Furthermore, the "end" conspired to is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:  "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"

Yet even in your misapplication of what the "end" is, you fail to assert proper emphasis; it is not the security of any kind of state that that we're interested in, but rather the security of a FREE state-- a nation free of despotism.

Your construction runs precisely counter to the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights, it sacrifices legitimate means to the interests of illegitimate ends, and is self-destructive in making your entire construction meaningless to itself.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean
> our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean one thing when you don't appeal to ignorance of the lead Clause and its Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you again.  It can only mean that the individual's right to own guns is protected.
> 
> There are several reasons I says this.
> 
> #1 - The Bill of Rights was written solely to protect the rights of the individuals, not any gov't entity.
> #2 - The founding fathers believed in an armed civilian population that could be called up to form a militia if needed.
> #3 - The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" speaks very clearly.
> #4 - Some of the greatest constitutional scholars in our nation's history (including the SCOTUS) agree with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would it say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property.
> 
> This is what our Second Amendment secures:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the individual from being usurped by the state.  That is it.  Nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> You have tried to maintain this "The 2nd amendment is about the rights of the state" nonsense for page after page after page.  The constitutional scholars disagree and the SCOTUS disagrees.   Who is in a better position to say it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't; Each amendment has to be read in their severalty--_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._--The Federalist Number Forty-One
> 
> Why would our Second Amendment say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property--"_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*"_
> 
> This is what our Second Amendment secures:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.
> 
> Those of the opposing view are welcome to argue their point here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "_The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end."_​
> It is NOT possible for the subordinate clause of the 2nd Amendment to have meaning without the main, operative clause--any meaning that the subordinate clause has is DEPENDENT UPON the main clause.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The "common end" is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:    "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> _"The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means."_​
> Since the parts of the 2nd Amendment DO coincide to conspire to a common end, your insistence that any part of the 2nd Amendment be sacrificed is entirely misapplied.
> 
> Furthermore, the "end" conspired to is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:  "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> Yet even in your misapplication of what the "end" is, you fail to assert proper emphasis; it is not the security of any kind of state that that we're interested in, but rather the security of a FREE state-- a nation free of despotism.
> 
> Your construction runs precisely counter to the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights, it sacrifices legitimate means to the interests of illegitimate ends, and is self-destructive in making your entire construction meaningless to itself.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you again.  It can only mean that the individual's right to own guns is protected.
> 
> There are several reasons I says this.
> 
> #1 - The Bill of Rights was written solely to protect the rights of the individuals, not any gov't entity.
> #2 - The founding fathers believed in an armed civilian population that could be called up to form a militia if needed.
> #3 - The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" speaks very clearly.
> #4 - Some of the greatest constitutional scholars in our nation's history (including the SCOTUS) agree with me.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property.
> 
> This is what our Second Amendment secures:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the individual from being usurped by the state.  That is it.  Nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> You have tried to maintain this "The 2nd amendment is about the rights of the state" nonsense for page after page after page.  The constitutional scholars disagree and the SCOTUS disagrees.   Who is in a better position to say it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't; Each amendment has to be read in their severalty--_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._--The Federalist Number Forty-One
> 
> Why would our Second Amendment say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property--"_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*"_
> 
> This is what our Second Amendment secures:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.
> 
> Those of the opposing view are welcome to argue their point here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "_The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end."_​
> It is NOT possible for the subordinate clause of the 2nd Amendment to have meaning without the main, operative clause--any meaning that the subordinate clause has is DEPENDENT UPON the main clause.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The "common end" is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:    "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> _"The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means."_​
> Since the parts of the 2nd Amendment DO coincide to conspire to a common end, your insistence that any part of the 2nd Amendment be sacrificed is entirely misapplied.
> 
> Furthermore, the "end" conspired to is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:  "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> Yet even in your misapplication of what the "end" is, you fail to assert proper emphasis; it is not the security of any kind of state that that we're interested in, but rather the security of a FREE state-- a nation free of despotism.
> 
> Your construction runs precisely counter to the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights, it sacrifices legitimate means to the interests of illegitimate ends, and is self-destructive in making your entire construction meaningless to itself.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.
Click to expand...

You cannot demonstrate your assertion with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertion to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property.
> 
> This is what our Second Amendment secures:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the individual from being usurped by the state.  That is it.  Nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> You have tried to maintain this "The 2nd amendment is about the rights of the state" nonsense for page after page after page.  The constitutional scholars disagree and the SCOTUS disagrees.   Who is in a better position to say it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't; Each amendment has to be read in their severalty--_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._--The Federalist Number Forty-One
> 
> Why would our Second Amendment say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property--"_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*"_
> 
> This is what our Second Amendment secures:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.
> 
> Those of the opposing view are welcome to argue their point here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "_The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end."_​
> It is NOT possible for the subordinate clause of the 2nd Amendment to have meaning without the main, operative clause--any meaning that the subordinate clause has is DEPENDENT UPON the main clause.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The "common end" is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:    "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> _"The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means."_​
> Since the parts of the 2nd Amendment DO coincide to conspire to a common end, your insistence that any part of the 2nd Amendment be sacrificed is entirely misapplied.
> 
> Furthermore, the "end" conspired to is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:  "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> Yet even in your misapplication of what the "end" is, you fail to assert proper emphasis; it is not the security of any kind of state that that we're interested in, but rather the security of a FREE state-- a nation free of despotism.
> 
> Your construction runs precisely counter to the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights, it sacrifices legitimate means to the interests of illegitimate ends, and is self-destructive in making your entire construction meaningless to itself.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot demonstrate your assertion with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You have not refuted the counter assertion to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> Your notions of legal construction are wrong.
> 
> Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law, not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the individual from being usurped by the state.  That is it.  Nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> You have tried to maintain this "The 2nd amendment is about the rights of the state" nonsense for page after page after page.  The constitutional scholars disagree and the SCOTUS disagrees.   Who is in a better position to say it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't; Each amendment has to be read in their severalty--_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._--The Federalist Number Forty-One
> 
> Why would our Second Amendment say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property--"_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*"_
> 
> This is what our Second Amendment secures:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.
> 
> Those of the opposing view are welcome to argue their point here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "_The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end."_​
> It is NOT possible for the subordinate clause of the 2nd Amendment to have meaning without the main, operative clause--any meaning that the subordinate clause has is DEPENDENT UPON the main clause.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The "common end" is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:    "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> _"The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means."_​
> Since the parts of the 2nd Amendment DO coincide to conspire to a common end, your insistence that any part of the 2nd Amendment be sacrificed is entirely misapplied.
> 
> Furthermore, the "end" conspired to is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:  "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> Yet even in your misapplication of what the "end" is, you fail to assert proper emphasis; it is not the security of any kind of state that that we're interested in, but rather the security of a FREE state-- a nation free of despotism.
> 
> Your construction runs precisely counter to the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights, it sacrifices legitimate means to the interests of illegitimate ends, and is self-destructive in making your entire construction meaningless to itself.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot demonstrate your assertion with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You have not refuted the counter assertion to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> Your notions of legal construction are wrong.
> 
> Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law,...
Click to expand...

No, there is not. And you cannot demonstrate that any such appeal has been made.



danielpalos said:


> ...not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience.


There has been no appeal to ignorance of the dependent, prefatory clause; you cannot  demonstrate that any such appeal has been made.

You cannot demonstrate your assertions with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertions to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the individual from being usurped by the state.  That is it.  Nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> You have tried to maintain this "The 2nd amendment is about the rights of the state" nonsense for page after page after page.  The constitutional scholars disagree and the SCOTUS disagrees.   Who is in a better position to say it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't; Each amendment has to be read in their severalty--_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._--The Federalist Number Forty-One
> 
> Why would our Second Amendment say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property--"_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*"_
> 
> This is what our Second Amendment secures:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.
> 
> Those of the opposing view are welcome to argue their point here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "_The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end."_​
> It is NOT possible for the subordinate clause of the 2nd Amendment to have meaning without the main, operative clause--any meaning that the subordinate clause has is DEPENDENT UPON the main clause.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The "common end" is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:    "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> _"The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means."_​
> Since the parts of the 2nd Amendment DO coincide to conspire to a common end, your insistence that any part of the 2nd Amendment be sacrificed is entirely misapplied.
> 
> Furthermore, the "end" conspired to is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:  "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> Yet even in your misapplication of what the "end" is, you fail to assert proper emphasis; it is not the security of any kind of state that that we're interested in, but rather the security of a FREE state-- a nation free of despotism.
> 
> Your construction runs precisely counter to the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights, it sacrifices legitimate means to the interests of illegitimate ends, and is self-destructive in making your entire construction meaningless to itself.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot demonstrate your assertion with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You have not refuted the counter assertion to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> Your notions of legal construction are wrong.
> 
> Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law, not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience.
Click to expand...


I never claimed there was.  And neither, as far as I know, did anyone else.

We have simply claimed that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the rights of the individuals, not of the states.  And it is not about property rights, but rights to keep and bear arms.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't; Each amendment has to be read in their severalty--_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._--The Federalist Number Forty-One
> 
> Why would our Second Amendment say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property--"_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*"_
> 
> This is what our Second Amendment secures:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.
> 
> Those of the opposing view are welcome to argue their point here.
> 
> 
> 
> "_The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end."_​
> It is NOT possible for the subordinate clause of the 2nd Amendment to have meaning without the main, operative clause--any meaning that the subordinate clause has is DEPENDENT UPON the main clause.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The "common end" is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:    "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> _"The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means."_​
> Since the parts of the 2nd Amendment DO coincide to conspire to a common end, your insistence that any part of the 2nd Amendment be sacrificed is entirely misapplied.
> 
> Furthermore, the "end" conspired to is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:  "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> Yet even in your misapplication of what the "end" is, you fail to assert proper emphasis; it is not the security of any kind of state that that we're interested in, but rather the security of a FREE state-- a nation free of despotism.
> 
> Your construction runs precisely counter to the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights, it sacrifices legitimate means to the interests of illegitimate ends, and is self-destructive in making your entire construction meaningless to itself.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot demonstrate your assertion with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You have not refuted the counter assertion to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> Your notions of legal construction are wrong.
> 
> Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law,...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, there is not. And you cannot demonstrate that any such appeal has been made.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has been no appeal to ignorance of the dependent, prefatory clause; you cannot  demonstrate that any such appeal has been made.
> 
> You cannot demonstrate your assertions with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You have not refuted the counter assertions to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> Your notions of legal construction are wrong.
> 
> Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

Yes, there has; otherwise, you would know that the First clause with the Cause, leads the Second clause.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't; Each amendment has to be read in their severalty--_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means._--The Federalist Number Forty-One
> 
> Why would our Second Amendment say that, if what is supposed to be protected by_ the People of that State_, is the _security of that free State_ not rights in private property--"_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*"_
> 
> This is what our Second Amendment secures:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.
> 
> Those of the opposing view are welcome to argue their point here.
> 
> 
> 
> "_The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end."_​
> It is NOT possible for the subordinate clause of the 2nd Amendment to have meaning without the main, operative clause--any meaning that the subordinate clause has is DEPENDENT UPON the main clause.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The "common end" is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:    "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> _"The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means."_​
> Since the parts of the 2nd Amendment DO coincide to conspire to a common end, your insistence that any part of the 2nd Amendment be sacrificed is entirely misapplied.
> 
> Furthermore, the "end" conspired to is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:  "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> Yet even in your misapplication of what the "end" is, you fail to assert proper emphasis; it is not the security of any kind of state that that we're interested in, but rather the security of a FREE state-- a nation free of despotism.
> 
> Your construction runs precisely counter to the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights, it sacrifices legitimate means to the interests of illegitimate ends, and is self-destructive in making your entire construction meaningless to itself.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot demonstrate your assertion with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You have not refuted the counter assertion to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> Your notions of legal construction are wrong.
> 
> Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law, not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed there was.  And neither, as far as I know, did anyone else.
> 
> We have simply claimed that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the rights of the individuals, not of the states.  And it is not about property rights, but rights to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law, not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience--the First clause with the Cause, leads the Second clause.


----------



## LOki

There has been no appeal to ignorance of the dependent, prefatory clause; you cannot demonstrate that any such appeal has been made.

You cannot demonstrate your assertions with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertions to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.


danielpalos said:





LOki said:





danielpalos said:





LOki said:





danielpalos said:





LOki said:



"The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end."​
It is NOT possible for the subordinate clause of the 2nd Amendment to have meaning without the main, operative clause--any meaning that the subordinate clause has is DEPENDENT UPON the main clause.

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The "common end" is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:    "... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

"The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means."​
Since the parts of the 2nd Amendment DO coincide to conspire to a common end, your insistence that any part of the 2nd Amendment be sacrificed is entirely misapplied.

Furthermore, the "end" conspired to is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:  "... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

Yet even in your misapplication of what the "end" is, you fail to assert proper emphasis; it is not the security of any kind of state that that we're interested in, but rather the security of a FREE state-- a nation free of despotism.

Your construction runs precisely counter to the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights, it sacrifices legitimate means to the interests of illegitimate ends, and is self-destructive in making your entire construction meaningless to itself.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Click to expand...

The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.
		
Click to expand...

You cannot demonstrate your assertion with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertion to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law,...
		
Click to expand...

No, there is not. And you cannot demonstrate that any such appeal has been made.



danielpalos said:



			...not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience.
		
Click to expand...

There has been no appeal to ignorance of the dependent, prefatory clause; you cannot  demonstrate that any such appeal has been made.

You cannot demonstrate your assertions with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertions to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Click to expand...

Yes, there has; otherwise, you would know that the First clause with the Cause, leads the Second clause.
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end."_​
> It is NOT possible for the subordinate clause of the 2nd Amendment to have meaning without the main, operative clause--any meaning that the subordinate clause has is DEPENDENT UPON the main clause.
> 
> By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> The "common end" is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:    "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> _"The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means."_​
> Since the parts of the 2nd Amendment DO coincide to conspire to a common end, your insistence that any part of the 2nd Amendment be sacrificed is entirely misapplied.
> 
> Furthermore, the "end" conspired to is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights:  "_... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..._"
> 
> Yet even in your misapplication of what the "end" is, you fail to assert proper emphasis; it is not the security of any kind of state that that we're interested in, but rather the security of a FREE state-- a nation free of despotism.
> 
> Your construction runs precisely counter to the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights, it sacrifices legitimate means to the interests of illegitimate ends, and is self-destructive in making your entire construction meaningless to itself.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot demonstrate your assertion with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> You have not refuted the counter assertion to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.
> 
> Your notions of legal construction are wrong.
> 
> Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law, not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed there was.  And neither, as far as I know, did anyone else.
> 
> We have simply claimed that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the rights of the individuals, not of the states.  And it is not about property rights, but rights to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law, not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience--the First clause with the Cause, leads the Second clause.
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of proper sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.

It is NOT possible for the subordinate clause of the 2nd Amendment to have meaning without the main, operative clause--any meaning that the subordinate clause has is DEPENDENT UPON the main clause.

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"

You arewrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.

Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person. 

In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the *flakes* you are being _impugned_ to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.


You'll just have to excuse me if I can't be interested in your false slack.



danielpalos said:


> Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.
> 
> In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the *flakes* you are being _impugned_ to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.


I don't know about "gun lovers," but the disinformation campaign against those who value their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is clearly failing... for reasons made patently obvious.

Evidenced by the repeal and overturning of obnoxious gun-control laws, and the expansion of "shall issue" and "constitutional carry" initiatives nation wide.


----------



## Ringel05

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll just have to excuse me if I can't be interested in your false slack.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.
> 
> In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the *flakes* you are being _impugned_ to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about "gun lovers," but the disinformation campaign against those who value their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is clearly failing... for reasons made patently obvious.
> 
> Evidenced by the repeal and overturning of obnoxious gun-control laws, and the expansion of "shall issue" and "constitutional carry" initiatives nation wide.
Click to expand...

Why are you arguing with a monomaniacal zealot?


----------



## LOki

Ringel05 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll just have to excuse me if I can't be interested in your false slack.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.
> 
> In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the *flakes* you are being _impugned_ to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about "gun lovers," but the disinformation campaign against those who value their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is clearly failing... for reasons made patently obvious.
> 
> Evidenced by the repeal and overturning of obnoxious gun-control laws, and the expansion of "shall issue" and "constitutional carry" initiatives nation wide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you arguing with a monomaniacal zealot?
Click to expand...

Arguing?


----------



## Ringel05

LOki said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll just have to excuse me if I can't be interested in your false slack.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.
> 
> In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the *flakes* you are being _impugned_ to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about "gun lovers," but the disinformation campaign against those who value their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is clearly failing... for reasons made patently obvious.
> 
> Evidenced by the repeal and overturning of obnoxious gun-control laws, and the expansion of "shall issue" and "constitutional carry" initiatives nation wide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you arguing with a monomaniacal zealot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arguing?
Click to expand...

Discussing?  Conversing?  Relaying?  Communing?  Call it what you will, no skin off of my nose.........


----------



## LOki

Ringel05 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll just have to excuse me if I can't be interested in your false slack.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.
> 
> In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the *flakes* you are being _impugned_ to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about "gun lovers," but the disinformation campaign against those who value their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is clearly failing... for reasons made patently obvious.
> 
> Evidenced by the repeal and overturning of obnoxious gun-control laws, and the expansion of "shall issue" and "constitutional carry" initiatives nation wide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you arguing with a monomaniacal zealot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arguing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discussing?  Conversing?  Relaying?  Communing?  Call it what you will, no skin off of my nose.........
Click to expand...

It wasn't meant to be.

I'm just wondering why you gave him so much credit?


----------



## Ringel05

LOki said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll just have to excuse me if I can't be interested in your false slack.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.
> 
> In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the *flakes* you are being _impugned_ to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about "gun lovers," but the disinformation campaign against those who value their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is clearly failing... for reasons made patently obvious.
> 
> Evidenced by the repeal and overturning of obnoxious gun-control laws, and the expansion of "shall issue" and "constitutional carry" initiatives nation wide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you arguing with a monomaniacal zealot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arguing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discussing?  Conversing?  Relaying?  Communing?  Call it what you will, no skin off of my nose.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't meant to be.
> 
> I'm just wondering why you gave him so much credit?
Click to expand...

Arguing - used in the negative, (yell at a brick wall) as opposed to the generic or positive, (engage in a reasoned argument) sense.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll just have to excuse me if I can't be interested in your false slack.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.
> 
> In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the *flakes* you are being _impugned_ to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about "gun lovers," but the disinformation campaign against those who value their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is clearly failing... for reasons made patently obvious.
> 
> Evidenced by the repeal and overturning of obnoxious gun-control laws, and the expansion of "shall issue" and "constitutional carry" initiatives nation wide.
Click to expand...

in other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the *flakes* you are being _impugned_ to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.


----------



## danielpalos

Nothing but diversion from those of the opposing view; i got it.


----------



## PredFan

Poor poor liberal gun grabber got bitch slapped again. The restrictions on concealed carry in DC were ruled unconstitutional AGAIN. 

(Can't get the link to copy, Google it if you don't trust me)


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll just have to excuse me if I can't be interested in your false slack.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.
> 
> In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the *flakes* you are being _impugned_ to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about "gun lovers," but the disinformation campaign against those who value their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is clearly failing... for reasons made patently obvious.
> 
> Evidenced by the repeal and overturning of obnoxious gun-control laws, and the expansion of "shall issue" and "constitutional carry" initiatives nation wide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the *flakes* you are being _impugned_ to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.
Click to expand...


another forum this braindead bot has infected.  He has infected Debate Politics, Political Forum and now this one

he's a disgusting Piece of shit turd who spews stilted english and disrupts conversations with his needy trolling


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> Poor poor liberal gun grabber got bitch slapped again. The restrictions on concealed carry in DC were ruled unconstitutional AGAIN.
> 
> (Can't get the link to copy, Google it if you don't trust me)


so what; a well regulated militia is a State's sovereign right.


----------



## PredFan

Poor poor gun grabbers get butch slapped again.

A federal judge dismissed a case that the Brady Center had against ammo dealers, and the ordered the idiot gun grabbers to pay the legal fees.

Ah sweet Justice!


----------



## danielpalos

There is no appeal to ignorance of our Commerce Clause.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> There is no appeal to ignorance of our Commerce Clause.



How was there a claim of appeal to ignorance of our commerce clause?


----------



## PredFan

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our Commerce Clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was there a claim of appeal to ignorance of our commerce clause?
Click to expand...


Don't feed the troll.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_"so what; a well regulated militia is a State's sovereign right"_

Wrong. The right to bear arms is an individual American right.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our Commerce Clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was there a claim of appeal to ignorance of our commerce clause?
Click to expand...

Commerce must be well regulated to make it Regular not to Prohibit which means no Commerce to Regulate into regularity.


----------



## danielpalos

9thIDdoc said:


> _"so what; a well regulated militia is a State's sovereign right"_
> 
> Wrong. The right to bear arms is an individual American right.


There is no appeal to ignorance of the first Clause of our supreme law of the land as declared in our Second Article of Amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our Commerce Clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was there a claim of appeal to ignorance of our commerce clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Commerce must be well regulated to make it Regular not to Prohibit which means no Commerce to Regulate into regularity.
Click to expand...


Yes, commerce is regulated.  What regulation did the ammo dealer violate?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Individuals have rights. States may have authority; not rights.

Maybe you missed ".*.right of the people.*." part.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our Commerce Clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was there a claim of appeal to ignorance of our commerce clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Commerce must be well regulated to make it Regular not to Prohibit which means no Commerce to Regulate into regularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, commerce is regulated.  What regulation did the ammo dealer violate?
Click to expand...


I am not saying the ammo dealer did; Only our federal Congress can regulate Commerce among our Union of States.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our Commerce Clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was there a claim of appeal to ignorance of our commerce clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Commerce must be well regulated to make it Regular not to Prohibit which means no Commerce to Regulate into regularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, commerce is regulated.  What regulation did the ammo dealer violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not saying the ammo dealer did; Only our federal Congress can regulate Commerce among our Union of States.
Click to expand...


Then there was no appeal to ignorance of the Commerce Clause.   Unless the ammo dealer violated a regulation, the court case should have been thrown out, at least where the Commerce Clause was concerned.


----------



## danielpalos

9thIDdoc said:


> Individuals have rights. States may have authority; not rights.
> 
> Maybe you missed ".*.right of the people.*." part.


States have rights in relation to the general government of the Union as declared in our Tenth Amendment.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free Sate not individual rights in private property since Arms for the Militia of the United States are declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8--_To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia_

_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._

10USC311--*10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes -*
*(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.*

Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; Only well regulated Militias are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

Only our federal Congress can prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.

_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;_


----------



## 9thIDdoc

"Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias. 
It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.

*"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *

Free state; not United States.

*"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."* 

Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

BTW- The SC agrees with me.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals have rights. States may have authority; not rights.
> 
> Maybe you missed ".*.right of the people.*." part.
> 
> 
> 
> States have rights in relation to the general government of the Union as declared in our Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free Sate not individual rights in private property since Arms for the Militia of the United States are declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8--_To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia_
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10USC311--*10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes -*
> *(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.*
> 
> Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; Only well regulated Militias are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Only our federal Congress can prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> _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;_
Click to expand...


Me thinks you ain't got a clue.

No weapons are socialized. 
The US federal govt may arm the militia. However it also may not arm the militia. So, the militia needs arms in times when A) the govt is tyrannical and B) is not being armed. 

So, the 2A is there so there is a ready supply of weapons apart from any government control.


----------



## frigidweirdo

9thIDdoc said:


> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.



The militia in the constitution is a militia in which the states appoint officers, and which the feds can call up to federal duty. It is NOT just any old militia. If you read Presser you'd know this.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_"The militia in the constitution is a militia in which the states appoint officers, and which the feds can call up to federal duty. It is NOT just any old militia. If you read Presser you'd know this"._

And if Presser were to read me he might learn something.


----------



## prison/con.net

The right to freedom and self defense existed BEFORE the Constitution was written and it will STILL exist after the US has collapsed. Do NOT count upon words on paper to protect your rights!  ONLY your willingness and ability to KILL would be usurpers has EVER established or maintained rights.  lethal threat is the only thing that tyrants and criminal thugs have ever understood/respected, and nothing about this will ever change. You disarm at the risk of your life and your honor.


----------



## danielpalos

9thIDdoc said:


> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.


There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 applies.  Next.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals have rights. States may have authority; not rights.
> 
> Maybe you missed ".*.right of the people.*." part.
> 
> 
> 
> States have rights in relation to the general government of the Union as declared in our Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free Sate not individual rights in private property since Arms for the Militia of the United States are declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8--_To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia_
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10USC311--*10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes -*
> *(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.*
> 
> Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; Only well regulated Militias are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Only our federal Congress can prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> _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;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me thinks you ain't got a clue.
> 
> No weapons are socialized.
> The US federal govt may arm the militia. However it also may not arm the militia. So, the militia needs arms in times when A) the govt is tyrannical and B) is not being armed.
> 
> So, the 2A is there so there is a ready supply of weapons apart from any government control.
Click to expand...


I cited our supreme law of the land; all you have is obsolete propaganda and rhetoric.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia in the constitution is a militia in which the states appoint officers, and which the feds can call up to federal duty. It is NOT just any old militia. If you read Presser you'd know this.
Click to expand...


There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 or the context, intent, and purpose of our Second Article of Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

9thIDdoc said:


> _"The militia in the constitution is a militia in which the states appoint officers, and which the feds can call up to federal duty. It is NOT just any old militia. If you read Presser you'd know this"._
> 
> And if Presser were to read me he might learn something.


non sequiturs are still fallacies.


----------



## danielpalos

prison/con.net said:


> The right to freedom and self defense existed BEFORE the Constitution was written and it will STILL exist after the US has collapsed. Do NOT count upon words on paper to protect your rights!  ONLY your willingness and ability to KILL would be usurpers has EVER established or maintained rights.  lethal threat is the only thing that tyrants and criminal thugs have ever understood/respected, and nothing about this will ever change. You disarm at the risk of your life and your honor.


You are resorting to a fallacy of composition by confusing what is necessary to the security of a free _State_ and rights in private property declared inalienable or indefeasible in _State_ Constitutions.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 applies.  Next.
Click to expand...


No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals have rights. States may have authority; not rights.
> 
> Maybe you missed ".*.right of the people.*." part.
> 
> 
> 
> States have rights in relation to the general government of the Union as declared in our Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free Sate not individual rights in private property since Arms for the Militia of the United States are declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8--_To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia_
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10USC311--*10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes -*
> *(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.*
> 
> Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; Only well regulated Militias are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Only our federal Congress can prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> _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;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me thinks you ain't got a clue.
> 
> No weapons are socialized.
> The US federal govt may arm the militia. However it also may not arm the militia. So, the militia needs arms in times when A) the govt is tyrannical and B) is not being armed.
> 
> So, the 2A is there so there is a ready supply of weapons apart from any government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cited our supreme law of the land; all you have is obsolete propaganda and rhetoric.
Click to expand...


No, you did not.  The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.   Parts of the US Code have been ruled unconstitutional in the past.

And when it says "...the right of the people" it is referring to individual citizens, not any state gov't.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 applies.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
Click to expand...

Where is the Term_ individual rights in private property_ to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 applies.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
Click to expand...

There is no _Individual_ right regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## 2aguy

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 applies.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the Term_ individual rights in private property_ to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?
Click to expand...



As a gun grabber you are barking up the wrong tree.....you at least don't fantasize about sex with guns or obsess with our penises......that is a nice change of pace for a gun grabber.....


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals have rights. States may have authority; not rights.
> 
> Maybe you missed ".*.right of the people.*." part.
> 
> 
> 
> States have rights in relation to the general government of the Union as declared in our Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free Sate not individual rights in private property since Arms for the Militia of the United States are declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8--_To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia_
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10USC311--*10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes -*
> *(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.*
> 
> Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; Only well regulated Militias are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Only our federal Congress can prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> _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;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me thinks you ain't got a clue.
> 
> No weapons are socialized.
> The US federal govt may arm the militia. However it also may not arm the militia. So, the militia needs arms in times when A) the govt is tyrannical and B) is not being armed.
> 
> So, the 2A is there so there is a ready supply of weapons apart from any government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cited our supreme law of the land; all you have is obsolete propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.   Parts of the US Code have been ruled unconstitutional in the past.
> 
> And when it says "...the right of the people" it is referring to individual citizens, not any state gov't.
Click to expand...


"The People are the Militia", Person on the disingenuous right.


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 applies.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the Term_ individual rights in private property_ to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a gun grabber you are barking up the wrong tree.....you at least don't fantasize about sex with guns or obsess with our penises......that is a nice change of pace for a gun grabber.....
Click to expand...

still nothing but fallacy and claiming you are for any "gospel Truth"?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 applies.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the Term_ individual rights in private property_ to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?
Click to expand...


"...the right of the people..." is exactly that.   It does not guarantee property, so the gov't does not have to provide guns to individuals.  But the right is an individual one.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 applies.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no _Individual_ right regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


There is an individual right to bear arms.  The Bill of Rights was solely to protect the rights of individuals, not the state.


----------



## PredFan

2aguy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 applies.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the Term_ individual rights in private property_ to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a gun grabber you are barking up the wrong tree.....you at least don't fantasize about sex with guns or obsess with our penises......that is a nice change of pace for a gun grabber.....
Click to expand...


The idiot thinks the SCOTUS is wrong and he's right. Stupid gun grabbers are stupid.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 applies.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the Term_ individual rights in private property_ to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...the right of the people..." is exactly that.   It does not guarantee property, so the gov't does not have to provide guns to individuals.  But the right is an individual one.
Click to expand...

Can those of the opposing view explain in what manner and fashion socializing arms for the militia (Article 1, Section 8 regarding arming the militia) can create rights in private property?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 applies.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no _Individual_ right regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is an individual right to bear arms.  The Bill of Rights was solely to protect the rights of individuals, not the state.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken since it is States that guarantee rights in private property.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 applies.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the Term_ individual rights in private property_ to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a gun grabber you are barking up the wrong tree.....you at least don't fantasize about sex with guns or obsess with our penises......that is a nice change of pace for a gun grabber.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idiot thinks the SCOTUS is wrong and he's right. Stupid gun grabbers are stupid.
Click to expand...

I know i am the least full of fallacy in any given legal venue and subsequent legal ethic.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 applies.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no _Individual_ right regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is an individual right to bear arms.  The Bill of Rights was solely to protect the rights of individuals, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are mistaken since it is States that guarantee rights in private property.
Click to expand...


And the US Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms.   No one guaranteed that they would GIVE you guns, but they cannot take them without violating the US Constitution.  It is not a property rights issue.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 applies.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the Term_ individual rights in private property_ to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a gun grabber you are barking up the wrong tree.....you at least don't fantasize about sex with guns or obsess with our penises......that is a nice change of pace for a gun grabber.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idiot thinks the SCOTUS is wrong and he's right. Stupid gun grabbers are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know i am the least full of fallacy in any given legal venue and subsequent legal ethic.
Click to expand...


Funny, you cling to the fallacy that the US Code overrules the US Constitution.  That is blatantly wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 applies.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no _Individual_ right regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is an individual right to bear arms.  The Bill of Rights was solely to protect the rights of individuals, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are mistaken since it is States that guarantee rights in private property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the US Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms.   No one guaranteed that they would GIVE you guns, but they cannot take them without violating the US Constitution.  It is not a property rights issue.
Click to expand...

Yes, the People who are a well regulated Militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when mustered to State or federal service.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the Term_ individual rights in private property_ to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a gun grabber you are barking up the wrong tree.....you at least don't fantasize about sex with guns or obsess with our penises......that is a nice change of pace for a gun grabber.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idiot thinks the SCOTUS is wrong and he's right. Stupid gun grabbers are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know i am the least full of fallacy in any given legal venue and subsequent legal ethic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, you cling to the fallacy that the US Code overrules the US Constitution.  That is blatantly wrong.
Click to expand...

It is the understanding of those of the opposing view who must be wrong, by appealing to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no _Individual_ right regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is an individual right to bear arms.  The Bill of Rights was solely to protect the rights of individuals, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are mistaken since it is States that guarantee rights in private property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the US Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms.   No one guaranteed that they would GIVE you guns, but they cannot take them without violating the US Constitution.  It is not a property rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People who are a well regulated Militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when mustered to State or federal service.
Click to expand...


No.   The SCOTUS has ruled consistently that the right to bear arms is an individual one.  To be able to throw off the yoke of tyranny, it doesn't make sense to give the tyrant total control over all the weapons.   And considering the people who wrote the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and what they had been thru, that is the fundamental reasoning behind the 2nd amendment.  It was not just to ward off invaders.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the Term_ individual rights in private property_ to be found in our Second Article of Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a gun grabber you are barking up the wrong tree.....you at least don't fantasize about sex with guns or obsess with our penises......that is a nice change of pace for a gun grabber.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idiot thinks the SCOTUS is wrong and he's right. Stupid gun grabbers are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know i am the least full of fallacy in any given legal venue and subsequent legal ethic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, you cling to the fallacy that the US Code overrules the US Constitution.  That is blatantly wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the understanding of those of the opposing view who must be wrong, by appealing to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Since there can be several ways to interpret the wording of the 2nd amendment, we must look to the other writings and consider the context under which the 2nd amendment was written.   Doing so shows that my interpretation is correct.

And the only way for your interpretation to be correct is to ignore the other written views of the founding fathers, and to pretend that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the states as well.   It wasn't.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no _Individual_ right regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an individual right to bear arms.  The Bill of Rights was solely to protect the rights of individuals, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are mistaken since it is States that guarantee rights in private property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the US Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms.   No one guaranteed that they would GIVE you guns, but they cannot take them without violating the US Constitution.  It is not a property rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People who are a well regulated Militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when mustered to State or federal service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.   The SCOTUS has ruled consistently that the right to bear arms is an individual one.  To be able to throw off the yoke of tyranny, it doesn't make sense to give the tyrant total control over all the weapons.   And considering the people who wrote the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and what they had been thru, that is the fundamental reasoning behind the 2nd amendment.  It was not just to ward off invaders.
Click to expand...

A well regulated Militia is what is declared necessary to the security of a free State.  Whence any color for any authority repugnant to the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment as declared in the first clause?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a gun grabber you are barking up the wrong tree.....you at least don't fantasize about sex with guns or obsess with our penises......that is a nice change of pace for a gun grabber.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idiot thinks the SCOTUS is wrong and he's right. Stupid gun grabbers are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know i am the least full of fallacy in any given legal venue and subsequent legal ethic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, you cling to the fallacy that the US Code overrules the US Constitution.  That is blatantly wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the understanding of those of the opposing view who must be wrong, by appealing to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since there can be several ways to interpret the wording of the 2nd amendment, we must look to the other writings and consider the context under which the 2nd amendment was written.   Doing so shows that my interpretation is correct.
> 
> And the only way for your interpretation to be correct is to ignore the other written views of the founding fathers, and to pretend that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the states as well.   It wasn't.
Click to expand...

There is Only one Intent and Purpose for that collective right.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an individual right to bear arms.  The Bill of Rights was solely to protect the rights of individuals, not the state.
> 
> 
> 
> You are mistaken since it is States that guarantee rights in private property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the US Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms.   No one guaranteed that they would GIVE you guns, but they cannot take them without violating the US Constitution.  It is not a property rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People who are a well regulated Militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when mustered to State or federal service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.   The SCOTUS has ruled consistently that the right to bear arms is an individual one.  To be able to throw off the yoke of tyranny, it doesn't make sense to give the tyrant total control over all the weapons.   And considering the people who wrote the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and what they had been thru, that is the fundamental reasoning behind the 2nd amendment.  It was not just to ward off invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia is what is declared necessary to the security of a free State.  Whence any color for any authority repugnant to the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment as declared in the first clause?
Click to expand...


If the state or federal gov't is the cause of the loss of freedom, as the founding father wrote about, then the people should be armed to throw off the yoke of tyranny. That is the purpose of the 2nd amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idiot thinks the SCOTUS is wrong and he's right. Stupid gun grabbers are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> I know i am the least full of fallacy in any given legal venue and subsequent legal ethic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, you cling to the fallacy that the US Code overrules the US Constitution.  That is blatantly wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the understanding of those of the opposing view who must be wrong, by appealing to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since there can be several ways to interpret the wording of the 2nd amendment, we must look to the other writings and consider the context under which the 2nd amendment was written.   Doing so shows that my interpretation is correct.
> 
> And the only way for your interpretation to be correct is to ignore the other written views of the founding fathers, and to pretend that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the states as well.   It wasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is Only one Intent and Purpose for that collective right.
Click to expand...


To maintain a free people, which is why the right is guaranteed to the people and not the state.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daniel, your claims fly in the face of every SCOTUS ruling and the words of the framers of the US Constitution.  Read the Federalist Papers.  I am not going to argue anymore.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

"There is no _Individual_ right regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State."

The supreme law of the land and the court that is charged with interpreting it say there is. Game over. You lose.


----------



## 2aguy

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, your claims fly in the face of every SCOTUS ruling and the words of the framers of the US Constitution.  Read the Federalist Papers.  I am not going to argue anymore.




And it flies in the face of natural rights.....the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not "grant" us anything......we wrote it down so the statists won't forget.......now they pretend they can't read.....


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an individual right to bear arms.  The Bill of Rights was solely to protect the rights of individuals, not the state.
> 
> 
> 
> You are mistaken since it is States that guarantee rights in private property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the US Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms.   No one guaranteed that they would GIVE you guns, but they cannot take them without violating the US Constitution.  It is not a property rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People who are a well regulated Militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when mustered to State or federal service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.   The SCOTUS has ruled consistently that the right to bear arms is an individual one.  To be able to throw off the yoke of tyranny, it doesn't make sense to give the tyrant total control over all the weapons.   And considering the people who wrote the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and what they had been thru, that is the fundamental reasoning behind the 2nd amendment.  It was not just to ward off invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia is what is declared necessary to the security of a free State.  Whence any color for any authority repugnant to the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment as declared in the first clause?
Click to expand...


ZZZZZzzzzzzz.....that drivel you keep parroting is not only meaningless, but it's borung the shit out of everyone.

Here's the bottom line, you poor poor liberal gun grabbers have been getting your ignorant asses handed to you by the NRA and free Americans. 

Suck it moron.


----------



## danielpalos

y'all need to put your arguments in writing; hearsay and soothsay won't work in this case.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free Sate not individual rights in private property since Arms for the Militia of the United States are declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8--_To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia_

_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._

10USC311--*10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes -*
*(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.*

Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; Only well regulated Militias are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

Only our federal Congress can prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.

_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;_


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_"Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free Sate not individual rights..."_

Absolutely untrue. And pretty idiotic. You aren't paying attention. The Bill of Rights is all about individual rights. About as basic as it gets.


----------



## danielpalos

9thIDdoc said:


> _"Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free Sate not individual rights..."_
> 
> Absolutely untrue. And pretty idiotic. You aren't paying attention. The Bill of Rights is all about individual rights. About as basic as it gets.


There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the _Intent_ and _Purpose_ of the law:
_A well regulated militia, being *necessary* to the security of a free state_


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals have rights. States may have authority; not rights.
> 
> Maybe you missed ".*.right of the people.*." part.
> 
> 
> 
> States have rights in relation to the general government of the Union as declared in our Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free Sate not individual rights in private property since Arms for the Militia of the United States are declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8--_To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia_
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10USC311--*10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes -*
> *(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.*
> 
> Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; Only well regulated Militias are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Only our federal Congress can prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> _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;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me thinks you ain't got a clue.
> 
> No weapons are socialized.
> The US federal govt may arm the militia. However it also may not arm the militia. So, the militia needs arms in times when A) the govt is tyrannical and B) is not being armed.
> 
> So, the 2A is there so there is a ready supply of weapons apart from any government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cited our supreme law of the land; all you have is obsolete propaganda and rhetoric.
Click to expand...


So you cited something you don't understand and you make conclusions that are simply wrong? Well... that's not my fault. 

I'll show you what I have.

First, I'll cite the US Constitution, as you have done.

"
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;"

The Federal govt has the power to call forth "the Militia". "The" being the definite article. This means there is one of one. One Militia from only one militia to choose from. This one militia is the militia that can be called up to Federal service, it is the one militia which, as you can see, has officers appointed by the states and is trained by the authority of the state and according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. 

There is only one Militia. This one militia is broken down into many parts as each state will have it's own part of this militia. 

The US Second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia,", this is merely a statement that a well regulated militia is necessary. It's still in the singular. 

Anyways. What is the purpose of this militia? It was used to protect the militia from US govt maladministration. The govt had the power to arm the militia, it had the power to also not bother arming the militia. A tyrannical govt would not bother arming the militia at all. So a militia whole comprised of federal arms would only be useful when it wasn't need to take down bad govt. 

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

In the House while discussing the 2A. 

Mr Gerry began with: "This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government;" 

The Bill of Rights was about securing the people against mal-administration. 

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms." 

So, he's saying that if you allowed the US Federal govt to declare all individuals religiously scrupulous then you would not have them in the militia (the right to bear arms being the right to be in the militia). 

This basically means that in order to protect the militia you have an individual right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons, and you protect the right of an individual to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use such weapons. 

You can see from the debate in the House that Mr Gerry and others were using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service". Therefore it is clear that the right is the individual right to be in the militia. You look for the purpose and it all makes sense. 

If individuals are protected in keeping arms, for the purpose that one day they might be able to use them in militia duty, for which they have a right to do, then militia arms are not socialised as you claim.

The US govt, or the state govts may arm the Militia as they see fit. They may also not bother. The people also have a right to own arms so the militia has a ready supply. 

No propaganda, no rhetoric. It's all based on fact.


----------



## frigidweirdo

9thIDdoc said:


> _"The militia in the constitution is a militia in which the states appoint officers, and which the feds can call up to federal duty. It is NOT just any old militia. If you read Presser you'd know this"._
> 
> And if Presser were to read me he might learn something.



Presser is dead. He can't read.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia in the constitution is a militia in which the states appoint officers, and which the feds can call up to federal duty. It is NOT just any old militia. If you read Presser you'd know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 or the context, intent, and purpose of our Second Article of Amendment.
Click to expand...


You want to make a point? Make it.


----------



## danielpalos

9thIDdoc said:


> _"Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free Sate not individual rights..."_
> 
> Absolutely untrue. And pretty idiotic. You aren't paying attention. The Bill of Rights is all about individual rights. About as basic as it gets.



Only if you don't believe in States' sovereign rights.

_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._

For the ease and convenience of the Right and the South, the underlined Part is the Intent and Purpose of that law.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals have rights. States may have authority; not rights.
> 
> Maybe you missed ".*.right of the people.*." part.
> 
> 
> 
> States have rights in relation to the general government of the Union as declared in our Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free Sate not individual rights in private property since Arms for the Militia of the United States are declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8--_To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia_
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10USC311--*10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes -*
> *(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.*
> 
> Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; Only well regulated Militias are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Only our federal Congress can prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> _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;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me thinks you ain't got a clue.
> 
> No weapons are socialized.
> The US federal govt may arm the militia. However it also may not arm the militia. So, the militia needs arms in times when A) the govt is tyrannical and B) is not being armed.
> 
> So, the 2A is there so there is a ready supply of weapons apart from any government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cited our supreme law of the land; all you have is obsolete propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you cited something you don't understand and you make conclusions that are simply wrong? Well... that's not my fault.
> 
> I'll show you what I have.
> 
> First, I'll cite the US Constitution, as you have done.
> 
> "
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> 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;"
> 
> The Federal govt has the power to call forth "the Militia". "The" being the definite article. This means there is one of one. One Militia from only one militia to choose from. This one militia is the militia that can be called up to Federal service, it is the one militia which, as you can see, has officers appointed by the states and is trained by the authority of the state and according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
> 
> There is only one Militia. This one militia is broken down into many parts as each state will have it's own part of this militia.
> 
> The US Second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia,", this is merely a statement that a well regulated militia is necessary. It's still in the singular.
> 
> Anyways. What is the purpose of this militia? It was used to protect the militia from US govt maladministration. The govt had the power to arm the militia, it had the power to also not bother arming the militia. A tyrannical govt would not bother arming the militia at all. So a militia whole comprised of federal arms would only be useful when it wasn't need to take down bad govt.
> 
> Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> In the House while discussing the 2A.
> 
> Mr Gerry began with: "This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government;"
> 
> The Bill of Rights was about securing the people against mal-administration.
> 
> Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> So, he's saying that if you allowed the US Federal govt to declare all individuals religiously scrupulous then you would not have them in the militia (the right to bear arms being the right to be in the militia).
> 
> This basically means that in order to protect the militia you have an individual right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons, and you protect the right of an individual to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use such weapons.
> 
> You can see from the debate in the House that Mr Gerry and others were using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service". Therefore it is clear that the right is the individual right to be in the militia. You look for the purpose and it all makes sense.
> 
> If individuals are protected in keeping arms, for the purpose that one day they might be able to use them in militia duty, for which they have a right to do, then militia arms are not socialised as you claim.
> 
> The US govt, or the state govts may arm the Militia as they see fit. They may also not bother. The people also have a right to own arms so the militia has a ready supply.
> 
> No propaganda, no rhetoric. It's all based on fact.
Click to expand...


Propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for faith in our supreme law of the land, simply Because our Founding Fathers did such an Most Excellent job at the Convention.

_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._

The underlined part, frigidwierdo to the Cause of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation and a moral of bearing True witness to one's State motto: Eureka!; is the Intent and Purpose of that law. 

Any questions or only more fallacies to prove your loyalty to our California Republic.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Militia" simply means "group of armed civilians". Historically there have been city, county, state, private, and national militias.
> It does NOT state that the unorganized militia cannot be considered well regulated. It does NOT state that the militia of the United States  is the only militia there is or can be and there most certainly have been, and presently are, others.
> 
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." *
> 
> Free state; not United States.
> 
> *"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."*
> 
> Not the right of the militia, the state, or of the Nation. The people. The individual people as the term is used throughout the Constitution. If you want it to mean something else you'll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.
> 
> BTW- The SC agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia in the constitution is a militia in which the states appoint officers, and which the feds can call up to federal duty. It is NOT just any old militia. If you read Presser you'd know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 or the context, intent, and purpose of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to make a point? Make it.
Click to expand...

Merely that you need to acquire and possess a clue and a Cause for me to take you seriously any longer.


----------



## prison/con.net

regardless of what the 2nd meant back then, today it means that we'll shoot you if you try to take our guns. Tough stuff.


----------



## PredFan

Typical left wing Nutter. The SCOTUS says you are wrong. They count, you don't.

End of story moron.


----------



## danielpalos

You Only and Merely need to resort to your habitual fallacies, to lose your argument in any serious venue.


----------



## pauls

Nature would be a more peaceful place if we hobbled the deer and antelope and removed their horns and antlers.
I was assured of that by a lion and a wolf!

All the animals in nature are provided means to defend themselves. Why is it that some think that mankind would be better off unarmed?


----------



## danielpalos

pauls said:


> Nature would be a more peaceful place if we hobbled the deer and antelope and removed their horns and antlers.
> I was assured of that by a lion and a wolf!
> 
> All the animals in nature are provided means to defend themselves. Why is it that some think that mankind would be better off unarmed?



I am not sure what you mean.  Well regulated militias of the People are a State's sovereign right and tasked with repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Both Federal and many State constitutions affirm that right of the individual. You cannot have a well regulated militia with that right of the individual.


----------



## danielpalos

9thIDdoc said:


> Both Federal and many State constitutions affirm that right of the individual. You cannot have a well regulated militia with that right of the individual.



Why do you believe that?  Rights in private property are distinct from being a well regulated _militia_ who may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for your State or the Union.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

danielpalos said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Federal and many State constitutions affirm that right of the individual. You cannot have a well regulated militia with that right of the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that?  Rights in private property are distinct from being a well regulated _militia_ who may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for your State or the Union.
Click to expand...


It's true. Why are you so determined to believe an obvious and thoroughly refuted lie. My State guarantees the right to keep and bear arms without sort of verbiage about militias. Wonder why.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> Merely that you need to acquire and possess a clue and a Cause for me to take you seriously any longer.



See, if I came on here to play guess the clue game, I'd be happy. However I don't come on here for that. Again, if you have a point, make it, if you don't, don't bother replying.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> Propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for faith in our supreme law of the land, simply Because our Founding Fathers did such an Most Excellent job at the Convention.
> 
> _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._
> 
> The underlined part, frigidwierdo to the Cause of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation and a moral of bearing True witness to one's State motto: Eureka!; is the Intent and Purpose of that law.
> 
> Any questions or only more fallacies to prove your loyalty to our California Republic.



Would it be possible to translate this into English so I might have a clue what you're talking about?


----------



## frigidweirdo

prison/con.net said:


> regardless of what the 2nd meant back then, today it means that we'll shoot you if you try to take our guns. Tough stuff.



At least one person is being honest.


----------



## danielpalos

9thIDdoc said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Federal and many State constitutions affirm that right of the individual. You cannot have a well regulated militia with that right of the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that?  Rights in private property are distinct from being a well regulated _militia_ who may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for your State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's true. Why are you so determined to believe an obvious and thoroughly refuted lie. My State guarantees the right to keep and bear arms without sort of verbiage about militias. Wonder why.
Click to expand...

No.  I have read State Constitutions where rights in private property are secured with the terms, acquire or possess to denote specifically, rights in private property with no militia qualification.  An inalienable or indefeasible right in private property is distinct from keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of a free State.

I Only wonder why the right is so active in affirmative action threads regarding equal work for equal pay.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for faith in our supreme law of the land, simply Because our Founding Fathers did such an Most Excellent job at the Convention.
> 
> _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._
> 
> The underlined part, frigidwierdo to the Cause of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation and a moral of bearing True witness to one's State motto: Eureka!; is the Intent and Purpose of that law.
> 
> Any questions or only more fallacies to prove your loyalty to our California Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be possible to translate this into English so I might have a clue what you're talking about?
Click to expand...

sorry, Google Translate doesn't have an option for Clueless and Causeless


----------



## 9thIDdoc

*State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions, by Date*
*
Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *

Now available in published form at State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, 11 Texas Rev. of Law & Politics 191 (2006).*
(incomplete)

1792 Kentucky:That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned...

*1817 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State.*
*
1818 Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.*

1868 Texas:  Every *person* shall have the right to keep and bear arms in *the* lawful defence of himself or the State, *under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe*.

1868 Mississippi:*All persons shall have* a right to *keep and* bear arms *for their defence...*

*1870 Tennessee:  That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense...*

*1875 Missouri:That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question...*

*1963 Michigan:  Every person has a right to keep and bear arms...*

*1971 New Mexico:No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes...*

*1982 New Hampshire:All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state...*

*1984 North Dakota:  All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.*

*1984 Utah:The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed...*

*1986 West Virginia:A person has the right to keep and bear arms...*

*1987 Maine:  Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms...*

*1988 Nebraska:  All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof...*

*1998 Wisconsin:The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose...*


----------



## danielpalos

So what: All you are citing is a color for authority for _necessary_ and _proper_ gun control laws for Persons considered specifically unconnected with militia service well regulated.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Read.
"..the *right of the citizens*..." ,."... *Every citizen has a right *to bear arms " "..*.*Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself..." "*Every person shall have the right* to keep and bear arms...""t*he citizens of this State have a right* to keep and to bear arms..." "..* the *citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms..."...No law shall abridge *the right of the citizen *to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes...""*The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms... shall not be infringed..."*

Obviously the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the individual; not of some militia (well regulated or otherwise) according to state constitutions. But feel free to try to twist those words to suit your agenda. The results should be humorous.


----------



## danielpalos

Here is the simple version from several State Constitutions, for the ease and convenience of the right.

Here is where rights in private property are secured:
_
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._

Here is where Arms are specifically considered to effectuate the above:

_Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

Thus no uninfringed right to acquire and possess Arms since that class of private property is explicit regarding police power.

Notice the difference between a right to acquire and possess and a right to keep and bear Arms (for a State or the Union):

_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._

Simply because Only well regulated *militias* under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

_To provide for calling forth the *militia* to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_

It really is that simple, except to the Right.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_Simply because Only well regulated*militias* under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones._

Unfortunately for your argument neither the US nor state constitutions say any such thing nor have you been able to show where any such thing was intended. All you've given is your own personal fantasy .of how you think things should be and attempts to .deceive by parsing words. Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms and that right (as shown above) is expressly guaranteed for purposes other than militia service (although that may be included). Neither the Federal nor state government have the authority to infringe on individual rights and any attempt to do so is clearly tyranny and just cause for that governments' removal. Hopefully you will find someone who can read plain English to explain this to you.


----------



## danielpalos

did you run out of attention when reading my wall of text for that Purpose?

Simply because Only well regulated *militias* under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

_To provide for calling forth the *militia* to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_

It really is that simple, except to the Right.


----------



## pauls

danielpalos,
A few years ago the US supreme court conceded that the right to keep and bear arms was related to individuals - just like all the other enumerated rights in the bill of rights.

The right to keep and bear arms is for every individual and not dependent on service within a militia.


----------



## frigidweirdo

pauls said:


> danielpalos,
> A few years ago the US supreme court conceded that the right to keep and bear arms was related to individuals - just like all the other enumerated rights in the bill of rights.
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms is for every individual and not dependent on service within a militia.



Exactly. The whole point is that the right to keep arms is so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons, especially if the US Federal govt went bad and took away all of the Militia's other weapons.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so the militia has someone to use those guns.

The right has to be individual, otherwise it just wouldn't work. The Feds could take away your guns if they were militia guns, and not privately owned guns. They could also stop people being in the militia if there wasn't a right to be in the militia (bear arms).


----------



## danielpalos

pauls said:


> danielpalos,
> A few years ago the US supreme court conceded that the right to keep and bear arms was related to individuals - just like all the other enumerated rights in the bill of rights.
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms is for every individual and not dependent on service within a militia.


There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; we have a Ninth and Tenth Amendment.
Simply appealing to authority instead of reason is still a fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

did y'all run out of attention when reading my wall of text for that Purpose?

Simply because Only well regulated *militias* under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

_To provide for calling forth the *militia* to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_

It really is that simple, except to the Right.


----------



## pauls

danielpalos said:


> did y'all run out of attention when reading my wall of text for that Purpose?
> 
> Simply because Only well regulated *militias* under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the *militia* to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the Right.



Who defends against a tyrannical state?
Who defends against criminals?
Man has at least the same right to defend himself as animals.
Militias are composed of the People in whole.
Militias have no rights, as a collective they have only duty and honor.
Every right enumerated in the bill of rights is an individual right of the people.
What part of "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." don't you understand?


----------



## danielpalos

pauls said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> did y'all run out of attention when reading my wall of text for that Purpose?
> 
> Simply because Only well regulated *militias* under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the *militia* to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who defends against a tyrannical state?
> Who defends against criminals?
> Man has at least the same right to defend himself as animals.
> Militias are composed of the People in whole.
> Militias have no rights, as a collective they have only duty and honor.
> Every right enumerated in the bill of rights is an individual right of the people.
> What part of "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." don't you understand?
Click to expand...

I understand it, i merely don't appeal to ignorance of the first clause: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State_
How do you explain the Intent and Purpose of that law?


----------



## pauls

I just did! Because a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, (and the militia is composed of the people) the right of the people to keep and bear arms (not the militia but the people) shall not be infringed.
You see, when the people are called to serve as the militia they are supposed to bring their own arms and ammunition that are equal to what is in common use by the military at the time. Without the individual right to keep and bear arms they cannot perform as a militia.

Now a question for you; How are you supposed to defend yourself, your family and your possessions from crime?


----------



## danielpalos

pauls said:


> I just did! Because a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, (and the militia is composed of the people) the right of the people to keep and bear arms (not the militia but the people) shall not be infringed.
> You see, when the people are called to serve as the militia they are supposed to bring their own arms and ammunition that are equal to what is in common use by the military at the time. Without the individual right to keep and bear arms they cannot perform as a militia.
> 
> Now a question for you; How are you supposed to defend yourself, your family and your possessions from crime?


all you did was appeal to ignorance of the first clause of that law.

I merely don't appeal to ignorance of the first clause: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State_
How do you explain the Intent and Purpose of that law?

did y'all run out of attention when reading my wall of text for that Purpose?

Simply because Only well regulated *militias* under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.

_To provide for calling forth the *militia* to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_

_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;_

It really is that simple, except to the Right.


----------



## pauls

You can't even address one simple question.
Who defends the individual?


----------



## danielpalos

pauls said:


> You can't even address one simple question.
> Who defends the individual?


You have nothing but fallacy for your Cause.

Those rights are secured in State Constitutions:

_All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._


----------



## pauls

Rights are only secured by individuals. Government aspire to control people only by defending their rights are they in possession of them.


----------



## 2aguy

danielpalos said:


> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> did y'all run out of attention when reading my wall of text for that Purpose?
> 
> Simply because Only well regulated *militias* under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the *militia* to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who defends against a tyrannical state?
> Who defends against criminals?
> Man has at least the same right to defend himself as animals.
> Militias are composed of the People in whole.
> Militias have no rights, as a collective they have only duty and honor.
> Every right enumerated in the bill of rights is an individual right of the people.
> What part of "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand it, i merely don't appeal to ignorance of the first clause: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State_
> How do you explain the Intent and Purpose of that law?
Click to expand...



Because you have to read the rest......."The *Right of the People* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> did y'all run out of attention when reading my wall of text for that Purpose?
> 
> Simply because Only well regulated *militias* under the banner of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of All of the Other Ones.
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the *militia* to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who defends against a tyrannical state?
> Who defends against criminals?
> Man has at least the same right to defend himself as animals.
> Militias are composed of the People in whole.
> Militias have no rights, as a collective they have only duty and honor.
> Every right enumerated in the bill of rights is an individual right of the people.
> What part of "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand it, i merely don't appeal to ignorance of the first clause: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State_
> How do you explain the Intent and Purpose of that law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you have to read the rest......."The *Right of the People* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

I always read all of the law in question.  I do not appeal to ignorance of any of it, such as the first clause-unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

pauls said:


> Rights are only secured by individuals. Government aspire to control people only by defending their rights are they in possession of them.


simply appealing to ignorance of the law?

States have rights secured by our Tenth Amendment.


----------



## pauls

I believe that danielpalos is a bot.
It can't understand a question so it spouts the same programmed lines.
It picks words in a message that dictate responses.
Let's see what it does with this...

2nd amendment


----------



## danielpalos

i believe those of the opposing view don't have a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.


----------



## pauls

What is a constitutional clue?


----------



## danielpalos

pauls said:


> What is a constitutional clue?


Resorting to Constitutional terms when stringing your random words together to attempt to advance your arguments.


----------



## pauls

You used the term, please explain it.


----------



## danielpalos

dude, i don't have to make stuff up with unsound lines of reasoning because I use language found in our Constitution, not hearsay and soothsay, like most of those of your point of view.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_"There is no appeal to ignorance of the law..."_

Which is what you do when you malign the 2nd amendment with your bullshit. The right to keep and bear arms *IS* the law. Get over it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are only secured by individuals. Government aspire to control people only by defending their rights are they in possession of them.
> 
> 
> 
> simply appealing to ignorance of the law?
> 
> States have rights secured by our Tenth Amendment.
Click to expand...



Where does it say in the Tenth Amendment the word "rights"? It doesn't. It says powers. There's not such thing as states's rights.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are only secured by individuals. Government aspire to control people only by defending their rights are they in possession of them.
> 
> 
> 
> simply appealing to ignorance of the law?
> 
> States have rights secured by our Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say in the Tenth Amendment the word "rights"? It doesn't. It says powers. There's not such thing as states's rights.
Click to expand...

A right may also be a power.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_ "Only well regulated *militias* under the banner of the United States..."_

Please feel free to show where it says "only" or "under the banner of the United States". You have yet to do that.


----------



## danielpalos

Our federal Constitution specifically applies to the Militia of the United States.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are only secured by individuals. Government aspire to control people only by defending their rights are they in possession of them.
> 
> 
> 
> simply appealing to ignorance of the law?
> 
> States have rights secured by our Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say in the Tenth Amendment the word "rights"? It doesn't. It says powers. There's not such thing as states's rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A right may also be a power.
Click to expand...


It may be, but in this case it isn't. 

A right is something assumed to exist. A power is something given or taken by someone. 

States don't have rights. Simple as.


----------



## frigidweirdo

9thIDdoc said:


> _ "Only well regulated *militias* under the banner of the United States..."_
> 
> Please feel free to show where it says "only" or "under the banner of the United States". You have yet to do that.



Article 1 Section 8 actually.

I'm assuming by "under the banner" means that they can be called up to federal service and can be armed by the feds too.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

danielpalos said:


> Our federal Constitution specifically applies to the Militia of the United States.



Then you should no problem showing where that is written.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> Our federal Constitution specifically applies to the Militia of the United States.



It applies to "the militia", not necessarily "the militia of the United States" as you have put it. There is one militia, Presser made this clear, which is in different parts (ie States) and controlled by the States unless in federal service.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_Article 1 Section 8 actually.

I'm assuming by "under the banner" means that they can be called up to federal service and can be armed by the feds too._
======================================================
Exert of above 
".._.and for governing *such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States...",*_
_
Apparently there are militias that are not part of those employed in the service of the United States._


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Militia Define Militia at Dictionary.com

*militia*
[mi-lish-uh] 

Examples
Word Origin
noun
1.
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called outperiodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2.
a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3.
all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4.
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typicallyregarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against thepresumed interference of the federal government.


----------



## PredFan

Give up on Daniel Palos, he doesn't actually know what the meaning of his argument is, he only repeats it over and over. Several of us have already debunked this moron yet like a good lefty, he won't ever stop the bullshit. Time to stop feeding this troll.


----------



## PredFan

Let's get back to how the left has been getting their gun grabbing asses handed to them recently.

For example, I was just at the Central Florida Gun and Knife show yesterday. They have a couple of large tables set up for doing background checks on people buying guns. In recent years they had to add an additional table to handle the load. Both of those tables were full of people filling out forms and waiting while their backgrounds are checked.

The left loves to tell us how we are being slowly bred out. That all of is on the right are aging and will die off. Here's the butthurt for those idiots; the majority of people buying guns and sitting at that table were young.

Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are only secured by individuals. Government aspire to control people only by defending their rights are they in possession of them.
> 
> 
> 
> simply appealing to ignorance of the law?
> 
> States have rights secured by our Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say in the Tenth Amendment the word "rights"? It doesn't. It says powers. There's not such thing as states's rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A right may also be a power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may be, but in this case it isn't.
> 
> A right is something assumed to exist. A power is something given or taken by someone.
> 
> States don't have rights. Simple as.
Click to expand...

Yes, in this case it is a right to security via well regulated militias.


----------



## danielpalos

9thIDdoc said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution specifically applies to the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should no problem showing where that is written.
Click to expand...

There is Only one Militia of the United States--10USC311.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution specifically applies to the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It applies to "the militia", not necessarily "the militia of the United States" as you have put it. There is one militia, Presser made this clear, which is in different parts (ie States) and controlled by the States unless in federal service.
Click to expand...

Yes, our federal Constitution must apply to the Militia of the United States; State Constitutions are supreme for State Militias.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> Give up on Daniel Palos, he doesn't actually know what the meaning of his argument is, he only repeats it over and over. Several of us have already debunked this moron yet like a good lefty, he won't ever stop the bullshit. Time to stop feeding this troll.


Simply claiming that without actual rational proof, is a fallacy, simply because I say so.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> Let's get back to how the left has been getting their gun grabbing asses handed to them recently.
> 
> For example, I was just at the Central Florida Gun and Knife show yesterday. They have a couple of large tables set up for doing background checks on people buying guns. In recent years they had to add an additional table to handle the load. Both of those tables were full of people filling out forms and waiting while their backgrounds are checked.
> 
> The left loves to tell us how we are being slowly bred out. That all of is on the right are aging and will die off. Here's the butthurt for those idiots; the majority of people buying guns and sitting at that table were young.
> 
> Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.


Dude, some on the left believe we merely need Persons to draft _first_ for any general warfare programs the right can come up with.


----------



## danielpalos

Sovereign rights are powers to check limited government.

_The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government._

 Franklin D. Roosevelt


----------



## turtledude

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our Commerce Clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was there a claim of appeal to ignorance of our commerce clause?
Click to expand...


DanielTrollus is well known for his idiocy on this subject around  the net. He has been banned on several forums for this ponderous stupidity.  the best thing to do is to treat him like a pimple. RESIST the urge to pop it because it only spreads the infection.  Ignore it and it will dry up and go away


----------



## danielpalos

Anything more than fallacy for your Cause?


----------



## pauls

I honestly think it is a bot. It can't comprehend a question but it picks up on certain words and spits out the same rhetorical remarks.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

PredFan said:


> Poor poor gun grabbers get butch slapped again.
> 
> A federal judge dismissed a case that the Brady Center had against ammo dealers, and the ordered the idiot gun grabbers to pay the legal fees.
> 
> Ah sweet Justice!


At least you're consistent at being ignorant and ridiculous.

There are no 'gun grabbers,' no one is seeking to 'take' anyone's guns.

'Gun confiscation' is a delusional myth contrived by you and other paranoid rightists. Any effort by any government to 'confiscate' guns would violate the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause in particular, rendering 'confiscation' prohibitively burdensome and impossible to implement.

Therefore, you and others on the right will continue to look foolish and uninformed, where as a consequence of your sophomoric stupidity you pose a much greater threat to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any mythical 'gun grabber.'


----------



## pauls

Sarah Brady, Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton have all been quoted saying that they would like to take all the guns out of the hands of the public. There are politicians who would if they could just get around that pesky 2nd amendment.


----------



## PredFan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor poor gun grabbers get butch slapped again.
> 
> A federal judge dismissed a case that the Brady Center had against ammo dealers, and the ordered the idiot gun grabbers to pay the legal fees.
> 
> Ah sweet Justice!
> 
> 
> 
> At least you're consistent at being ignorant and ridiculous.
> 
> There are no 'gun grabbers,' no one is seeking to 'take' anyone's guns.
> 
> 'Gun confiscation' is a delusional myth contrived by you and other paranoid rightists. Any effort by any government to 'confiscate' guns would violate the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause in particular, rendering 'confiscation' prohibitively burdensome and impossible to implement.
> 
> Therefore, you and others on the right will continue to look foolish and uninformed, where as a consequence of your sophomoric stupidity you pose a much greater threat to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any mythical 'gun grabber.'
Click to expand...


That is total garbage and you know it. The end result of liberal policy is gun confiscation. Just because they aren't coming for my guns TODAY, doesn't mean that that isn't the end game.

You are a gun grabber and if you had an ounce of sense, you'd know that.


----------



## PredFan

pauls said:


> Sarah Brady, Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton have all been quoted saying that they would like to take all the guns out of the hands of the public. There are politicians who would if they could just get around that pesky 2nd amendment.



It is the left wing's true agenda.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution specifically applies to the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It applies to "the militia", not necessarily "the militia of the United States" as you have put it. There is one militia, Presser made this clear, which is in different parts (ie States) and controlled by the States unless in federal service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, our federal Constitution must apply to the Militia of the United States; State Constitutions are supreme for State Militias.
Click to expand...


No.  Absolutely not.  Your claim that the US Constitution must conform to the US Code is backwards.  The US Constitution is the law of the land, not the US Code.  And the highest court in our land has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.


----------



## frigidweirdo

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution specifically applies to the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It applies to "the militia", not necessarily "the militia of the United States" as you have put it. There is one militia, Presser made this clear, which is in different parts (ie States) and controlled by the States unless in federal service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, our federal Constitution must apply to the Militia of the United States; State Constitutions are supreme for State Militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Absolutely not.  Your claim that the US Constitution must conform to the US Code is backwards.  The US Constitution is the law of the land, not the US Code.  And the highest court in our land has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
Click to expand...


This is what gets me, there are two sides of the debate, using the debate as a hammer to whack each other with, and both sides ignore the reality. 

Here were have one person shouting that "it" is an individuals right (what is it?) and another saying that it mentions the militia therefore it must be the right of the militia. 

Has anyone ever wondered WHY the Founding Fathers put the 2A into the US constitution?


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> Yes, our federal Constitution must apply to the Militia of the United States; State Constitutions are supreme for State Militias.



"the Militia of the United States" and "State Militias" are the SAME THING. Go read Article 1 Section 8.

The right in the 2A is individual, the rights are there to protect the Militia from the US Federal Government.


----------



## WinterBorn

frigidweirdo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution specifically applies to the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It applies to "the militia", not necessarily "the militia of the United States" as you have put it. There is one militia, Presser made this clear, which is in different parts (ie States) and controlled by the States unless in federal service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, our federal Constitution must apply to the Militia of the United States; State Constitutions are supreme for State Militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Absolutely not.  Your claim that the US Constitution must conform to the US Code is backwards.  The US Constitution is the law of the land, not the US Code.  And the highest court in our land has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what gets me, there are two sides of the debate, using the debate as a hammer to whack each other with, and both sides ignore the reality.
> 
> Here were have one person shouting that "it" is an individuals right (what is it?) and another saying that it mentions the militia therefore it must be the right of the militia.
> 
> Has anyone ever wondered WHY the Founding Fathers put the 2A into the US constitution?
Click to expand...


Yes.   Read the Federalist Papers.


----------



## danielpalos

pauls said:


> I honestly think it is a bot. It can't comprehend a question but it picks up on certain words and spits out the same rhetorical remarks.


I honestly think those of your point of view are just ignorant shills who don't have a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution specifically applies to the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It applies to "the militia", not necessarily "the militia of the United States" as you have put it. There is one militia, Presser made this clear, which is in different parts (ie States) and controlled by the States unless in federal service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, our federal Constitution must apply to the Militia of the United States; State Constitutions are supreme for State Militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Absolutely not.  Your claim that the US Constitution must conform to the US Code is backwards.  The US Constitution is the law of the land, not the US Code.  And the highest court in our land has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
Click to expand...

No one is claiming that; words have meaning.  Our Second Amendment mentions the Militia.  The Militia of the United States is defined at 10USC311.  It really is that simple, except to the right.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution specifically applies to the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It applies to "the militia", not necessarily "the militia of the United States" as you have put it. There is one militia, Presser made this clear, which is in different parts (ie States) and controlled by the States unless in federal service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, our federal Constitution must apply to the Militia of the United States; State Constitutions are supreme for State Militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Absolutely not.  Your claim that the US Constitution must conform to the US Code is backwards.  The US Constitution is the law of the land, not the US Code.  And the highest court in our land has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what gets me, there are two sides of the debate, using the debate as a hammer to whack each other with, and both sides ignore the reality.
> 
> Here were have one person shouting that "it" is an individuals right (what is it?) and another saying that it mentions the militia therefore it must be the right of the militia.
> 
> Has anyone ever wondered WHY the Founding Fathers put the 2A into the US constitution?
Click to expand...

Yes, to ensure the security of free States as is the Intent and Purpose as explained in the first clause.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly think it is a bot. It can't comprehend a question but it picks up on certain words and spits out the same rhetorical remarks.
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly think those of your point of view are just ignorant shills who don't have a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

Nothing but fallacy; i got it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

WinterBorn said:


> Yes.   Read the Federalist Papers.



I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out. 

I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.   Read the Federalist Papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.
> 
> I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.
Click to expand...

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.

And, I already read the Federalist Papers.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.   Read the Federalist Papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.
> 
> I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.
> 
> And, I already read the Federalist Papers.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what your point is here.

Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.   Read the Federalist Papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.
> 
> I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.
> 
> And, I already read the Federalist Papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?
Click to expand...

_*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._

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> _*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._
> 
> It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.


 

Is that it? Is that your argument? 

It "must" be about the "States sovereign rights". 

Give me a break. 

_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._

Ah. must be about the well being to the free people. See, I proved it.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*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._
> 
> It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that it? Is that your argument?
> 
> It "must" be about the "States sovereign rights".
> 
> Give me a break.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Ah. must be about the well being to the free people. See, I proved it.
Click to expand...

no; there is no break for appeals to ignorance of the law.This is the string of words used by our Founding Fathers: _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*,_


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> no; there is no break for appeals to ignorance of the law.This is the string of words used by our Founding Fathers: _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*,_



I get the feeling if you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't keep relying on NOTHING and writing two sentences of two lines to "make your point" (note, I don't think you're even making a point, hence the quotation marks.) 

Get on with it. Say what you want to say. You just quote something and then make a fuzzy sentence about nothing and expect what?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.   Read the Federalist Papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.
> 
> I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.
> 
> And, I already read the Federalist Papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*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._
> 
> It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.
Click to expand...


Once again, no.  The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.


----------



## frigidweirdo

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.   Read the Federalist Papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.
> 
> I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.
> 
> And, I already read the Federalist Papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*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._
> 
> It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, no.  The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.
Click to expand...


As States don't have rights. They have powers.


----------



## danielpalos

too bad those of your point of view have even less than that to work with since you have nothing but fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.   Read the Federalist Papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.
> 
> I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.
> 
> And, I already read the Federalist Papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*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._
> 
> It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, no.  The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.
Click to expand...

Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?

This is in our Second Amendment: _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*,_

Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.


----------



## danielpalos

Dear Persons who may believe our federal Constitution is any Thing but Concise and definitively, UnAmbiguous; if it seems that way to you it is merely Because, you have insufficient clue and insufficient Cause.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*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._
> 
> It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that it? Is that your argument?
> 
> It "must" be about the "States sovereign rights".
> 
> Give me a break.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Ah. must be about the well being to the free people. See, I proved it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no; there is no break for appeals to ignorance of the law.This is the string of words used by our Founding Fathers: _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*,_
Click to expand...


And the last part removes all doubt about whether it is a state's right or a people's right.  "..._the right of the *people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." _makes it clear that it is the right enjoyed by the citizens, not the state.


The Declaration of Independence makes it quite clear that the founding fathers wanted and expected the citizens to be able to change the gov't.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, *it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it*, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,* it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,* and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8, it clearly gives the states only the power to appoint officers and the authority of training according to the discipline Congress decrees.

"*Section. 8.*

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(there are 13 powers described)

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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*;"






So no, the states are NOT what is being described in the 2nd Amendment.  It is the PEOPLE's rights being described.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.
> 
> I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.
> 
> And, I already read the Federalist Papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*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._
> 
> It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, no.  The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?
> 
> This is in our Second Amendment: _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*,_
> 
> Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.
Click to expand...



Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

Read this. 

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This is from the version of the future 2A which had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." in it. Seems individual to me. 

He also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

It all points to an individual right. The right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia, or as they put it "militia duty" "render military service"

Know of any states which serve "militia duty" or "render military service"?????

But you're starting to look very much like a troll at the moment.


----------



## WinterBorn

Here is an excerpt from a very good article that shows Madison's intent that the 2nd amendment be a right of the people.

"When Madison initially introduced the various proposed amendments that would later become the Bill of Rights, he proposed to insert the bulk of them, including what would later become amendments one through five, part of the sixth amendment, and amendments eight and nine, into Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4.  His speech to Congress can be found here.

This is the portion of the Constitution which limits Congressional power over individuals.  Clause 3 is the prohibition on Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws.

Clause 4 is the limitation on the imposition of taxes directly on individuals as oppose to excise taxes on economic transactions.  This clause has been substantially abrogated by the sixteenth amendment, authorizing the federal government to tax incomes.  In other words, Madison proposed to put these amendments into that part of the Constitution that protected individual rights of the people from the federal government. *The context of Madison’s original introduction to Congress of the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment, is powerful evidence supporting the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to confirm an individual right of the people to arms.*

*Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia.  The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders.  Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment. * States do not have rights.  They have powers.  Individuals have rights.  In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.
> 
> I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.
> 
> And, I already read the Federalist Papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*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._
> 
> It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, no.  The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?
> 
> This is in our Second Amendment: _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*,_
> 
> Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.
Click to expand...


First of all, states do not have "rights".   They have "powers".

Also, there is a reason the 2nd amendment was not included in the section of the US Constitution that deals with the militia.  That is because it is an individual right, as all the amendments in the Bill of Rights are.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> Dear Persons who may believe our federal Constitution is any Thing but Concise and definitively, UnAmbiguous; if it seems that way to you it is merely Because, you have insufficient clue and insufficient Cause.




I have a lot of clue. More than sufficient. The question is, do you? I think we know the answer to this. You're a troll.


----------



## frigidweirdo

WinterBorn said:


> First of all, states do not have "rights".   They have "powers".
> 
> Also, there is a reason the 2nd amendment was not included in the section of the US Constitution that deals with the militia.  That is because it is an individual right, as all the amendments in the Bill of Rights are.



Not actually true, the last part I mean. 

The Tenth Amendment 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 

This doesn't give rights to individuals, it gives powers to states. Which half helps your point. 

However 1A-9A do protect individual rights.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*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._
> 
> It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that it? Is that your argument?
> 
> It "must" be about the "States sovereign rights".
> 
> Give me a break.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Ah. must be about the well being to the free people. See, I proved it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no; there is no break for appeals to ignorance of the law.This is the string of words used by our Founding Fathers: _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*,_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the last part removes all doubt about whether it is a state's right or a people's right.  "..._the right of the *people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." _makes it clear that it is the right enjoyed by the citizens, not the state.
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence makes it quite clear that the founding fathers wanted and expected the citizens to be able to change the gov't.
> 
> "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, *it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it*, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,* it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,* and to provide new Guards for their future security.
> 
> In the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8, it clearly gives the states only the power to appoint officers and the authority of training according to the discipline Congress decrees.
> 
> "*Section. 8.*
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> (there are 13 powers described)
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> 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*;"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no, the states are NOT what is being described in the 2nd Amendment.  It is the PEOPLE's rights being described.
Click to expand...

Can you cite where it is ok to ignore legislative Intent and Purpose in our laws?


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.
> 
> And, I already read the Federalist Papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*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._
> 
> It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, no.  The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?
> 
> This is in our Second Amendment: _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*,_
> 
> Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Read this.
> 
> "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This is from the version of the future 2A which had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." in it. Seems individual to me.
> 
> He also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> It all points to an individual right. The right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia, or as they put it "militia duty" "render military service"
> 
> Know of any states which serve "militia duty" or "render military service"?????
> 
> But you're starting to look very much like a troll at the moment.
Click to expand...

The Second clause of our Second Amendment cannot operate in any vacuum of special pleading due to the general operation of that law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Here is an excerpt from a very good article that shows Madison's intent that the 2nd amendment be a right of the people.
> 
> "When Madison initially introduced the various proposed amendments that would later become the Bill of Rights, he proposed to insert the bulk of them, including what would later become amendments one through five, part of the sixth amendment, and amendments eight and nine, into Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4.  His speech to Congress can be found here.
> 
> This is the portion of the Constitution which limits Congressional power over individuals.  Clause 3 is the prohibition on Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws.
> 
> Clause 4 is the limitation on the imposition of taxes directly on individuals as oppose to excise taxes on economic transactions.  This clause has been substantially abrogated by the sixteenth amendment, authorizing the federal government to tax incomes.  In other words, Madison proposed to put these amendments into that part of the Constitution that protected individual rights of the people from the federal government. *The context of Madison’s original introduction to Congress of the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment, is powerful evidence supporting the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to confirm an individual right of the people to arms.*
> 
> *Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia.  The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders.  Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment. * States do not have rights.  They have powers.  Individuals have rights.  In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states.


dudes and Esquires,

There is no appeal to ignorance of this sovereign States' right and Power:  

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

It must be considered a necessary and proper clue and Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.
> 
> And, I already read the Federalist Papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*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._
> 
> It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, no.  The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?
> 
> This is in our Second Amendment: _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*,_
> 
> Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, states do not have "rights".   They have "powers".
> 
> Also, there is a reason the 2nd amendment was not included in the section of the US Constitution that deals with the militia.  That is because it is an individual right, as all the amendments in the Bill of Rights are.
Click to expand...

States have rights in relations to each other and the general government.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, states do not have "rights".   They have "powers".
> 
> Also, there is a reason the 2nd amendment was not included in the section of the US Constitution that deals with the militia.  That is because it is an individual right, as all the amendments in the Bill of Rights are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not actually true, the last part I mean.
> 
> The Tenth Amendment
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
> 
> This doesn't give rights to individuals, it gives powers to states. Which half helps your point.
> 
> However 1A-9A do protect individual rights.
Click to expand...

The term is powers and both States and Individuals of the People as Persons are declared (for legal venue purposes).


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> _*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._
> 
> It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, no.  The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?
> 
> This is in our Second Amendment: _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*,_
> 
> Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Read this.
> 
> "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This is from the version of the future 2A which had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." in it. Seems individual to me.
> 
> He also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> It all points to an individual right. The right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia, or as they put it "militia duty" "render military service"
> 
> Know of any states which serve "militia duty" or "render military service"?????
> 
> But you're starting to look very much like a troll at the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second clause of our Second Amendment cannot operate in any vacuum of special pleading due to the general operation of that law.
Click to expand...


Oh go away. You're talking nonsense for kicks. I'm out. Bye.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> _*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._
> 
> It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, no.  The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?
> 
> This is in our Second Amendment: _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*,_
> 
> Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Read this.
> 
> "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This is from the version of the future 2A which had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." in it. Seems individual to me.
> 
> He also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> It all points to an individual right. The right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia, or as they put it "militia duty" "render military service"
> 
> Know of any states which serve "militia duty" or "render military service"?????
> 
> But you're starting to look very much like a troll at the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second clause of our Second Amendment cannot operate in any vacuum of special pleading due to the general operation of that law.
Click to expand...


It doesn't need to.  The fact that it is a right reserved for the people, not the states, is clear by it not being included in the sections of the US Constitution discussing militia.  And the states have little control over the militia anyway.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*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._
> 
> It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, no.  The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?
> 
> This is in our Second Amendment: _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*,_
> 
> Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Read this.
> 
> "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This is from the version of the future 2A which had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." in it. Seems individual to me.
> 
> He also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> It all points to an individual right. The right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia, or as they put it "militia duty" "render military service"
> 
> Know of any states which serve "militia duty" or "render military service"?????
> 
> But you're starting to look very much like a troll at the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second clause of our Second Amendment cannot operate in any vacuum of special pleading due to the general operation of that law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh go away. You're talking nonsense for kicks. I'm out. Bye.
Click to expand...

run out of logic and reason so soon?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*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._
> 
> It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, no.  The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?
> 
> This is in our Second Amendment: _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*,_
> 
> Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Read this.
> 
> "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This is from the version of the future 2A which had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." in it. Seems individual to me.
> 
> He also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> It all points to an individual right. The right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia, or as they put it "militia duty" "render military service"
> 
> Know of any states which serve "militia duty" or "render military service"?????
> 
> But you're starting to look very much like a troll at the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second clause of our Second Amendment cannot operate in any vacuum of special pleading due to the general operation of that law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't need to.  The fact that it is a right reserved for the people, not the states, is clear by it not being included in the sections of the US Constitution discussing militia.  And the states have little control over the militia anyway.
Click to expand...

The point is, it cannot operate in a vacuum of special pleading from the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.


----------



## turtledude

pauls said:


> I honestly think it is a bot. It can't comprehend a question but it picks up on certain words and spits out the same rhetorical remarks.


I suggested on one of the many other boards that DanielTrollus spams on that he is nothing more than a mediocre effort at artificial intelligence that some computer geek at Cal Tech or UC Berk, created and set lose on the internet.  Its use of English is stilted and affected language is either due to a flaw in the program or the sign of mental illness.  its complete idiocy and that's why I don't respond to this moron since I don't believe its an honest poster


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> [
> 
> Oh go away. You're talking nonsense for kicks. I'm out. Bye.


Don't feed the bot.  ignore it and it will take its idiocy to another board. this is about the fifth board I have seen this douchebag on


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Oh go away. You're talking nonsense for kicks. I'm out. Bye.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't feed the bot.  ignore it and it will take its idiocy to another board. this is about the fifth board I have seen this douchebag on
Click to expand...

If you can't handle heat of sublime Truth (value) in the kitchen of word soup, you are welcome to leave for easier and greener and cooler pastures.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, no.  The 2nd amendment, being one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, is part of the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights was specifically written to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite where it says that in our Constitution?
> 
> This is in our Second Amendment: _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*,_
> 
> Dudes and esquires, I object to and protest any appeals to ignorance of the law and in legal venues, after thrice, it can and must be considered the moral turpitude of a moral vice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Read this.
> 
> "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This is from the version of the future 2A which had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." in it. Seems individual to me.
> 
> He also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> It all points to an individual right. The right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia, or as they put it "militia duty" "render military service"
> 
> Know of any states which serve "militia duty" or "render military service"?????
> 
> But you're starting to look very much like a troll at the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second clause of our Second Amendment cannot operate in any vacuum of special pleading due to the general operation of that law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't need to.  The fact that it is a right reserved for the people, not the states, is clear by it not being included in the sections of the US Constitution discussing militia.  And the states have little control over the militia anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, it cannot operate in a vacuum of special pleading from the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...


The supreme law of that land is the US Constitution, not the US Code.   That you deem the first clause of the 2nd amendment to be the defining one is your own interpretation.  The SCOTUS has interpreted it differently.

And if there is a disagreement concerning laws, our SCOTUS has the final say.  It really is that simple.

There is no vacuum, no ignorance, and no use quoting the US Code.   The US Supreme Court has ruled, consistently, that it is an individual right.


----------



## danielpalos

Militia is the Term used in our Second Amendment; 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.  It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous Right.

Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

just goes to show how fewer but more well regulated users of words can easily fend off entire gangs of anarchic rebels without a Cause or a clue.


----------



## danielpalos

just imagine if the Spartans had managed to win at Thermopylae.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Militia is the Term used in our Second Amendment; 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.  It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous Right.
> 
> Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.



Well, you keeping thinking that you're right.  And I'll keep thinking that I am right.    The US Supreme Court agrees with me.  The highest court in the land has ruled, numerous times, that my right to own a gun is an individual right.  I'll keep my guns and you keep insisting I should be in the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militia is the Term used in our Second Amendment; 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.  It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous Right.
> 
> Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you keeping thinking that you're right.  And I'll keep thinking that I am right.    The US Supreme Court agrees with me.  The highest court in the land has ruled, numerous times, that my right to own a gun is an individual right.  I'll keep my guns and you keep insisting I should be in the militia.
Click to expand...

Dude, my version is current practice in our Republic; your version is mere legal fiction.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militia is the Term used in our Second Amendment; 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.  It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous Right.
> 
> Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you keeping thinking that you're right.  And I'll keep thinking that I am right.    The US Supreme Court agrees with me.  The highest court in the land has ruled, numerous times, that my right to own a gun is an individual right.  I'll keep my guns and you keep insisting I should be in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, my version is current practice in our Republic; your version is mere legal fiction.
Click to expand...


Really?   When was the last time the US Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment applied to state militias and not to individuals?   I can show where they ruled it is an individual right.


----------



## danielpalos

When they gave an honest account of the limitations of paragraph (1) in DC v Heller in paragraph (2).  Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> When they gave an honest account of the limitations of paragraph (1) in DC v Heller in paragraph (2).  Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.



Utterly ridiculous.

In the Heller v. DC ruling the SCOTUS held:

_"1. *The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."_

That goes against everything you are trying to say.  

Immediately following that they ruled:

_"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes *an individual right to keep and bear arms*. Pp. 2–22."
_
Then the ruling stated:

_"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. *The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28*."
_
Which clearly states that the right to bear arms is an individual right, since the militia was under the US Congress (as I showed in the US Constitution) with the states only being able to appoint officers and being responsible for training, with the discipline described by Congress.

And if that is not enough, the ruling stated:

"*(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32*."

So your claims concerning the DC v. Keller are spurious at best, and an outright lie at worst.   The ruling clearly stated that the right is an individual one, unconnected with service in a militia.



Try again.  Any other ruling that might agree with your claims?   There is no appeal to ignorance of the rulings.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they gave an honest account of the limitations of paragraph (1) in DC v Heller in paragraph (2).  Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utterly ridiculous.
> 
> In the Heller v. DC ruling the SCOTUS held:
> 
> _"1. *The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."_
> 
> That goes against everything you are trying to say.
> 
> Immediately following that they ruled:
> 
> _"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes *an individual right to keep and bear arms*. Pp. 2–22."
> _
> Then the ruling stated:
> 
> _"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. *The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28*."
> _
> Which clearly states that the right to bear arms is an individual right, since the militia was under the US Congress (as I showed in the US Constitution) with the states only being able to appoint officers and being responsible for training, with the discipline described by Congress.
> 
> And if that is not enough, the ruling stated:
> 
> "*(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32*."
> 
> So your claims concerning the DC v. Keller are spurious at best, and an outright lie at worst.   The ruling clearly stated that the right is an individual one, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again.  Any other ruling that might agree with your claims?   There is no appeal to ignorance of the rulings.
Click to expand...

just a shill for your Cause?

_(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56._


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they gave an honest account of the limitations of paragraph (1) in DC v Heller in paragraph (2).  Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utterly ridiculous.
> 
> In the Heller v. DC ruling the SCOTUS held:
> 
> _"1. *The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."_
> 
> That goes against everything you are trying to say.
> 
> Immediately following that they ruled:
> 
> _"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes *an individual right to keep and bear arms*. Pp. 2–22."
> _
> Then the ruling stated:
> 
> _"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. *The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28*."
> _
> Which clearly states that the right to bear arms is an individual right, since the militia was under the US Congress (as I showed in the US Constitution) with the states only being able to appoint officers and being responsible for training, with the discipline described by Congress.
> 
> And if that is not enough, the ruling stated:
> 
> "*(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32*."
> 
> So your claims concerning the DC v. Keller are spurious at best, and an outright lie at worst.   The ruling clearly stated that the right is an individual one, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again.  Any other ruling that might agree with your claims?   There is no appeal to ignorance of the rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just a shill for your Cause?
> 
> _(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56._
Click to expand...


Moving the goal posts?

I never claimed that the 2nd amendment right is unlimited.  I never claimed there should not be regulations.  I simply claimed that the right is an individual one, not one reserved for the states.  You disagreed.  I'm waiting for you to show me any SCOTUS ruling that backs your claims.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they gave an honest account of the limitations of paragraph (1) in DC v Heller in paragraph (2).  Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utterly ridiculous.
> 
> In the Heller v. DC ruling the SCOTUS held:
> 
> _"1. *The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."_
> 
> That goes against everything you are trying to say.
> 
> Immediately following that they ruled:
> 
> _"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes *an individual right to keep and bear arms*. Pp. 2–22."
> _
> Then the ruling stated:
> 
> _"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. *The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28*."
> _
> Which clearly states that the right to bear arms is an individual right, since the militia was under the US Congress (as I showed in the US Constitution) with the states only being able to appoint officers and being responsible for training, with the discipline described by Congress.
> 
> And if that is not enough, the ruling stated:
> 
> "*(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32*."
> 
> So your claims concerning the DC v. Keller are spurious at best, and an outright lie at worst.   The ruling clearly stated that the right is an individual one, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again.  Any other ruling that might agree with your claims?   There is no appeal to ignorance of the rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just a shill for your Cause?
> 
> _(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moving the goal posts?
> 
> I never claimed that the 2nd amendment right is unlimited.  I never claimed there should not be regulations.  I simply claimed that the right is an individual one, not one reserved for the states.  You disagreed.  I'm waiting for you to show me any SCOTUS ruling that backs your claims.
Click to expand...


Which goal posts am I moving?  Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding.  Only shills for their Cause don't know that.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they gave an honest account of the limitations of paragraph (1) in DC v Heller in paragraph (2).  Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utterly ridiculous.
> 
> In the Heller v. DC ruling the SCOTUS held:
> 
> _"1. *The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."_
> 
> That goes against everything you are trying to say.
> 
> Immediately following that they ruled:
> 
> _"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes *an individual right to keep and bear arms*. Pp. 2–22."
> _
> Then the ruling stated:
> 
> _"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. *The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28*."
> _
> Which clearly states that the right to bear arms is an individual right, since the militia was under the US Congress (as I showed in the US Constitution) with the states only being able to appoint officers and being responsible for training, with the discipline described by Congress.
> 
> And if that is not enough, the ruling stated:
> 
> "*(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32*."
> 
> So your claims concerning the DC v. Keller are spurious at best, and an outright lie at worst.   The ruling clearly stated that the right is an individual one, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again.  Any other ruling that might agree with your claims?   There is no appeal to ignorance of the rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just a shill for your Cause?
> 
> _(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moving the goal posts?
> 
> I never claimed that the 2nd amendment right is unlimited.  I never claimed there should not be regulations.  I simply claimed that the right is an individual one, not one reserved for the states.  You disagreed.  I'm waiting for you to show me any SCOTUS ruling that backs your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which goal posts am I moving?  Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding.  Only shills for their Cause don't know that.
Click to expand...


I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.

But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias.  You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.

What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they gave an honest account of the limitations of paragraph (1) in DC v Heller in paragraph (2).  Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utterly ridiculous.
> 
> In the Heller v. DC ruling the SCOTUS held:
> 
> _"1. *The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."_
> 
> That goes against everything you are trying to say.
> 
> Immediately following that they ruled:
> 
> _"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes *an individual right to keep and bear arms*. Pp. 2–22."
> _
> Then the ruling stated:
> 
> _"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. *The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28*."
> _
> Which clearly states that the right to bear arms is an individual right, since the militia was under the US Congress (as I showed in the US Constitution) with the states only being able to appoint officers and being responsible for training, with the discipline described by Congress.
> 
> And if that is not enough, the ruling stated:
> 
> "*(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32*."
> 
> So your claims concerning the DC v. Keller are spurious at best, and an outright lie at worst.   The ruling clearly stated that the right is an individual one, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again.  Any other ruling that might agree with your claims?   There is no appeal to ignorance of the rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just a shill for your Cause?
> 
> _(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moving the goal posts?
> 
> I never claimed that the 2nd amendment right is unlimited.  I never claimed there should not be regulations.  I simply claimed that the right is an individual one, not one reserved for the states.  You disagreed.  I'm waiting for you to show me any SCOTUS ruling that backs your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which goal posts am I moving?  Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding.  Only shills for their Cause don't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.
> 
> But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias.  You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.
> 
> What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.
Click to expand...

Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utterly ridiculous.
> 
> In the Heller v. DC ruling the SCOTUS held:
> 
> _"1. *The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."_
> 
> That goes against everything you are trying to say.
> 
> Immediately following that they ruled:
> 
> _"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes *an individual right to keep and bear arms*. Pp. 2–22."
> _
> Then the ruling stated:
> 
> _"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. *The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28*."
> _
> Which clearly states that the right to bear arms is an individual right, since the militia was under the US Congress (as I showed in the US Constitution) with the states only being able to appoint officers and being responsible for training, with the discipline described by Congress.
> 
> And if that is not enough, the ruling stated:
> 
> "*(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32*."
> 
> So your claims concerning the DC v. Keller are spurious at best, and an outright lie at worst.   The ruling clearly stated that the right is an individual one, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again.  Any other ruling that might agree with your claims?   There is no appeal to ignorance of the rulings.
> 
> 
> 
> just a shill for your Cause?
> 
> _(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moving the goal posts?
> 
> I never claimed that the 2nd amendment right is unlimited.  I never claimed there should not be regulations.  I simply claimed that the right is an individual one, not one reserved for the states.  You disagreed.  I'm waiting for you to show me any SCOTUS ruling that backs your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which goal posts am I moving?  Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding.  Only shills for their Cause don't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.
> 
> But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias.  You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.
> 
> What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).
Click to expand...


It absolutely does not.  It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited.  It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.

You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia.   Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utterly ridiculous.
> 
> In the Heller v. DC ruling the SCOTUS held:
> 
> _"1. *The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."_
> 
> That goes against everything you are trying to say.
> 
> Immediately following that they ruled:
> 
> _"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes *an individual right to keep and bear arms*. Pp. 2–22."
> _
> Then the ruling stated:
> 
> _"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. *The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28*."
> _
> Which clearly states that the right to bear arms is an individual right, since the militia was under the US Congress (as I showed in the US Constitution) with the states only being able to appoint officers and being responsible for training, with the discipline described by Congress.
> 
> And if that is not enough, the ruling stated:
> 
> "*(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32*."
> 
> So your claims concerning the DC v. Keller are spurious at best, and an outright lie at worst.   The ruling clearly stated that the right is an individual one, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again.  Any other ruling that might agree with your claims?   There is no appeal to ignorance of the rulings.
> 
> 
> 
> just a shill for your Cause?
> 
> _(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moving the goal posts?
> 
> I never claimed that the 2nd amendment right is unlimited.  I never claimed there should not be regulations.  I simply claimed that the right is an individual one, not one reserved for the states.  You disagreed.  I'm waiting for you to show me any SCOTUS ruling that backs your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which goal posts am I moving?  Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding.  Only shills for their Cause don't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.
> 
> But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias.  You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.
> 
> What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).
Click to expand...



1) You have repeatedly said:
"_Militia is the Term used in our Second Amendment; 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States. It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous Right.
Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State_"

2) When I said the law of the land and SCOTUS backed my side and not yours you said: "_Dude, my version is current practice in our Republic; your version is mere legal fiction_."

3) When you claimed that DC v. Heller backed your claims, I challenged that.  You said:  
"_When they gave an honest account of the limitations of paragraph (1) in DC v Heller in paragraph (2). Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State._"




Now no where in DC v. Heller does the SCOTUS rule anything resembling #1.

The law of the land is what I have claimed, and certainly not what you have claimed.

And as for #3, in DC v. Heller there is nothing even close to resembling your claim "Only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State".


----------



## turtledude

IGNORE THE BOT, and like a swarm of hungry locusts on a barren field, it will leave and visit its idiotic pestilence on another board


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> just a shill for your Cause?
> 
> _(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moving the goal posts?
> 
> I never claimed that the 2nd amendment right is unlimited.  I never claimed there should not be regulations.  I simply claimed that the right is an individual one, not one reserved for the states.  You disagreed.  I'm waiting for you to show me any SCOTUS ruling that backs your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which goal posts am I moving?  Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding.  Only shills for their Cause don't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.
> 
> But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias.  You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.
> 
> What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It absolutely does not.  It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited.  It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.
> 
> You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia.   Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.
Click to expand...


The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).

It really is that simple, except to the Right.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moving the goal posts?
> 
> I never claimed that the 2nd amendment right is unlimited.  I never claimed there should not be regulations.  I simply claimed that the right is an individual one, not one reserved for the states.  You disagreed.  I'm waiting for you to show me any SCOTUS ruling that backs your claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which goal posts am I moving?  Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding.  Only shills for their Cause don't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.
> 
> But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias.  You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.
> 
> What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It absolutely does not.  It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited.  It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.
> 
> You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia.   Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the Right.
Click to expand...


Completely irrelevant.   Of course a state militia is exempt.   But your claims  that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.


----------



## turtledude

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which goal posts am I moving?  Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding.  Only shills for their Cause don't know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.
> 
> But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias.  You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.
> 
> What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It absolutely does not.  It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited.  It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.
> 
> You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia.   Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant.   Of course a state militia is exempt.   But your claims  that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.
Click to expand...

why encourage the plague?


----------



## WinterBorn

turtledude said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.
> 
> But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias.  You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.
> 
> What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It absolutely does not.  It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited.  It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.
> 
> You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia.   Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant.   Of course a state militia is exempt.   But your claims  that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why encourage the plague?
Click to expand...


If he spends his time here he is not trolling the rest of the site.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which goal posts am I moving?  Paragraph (2) follows after paragraph (1) of that same holding.  Only shills for their Cause don't know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.
> 
> But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias.  You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.
> 
> What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It absolutely does not.  It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited.  It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.
> 
> You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia.   Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant.   Of course a state militia is exempt.   But your claims  that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.
Click to expand...

It must be as relevant as paragraph (1) of that same holding.  It really is that simple except to the right.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not disagree with the sequence of the paragraphs.
> 
> But I challenged you to find a SCOTUS ruling that backed your claims that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right but reserved the right to bear arms for militias.  You claimed DC v. Heller did that and have yet to post anything from that ruling to back that claim.
> 
> What, specifically, in the Heller ruling backs your side of the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It absolutely does not.  It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited.  It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.
> 
> You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia.   Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant.   Of course a state militia is exempt.   But your claims  that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It must be as relevant as paragraph (1) of that same holding.  It really is that simple except to the right.
Click to expand...


You have not claimed that there must be regulations.  You have claimed that the entire 2nd amendment is a state right, not an individual one.  Nothing in the entire ruling supports that.   Not only is there nothing in the ruling that supports it, the ruling specifically states it is an individual right that is not connected to serving in any state militia.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paragraph (2) gives the "lie" to paragraph (1).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It absolutely does not.  It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited.  It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.
> 
> You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia.   Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant.   Of course a state militia is exempt.   But your claims  that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It must be as relevant as paragraph (1) of that same holding.  It really is that simple except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not claimed that there must be regulations.  You have claimed that the entire 2nd amendment is a state right, not an individual one.  Nothing in the entire ruling supports that.   Not only is there nothing in the ruling that supports it, the ruling specifically states it is an individual right that is not connected to serving in any state militia.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause simply because the second clause covers the People who are a well regulated militia.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It absolutely does not.  It simply clarifies that the right is not unlimited.  It does not show anything in paragraph (1) to be a lie.
> 
> You have contended that the 2nd amendment was about the state's rights to a militia.   Nothing in that ruling speaks to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant.   Of course a state militia is exempt.   But your claims  that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It must be as relevant as paragraph (1) of that same holding.  It really is that simple except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not claimed that there must be regulations.  You have claimed that the entire 2nd amendment is a state right, not an individual one.  Nothing in the entire ruling supports that.   Not only is there nothing in the ruling that supports it, the ruling specifically states it is an individual right that is not connected to serving in any state militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause simply because the second clause covers the People who are a well regulated militia.
Click to expand...


No appeal to ignorance needed.  As the SCOTUS wisely ruled, the 2nd amendment was written so that the gov't could not disarm the people and so that a citizen's militia could always be formed.

But you still have not shown any SCOTUS rulings that agree with your position.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that well regulated militias of the United States are exempt from paragraph (2) while gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, are specifically Infringed by paragraph (2).
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant.   Of course a state militia is exempt.   But your claims  that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It must be as relevant as paragraph (1) of that same holding.  It really is that simple except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not claimed that there must be regulations.  You have claimed that the entire 2nd amendment is a state right, not an individual one.  Nothing in the entire ruling supports that.   Not only is there nothing in the ruling that supports it, the ruling specifically states it is an individual right that is not connected to serving in any state militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause simply because the second clause covers the People who are a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No appeal to ignorance needed.  As the SCOTUS wisely ruled, the 2nd amendment was written so that the gov't could not disarm the people and so that a citizen's militia could always be formed.
> 
> But you still have not shown any SCOTUS rulings that agree with your position.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean; according to the logic of that holding, we can safely ignore the first clause as a privilege and immunity under our republican form of government.

Therefore, we can also use that same logic to safely ignore the first clause or first paragraph for the main operating second clause or second paragraph.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant.   Of course a state militia is exempt.   But your claims  that the 2nd are all about a state militia and not related to an individual right at all is not supported by DC v. Heller.
> 
> 
> 
> It must be as relevant as paragraph (1) of that same holding.  It really is that simple except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not claimed that there must be regulations.  You have claimed that the entire 2nd amendment is a state right, not an individual one.  Nothing in the entire ruling supports that.   Not only is there nothing in the ruling that supports it, the ruling specifically states it is an individual right that is not connected to serving in any state militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause simply because the second clause covers the People who are a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No appeal to ignorance needed.  As the SCOTUS wisely ruled, the 2nd amendment was written so that the gov't could not disarm the people and so that a citizen's militia could always be formed.
> 
> But you still have not shown any SCOTUS rulings that agree with your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean; according to the logic of that holding, we can safely ignore the first clause as a privilege and immunity under our republican form of government.
> 
> Therefore, we can also use that same logic to safely ignore the first clause or first paragraph for the main operating second clause or second paragraph.
Click to expand...


What I mean is that I said the SCOTUS and the law of the land backed my claims and not yours.  You argued that DC v. Heller backed your claim.  But the ruling most certainly does not back your claim that the right is for the state's militias, not for individuals.

No one is completely ignoring the first clause.  Armed citizens can become a citizens militia when needed.  That was the intent of the founding fathers.  That is why Madison made a separate amendment and did not include it in the section of constitution dealing with militias.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must be as relevant as paragraph (1) of that same holding.  It really is that simple except to the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not claimed that there must be regulations.  You have claimed that the entire 2nd amendment is a state right, not an individual one.  Nothing in the entire ruling supports that.   Not only is there nothing in the ruling that supports it, the ruling specifically states it is an individual right that is not connected to serving in any state militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause simply because the second clause covers the People who are a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No appeal to ignorance needed.  As the SCOTUS wisely ruled, the 2nd amendment was written so that the gov't could not disarm the people and so that a citizen's militia could always be formed.
> 
> But you still have not shown any SCOTUS rulings that agree with your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean; according to the logic of that holding, we can safely ignore the first clause as a privilege and immunity under our republican form of government.
> 
> Therefore, we can also use that same logic to safely ignore the first clause or first paragraph for the main operating second clause or second paragraph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I mean is that I said the SCOTUS and the law of the land backed my claims and not yours.  You argued that DC v. Heller backed your claim.  But the ruling most certainly does not back your claim that the right is for the state's militias, not for individuals.
> 
> No one is completely ignoring the first clause.  Armed citizens can become a citizens militia when needed.  That was the intent of the founding fathers.  That is why Madison made a separate amendment and did not include it in the section of constitution dealing with militias.
Click to expand...

The second paragraph of that same holding supports my contention.  

Well regulated militias of the People are clearly declared as necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not claimed that there must be regulations.  You have claimed that the entire 2nd amendment is a state right, not an individual one.  Nothing in the entire ruling supports that.   Not only is there nothing in the ruling that supports it, the ruling specifically states it is an individual right that is not connected to serving in any state militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause simply because the second clause covers the People who are a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No appeal to ignorance needed.  As the SCOTUS wisely ruled, the 2nd amendment was written so that the gov't could not disarm the people and so that a citizen's militia could always be formed.
> 
> But you still have not shown any SCOTUS rulings that agree with your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean; according to the logic of that holding, we can safely ignore the first clause as a privilege and immunity under our republican form of government.
> 
> Therefore, we can also use that same logic to safely ignore the first clause or first paragraph for the main operating second clause or second paragraph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I mean is that I said the SCOTUS and the law of the land backed my claims and not yours.  You argued that DC v. Heller backed your claim.  But the ruling most certainly does not back your claim that the right is for the state's militias, not for individuals.
> 
> No one is completely ignoring the first clause.  Armed citizens can become a citizens militia when needed.  That was the intent of the founding fathers.  That is why Madison made a separate amendment and did not include it in the section of constitution dealing with militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second paragraph of that same holding supports my contention.
> 
> Well regulated militias of the People are clearly declared as necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.    Nothing in paragraph (2) supports the idea that the 2nd amendment refers only to state regulated militia.  Nothing at all.

I challenge you to underline the part of this paragraph that supports your claim:
"_(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

_
And if that were not enough, paragraph (1) clearly states that it is an individual right, unconnected with service or membership in any state run militia.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause simply because the second clause covers the People who are a well regulated militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No appeal to ignorance needed.  As the SCOTUS wisely ruled, the 2nd amendment was written so that the gov't could not disarm the people and so that a citizen's militia could always be formed.
> 
> But you still have not shown any SCOTUS rulings that agree with your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean; according to the logic of that holding, we can safely ignore the first clause as a privilege and immunity under our republican form of government.
> 
> Therefore, we can also use that same logic to safely ignore the first clause or first paragraph for the main operating second clause or second paragraph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I mean is that I said the SCOTUS and the law of the land backed my claims and not yours.  You argued that DC v. Heller backed your claim.  But the ruling most certainly does not back your claim that the right is for the state's militias, not for individuals.
> 
> No one is completely ignoring the first clause.  Armed citizens can become a citizens militia when needed.  That was the intent of the founding fathers.  That is why Madison made a separate amendment and did not include it in the section of constitution dealing with militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second paragraph of that same holding supports my contention.
> 
> Well regulated militias of the People are clearly declared as necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.    Nothing in paragraph (2) supports the idea that the 2nd amendment refers only to state regulated militia.  Nothing at all.
> 
> I challenge you to underline the part of this paragraph that supports your claim:
> "_(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
> 
> _
> And if that were not enough, paragraph (1) clearly states that it is an individual right, unconnected with service or membership in any state run militia.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does since Only well regulated militias of the People are exempted from paragraph (2) which is meant specifically for gun lovers without a well regulated clue or a well regulated Cause.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No appeal to ignorance needed.  As the SCOTUS wisely ruled, the 2nd amendment was written so that the gov't could not disarm the people and so that a citizen's militia could always be formed.
> 
> But you still have not shown any SCOTUS rulings that agree with your position.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you mean; according to the logic of that holding, we can safely ignore the first clause as a privilege and immunity under our republican form of government.
> 
> Therefore, we can also use that same logic to safely ignore the first clause or first paragraph for the main operating second clause or second paragraph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I mean is that I said the SCOTUS and the law of the land backed my claims and not yours.  You argued that DC v. Heller backed your claim.  But the ruling most certainly does not back your claim that the right is for the state's militias, not for individuals.
> 
> No one is completely ignoring the first clause.  Armed citizens can become a citizens militia when needed.  That was the intent of the founding fathers.  That is why Madison made a separate amendment and did not include it in the section of constitution dealing with militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second paragraph of that same holding supports my contention.
> 
> Well regulated militias of the People are clearly declared as necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.    Nothing in paragraph (2) supports the idea that the 2nd amendment refers only to state regulated militia.  Nothing at all.
> 
> I challenge you to underline the part of this paragraph that supports your claim:
> "_(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
> 
> _
> And if that were not enough, paragraph (1) clearly states that it is an individual right, unconnected with service or membership in any state run militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does since Only well regulated militias of the People are exempted from paragraph (2) which is meant specifically for gun lovers without a well regulated clue or a well regulated Cause.
Click to expand...


Yes, the state militia is (mostly) exempt from paragraph (2).   But that does not mean it supports your claim that the 2nd amendment is reserved for states and their militias.  Especially since paragraph (1) explicitly says otherwise.

So no, DC v. Heller does not support your claims.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you mean; according to the logic of that holding, we can safely ignore the first clause as a privilege and immunity under our republican form of government.
> 
> Therefore, we can also use that same logic to safely ignore the first clause or first paragraph for the main operating second clause or second paragraph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean is that I said the SCOTUS and the law of the land backed my claims and not yours.  You argued that DC v. Heller backed your claim.  But the ruling most certainly does not back your claim that the right is for the state's militias, not for individuals.
> 
> No one is completely ignoring the first clause.  Armed citizens can become a citizens militia when needed.  That was the intent of the founding fathers.  That is why Madison made a separate amendment and did not include it in the section of constitution dealing with militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second paragraph of that same holding supports my contention.
> 
> Well regulated militias of the People are clearly declared as necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.    Nothing in paragraph (2) supports the idea that the 2nd amendment refers only to state regulated militia.  Nothing at all.
> 
> I challenge you to underline the part of this paragraph that supports your claim:
> "_(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
> 
> _
> And if that were not enough, paragraph (1) clearly states that it is an individual right, unconnected with service or membership in any state run militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does since Only well regulated militias of the People are exempted from paragraph (2) which is meant specifically for gun lovers without a well regulated clue or a well regulated Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the state militia is (mostly) exempt from paragraph (2).   But that does not mean it supports your claim that the 2nd amendment is reserved for states and their militias.  Especially since paragraph (1) explicitly says otherwise.
> 
> So no, DC v. Heller does not support your claims.
Click to expand...


Yes, it must be so simply because this is a States' sovereign right, supported by our Second and Tenth Amendments:

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean is that I said the SCOTUS and the law of the land backed my claims and not yours.  You argued that DC v. Heller backed your claim.  But the ruling most certainly does not back your claim that the right is for the state's militias, not for individuals.
> 
> No one is completely ignoring the first clause.  Armed citizens can become a citizens militia when needed.  That was the intent of the founding fathers.  That is why Madison made a separate amendment and did not include it in the section of constitution dealing with militias.
> 
> 
> 
> The second paragraph of that same holding supports my contention.
> 
> Well regulated militias of the People are clearly declared as necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.    Nothing in paragraph (2) supports the idea that the 2nd amendment refers only to state regulated militia.  Nothing at all.
> 
> I challenge you to underline the part of this paragraph that supports your claim:
> "_(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
> 
> _
> And if that were not enough, paragraph (1) clearly states that it is an individual right, unconnected with service or membership in any state run militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does since Only well regulated militias of the People are exempted from paragraph (2) which is meant specifically for gun lovers without a well regulated clue or a well regulated Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the state militia is (mostly) exempt from paragraph (2).   But that does not mean it supports your claim that the 2nd amendment is reserved for states and their militias.  Especially since paragraph (1) explicitly says otherwise.
> 
> So no, DC v. Heller does not support your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it must be so simply because this is a States' sovereign right, supported by our Second and Tenth Amendments:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
Click to expand...


LMAO!   What does paragraph (1) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia?   Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second paragraph of that same holding supports my contention.
> 
> Well regulated militias of the People are clearly declared as necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.    Nothing in paragraph (2) supports the idea that the 2nd amendment refers only to state regulated militia.  Nothing at all.
> 
> I challenge you to underline the part of this paragraph that supports your claim:
> "_(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
> 
> _
> And if that were not enough, paragraph (1) clearly states that it is an individual right, unconnected with service or membership in any state run militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does since Only well regulated militias of the People are exempted from paragraph (2) which is meant specifically for gun lovers without a well regulated clue or a well regulated Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the state militia is (mostly) exempt from paragraph (2).   But that does not mean it supports your claim that the 2nd amendment is reserved for states and their militias.  Especially since paragraph (1) explicitly says otherwise.
> 
> So no, DC v. Heller does not support your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it must be so simply because this is a States' sovereign right, supported by our Second and Tenth Amendments:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!   What does paragraph (1) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia?   Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.
Click to expand...

LMAO!  What does paragraph (2) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia?  Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.    Nothing in paragraph (2) supports the idea that the 2nd amendment refers only to state regulated militia.  Nothing at all.
> 
> I challenge you to underline the part of this paragraph that supports your claim:
> "_(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
> 
> _
> And if that were not enough, paragraph (1) clearly states that it is an individual right, unconnected with service or membership in any state run militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does since Only well regulated militias of the People are exempted from paragraph (2) which is meant specifically for gun lovers without a well regulated clue or a well regulated Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the state militia is (mostly) exempt from paragraph (2).   But that does not mean it supports your claim that the 2nd amendment is reserved for states and their militias.  Especially since paragraph (1) explicitly says otherwise.
> 
> So no, DC v. Heller does not support your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it must be so simply because this is a States' sovereign right, supported by our Second and Tenth Amendments:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!   What does paragraph (1) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia?   Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO!  What does paragraph (2) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia?  Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.
Click to expand...


Paragraph (2) does not say anything about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia.

""_(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
_
Once again I challenge you to copy this and underline any portion that mentions the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does since Only well regulated militias of the People are exempted from paragraph (2) which is meant specifically for gun lovers without a well regulated clue or a well regulated Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the state militia is (mostly) exempt from paragraph (2).   But that does not mean it supports your claim that the 2nd amendment is reserved for states and their militias.  Especially since paragraph (1) explicitly says otherwise.
> 
> So no, DC v. Heller does not support your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it must be so simply because this is a States' sovereign right, supported by our Second and Tenth Amendments:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!   What does paragraph (1) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia?   Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO!  What does paragraph (2) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia?  Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paragraph (2) does not say anything about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia.
> 
> ""_(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
> _
> Once again I challenge you to copy this and underline any portion that mentions the militia.
Click to expand...

It Only does not apply to militias, well regulated, due to our Second Amendment, literally.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the state militia is (mostly) exempt from paragraph (2).   But that does not mean it supports your claim that the 2nd amendment is reserved for states and their militias.  Especially since paragraph (1) explicitly says otherwise.
> 
> So no, DC v. Heller does not support your claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it must be so simply because this is a States' sovereign right, supported by our Second and Tenth Amendments:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!   What does paragraph (1) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia?   Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO!  What does paragraph (2) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia?  Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paragraph (2) does not say anything about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia.
> 
> ""_(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
> _
> Once again I challenge you to copy this and underline any portion that mentions the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It Only does not apply to militias, well regulated, due to our Second Amendment, literally.
Click to expand...


The fact that it does not apply to state militias does not, in any way, mean that the 2nd amendment applies only to state militias.

Paragraph (1) explicitly states that it is an individual right, not dependent on service in a militia.  Paragraph (2) does nothing to contradict that.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it must be so simply because this is a States' sovereign right, supported by our Second and Tenth Amendments:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!   What does paragraph (1) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia?   Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO!  What does paragraph (2) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia?  Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paragraph (2) does not say anything about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia.
> 
> ""_(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
> _
> Once again I challenge you to copy this and underline any portion that mentions the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It Only does not apply to militias, well regulated, due to our Second Amendment, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that it does not apply to state militias does not, in any way, mean that the 2nd amendment applies only to state militias.
> 
> Paragraph (1) explicitly states that it is an individual right, not dependent on service in a militia.  Paragraph (2) does nothing to contradict that.
Click to expand...

It Only applies to well regulated militias of the United States, if we have to quibble in legal venues.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!   What does paragraph (1) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia?   Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!  What does paragraph (2) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia?  Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paragraph (2) does not say anything about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia.
> 
> ""_(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
> _
> Once again I challenge you to copy this and underline any portion that mentions the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It Only does not apply to militias, well regulated, due to our Second Amendment, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that it does not apply to state militias does not, in any way, mean that the 2nd amendment applies only to state militias.
> 
> Paragraph (1) explicitly states that it is an individual right, not dependent on service in a militia.  Paragraph (2) does nothing to contradict that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It Only applies to well regulated militias of the United States, if we have to quibble in legal venues.
Click to expand...


LMAO!    Keep clinging to that nonsense.  The highest court in the land, the one tasked with interpreting the US Constitution has ruled that it is an individual right.  They have never ruled that the 2nd amendment applies only to state militias.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!  What does paragraph (2) say about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia?  Read the word of the SCOTUS and understand that this is the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paragraph (2) does not say anything about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia.
> 
> ""_(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
> _
> Once again I challenge you to copy this and underline any portion that mentions the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It Only does not apply to militias, well regulated, due to our Second Amendment, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that it does not apply to state militias does not, in any way, mean that the 2nd amendment applies only to state militias.
> 
> Paragraph (1) explicitly states that it is an individual right, not dependent on service in a militia.  Paragraph (2) does nothing to contradict that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It Only applies to well regulated militias of the United States, if we have to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!    Keep clinging to that nonsense.  The highest court in the land, the one tasked with interpreting the US Constitution has ruled that it is an individual right.  They have never ruled that the 2nd amendment applies only to state militias.
Click to expand...

That holding was an Appeal to Ignorance of the law; we are not discussing posse comitatus when discussing militias, well regulated.  Arms are declared Socialized for the Militia not Posses.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paragraph (2) does not say anything about the 2nd being dependent on the citizen serving in a militia.
> 
> ""_(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
> _
> Once again I challenge you to copy this and underline any portion that mentions the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> It Only does not apply to militias, well regulated, due to our Second Amendment, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that it does not apply to state militias does not, in any way, mean that the 2nd amendment applies only to state militias.
> 
> Paragraph (1) explicitly states that it is an individual right, not dependent on service in a militia.  Paragraph (2) does nothing to contradict that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It Only applies to well regulated militias of the United States, if we have to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!    Keep clinging to that nonsense.  The highest court in the land, the one tasked with interpreting the US Constitution has ruled that it is an individual right.  They have never ruled that the 2nd amendment applies only to state militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That holding was an Appeal to Ignorance of the law; we are not discussing posse comitatus when discussing militias, well regulated.  Arms are declared Socialized for the Militia not Posses.
Click to expand...


No it was not.  It was a well reasoned interpretation of the US Constitution.  You disagree.  Ok.

But at least you stopped trying to maintain that DC v. Heller supports your claims.

I believe I am done here.


----------



## danielpalos

Dudes and Esquires,

My position has always been that only well regulated _militias_ of _Individuals_ of the _People_ have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.


----------



## pauls

Who is the militia?


----------



## danielpalos

pauls said:


> Who is the militia?


There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law--10USC311.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law--10USC311.
Click to expand...


Which does not override the US Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law--10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which does not override the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

Only well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous right.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law--10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which does not override the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous right.
Click to expand...


And, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the 2nd amendment is an individual right, unconnected and not dependent on service or membership in a militia.  That is why the 2nd amendment exists, instead of it being covered in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militias.

There is no appeal to ignorance concerning the intent 2nd amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law--10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which does not override the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the 2nd amendment is an individual right, unconnected and not dependent on service or membership in a militia.  That is why the 2nd amendment exists, instead of it being covered in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militias.
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance concerning the intent 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

How can it be an Individual right regarding the Militia of the United States in that office of Public Trust?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law--10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which does not override the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the 2nd amendment is an individual right, unconnected and not dependent on service or membership in a militia.  That is why the 2nd amendment exists, instead of it being covered in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militias.
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance concerning the intent 2nd amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it be an Individual right regarding the Militia of the United States in that office of Public Trust?
Click to expand...


It is an individual right because the entire point is to have the availability of a citizens militia.   It was never intended to be for arming a state militia.  This is why it was not included in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militia.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law--10USC311.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which does not override the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the 2nd amendment is an individual right, unconnected and not dependent on service or membership in a militia.  That is why the 2nd amendment exists, instead of it being covered in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militias.
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance concerning the intent 2nd amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it be an Individual right regarding the Militia of the United States in that office of Public Trust?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is an individual right because the entire point is to have the availability of a citizens militia.   It was never intended to be for arming a state militia.  This is why it was not included in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militia.
Click to expand...

No, the entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.

_A well regulated *Militia*, being necessary to the security of a free State_

In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is _Necessary_ to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated *Militia* of _Individuals_ of the _People_ of the United States.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which does not override the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the 2nd amendment is an individual right, unconnected and not dependent on service or membership in a militia.  That is why the 2nd amendment exists, instead of it being covered in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militias.
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance concerning the intent 2nd amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it be an Individual right regarding the Militia of the United States in that office of Public Trust?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is an individual right because the entire point is to have the availability of a citizens militia.   It was never intended to be for arming a state militia.  This is why it was not included in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.
> 
> _A well regulated *Militia*, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is _Necessary_ to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated *Militia* of _Individuals_ of the _People_ of the United States.
Click to expand...


You are welcome to continue to repeat that.  But SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, has ruled otherwise.  And has done so consistently.   Never have they ruled that the point of the 2nd amendment was a state militia.  In fact, they have explicitly said differently.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the 2nd amendment is an individual right, unconnected and not dependent on service or membership in a militia.  That is why the 2nd amendment exists, instead of it being covered in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militias.
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance concerning the intent 2nd amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it be an Individual right regarding the Militia of the United States in that office of Public Trust?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is an individual right because the entire point is to have the availability of a citizens militia.   It was never intended to be for arming a state militia.  This is why it was not included in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.
> 
> _A well regulated *Militia*, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is _Necessary_ to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated *Militia* of _Individuals_ of the _People_ of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to continue to repeat that.  But SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, has ruled otherwise.  And has done so consistently.   Never have they ruled that the point of the 2nd amendment was a state militia.  In fact, they have explicitly said differently.
Click to expand...

Should we ask for a mandamus in order to obtain an answer even more definitive and comprehensive, than even Madison's, Republican Doctrine?

The entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.

_A well regulated *Militia*, being necessary to the security of a free State_

In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is _Necessary_ to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated *Militia* of _Individuals_ of the _People_ of the United States.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the 2nd amendment is an individual right, unconnected and not dependent on service or membership in a militia.  That is why the 2nd amendment exists, instead of it being covered in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militias.
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance concerning the intent 2nd amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be an Individual right regarding the Militia of the United States in that office of Public Trust?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is an individual right because the entire point is to have the availability of a citizens militia.   It was never intended to be for arming a state militia.  This is why it was not included in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.
> 
> _A well regulated *Militia*, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is _Necessary_ to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated *Militia* of _Individuals_ of the _People_ of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to continue to repeat that.  But SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, has ruled otherwise.  And has done so consistently.   Never have they ruled that the point of the 2nd amendment was a state militia.  In fact, they have explicitly said differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we ask for a mandamus in order to obtain an answer even more definitive and and comprehensive, than even Madison's, Republican Doctrine?
> 
> The entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.
> 
> _A well regulated *Militia*, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is _Necessary_ to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated *Militia* of _Individuals_ of the _People_ of the United States.
Click to expand...


You continue to neglect to include the rest of the amendment.

"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."    Now if this were strictly addressing the militia, it would have been included in the section of the constitution concerning militia.  It was not.   

And there is no need for a mandamus when the ruling in DC v. Heller is quite clear.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be an Individual right regarding the Militia of the United States in that office of Public Trust?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an individual right because the entire point is to have the availability of a citizens militia.   It was never intended to be for arming a state militia.  This is why it was not included in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.
> 
> _A well regulated *Militia*, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is _Necessary_ to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated *Militia* of _Individuals_ of the _People_ of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to continue to repeat that.  But SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, has ruled otherwise.  And has done so consistently.   Never have they ruled that the point of the 2nd amendment was a state militia.  In fact, they have explicitly said differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we ask for a mandamus in order to obtain an answer even more definitive and and comprehensive, than even Madison's, Republican Doctrine?
> 
> The entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.
> 
> _A well regulated *Militia*, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is _Necessary_ to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated *Militia* of _Individuals_ of the _People_ of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to neglect to include the rest of the amendment.
> 
> "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."    Now if this were strictly addressing the militia, it would have been included in the section of the constitution concerning militia.  It was not.
> 
> And there is no need for a mandamus when the ruling in DC v. Heller is quite clear.
> 
> "(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
Click to expand...


There is no vacuum of special pleading since it is an appeal to ignorance of the standard operation of the law; thus, the second clause cannot be "read" on its own since it would not be included without the first clause; because, rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.


----------



## danielpalos

_"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."_

Can you cite where in our Second Amendment that right is to be found.  _Keep and bear_ is not the same as _acquire and possess_, if we should have to quibble in legal venues.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is an individual right because the entire point is to have the availability of a citizens militia.   It was never intended to be for arming a state militia.  This is why it was not included in the section of the US Constitution dealing with militia.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.
> 
> _A well regulated *Militia*, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is _Necessary_ to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated *Militia* of _Individuals_ of the _People_ of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to continue to repeat that.  But SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, has ruled otherwise.  And has done so consistently.   Never have they ruled that the point of the 2nd amendment was a state militia.  In fact, they have explicitly said differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we ask for a mandamus in order to obtain an answer even more definitive and and comprehensive, than even Madison's, Republican Doctrine?
> 
> The entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.
> 
> _A well regulated *Militia*, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is _Necessary_ to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated *Militia* of _Individuals_ of the _People_ of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to neglect to include the rest of the amendment.
> 
> "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."    Now if this were strictly addressing the militia, it would have been included in the section of the constitution concerning militia.  It was not.
> 
> And there is no need for a mandamus when the ruling in DC v. Heller is quite clear.
> 
> "(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no vacuum of special pleading since it is an appeal to ignorance of the standard operation of the law; thus, the second clause cannot be "read" on its own since it would not be included without the first clause; because, rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.
Click to expand...


This is not about property rights, per se. 

And the SCOTUS is quite clear about what the 2nd amendment means.   You may disagree, but that changes nothing.  Your attempts to obscure your point in flowery language also changes nothing.  There is no appeal to ignorance by the SCOTUS in their ruling on DC v. Heller.    Perhaps if you did not know Madison's intent, I could say that you are ignorant about the history and reasoning behind the 2nd amendment.  But since I have shown you, I can only call it willful stupidity or a refusal to admit you are wrong.

I have no issue with your intelligence (much).  But to claim that you are better suited to interpret the US Constitution than the majority of justices on the US Supreme Court is a bit much.

I have shown you Madison's intent.  I have shown you that the US Supreme Court has ruled against your claims.  

I think I have done enough.  Now you are trolling.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> _"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."_
> 
> Can you cite where in our Second Amendment that right is to be found.  _Keep and bear_ is not the same as _acquire and possess_, if we should have to quibble in legal venues.



Keep and bear are the same as possess.   If we are allowed to keep something, it is allowed in our possession.  If we are allowed to bear arms, we are allowed to possess arms.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.
> 
> _A well regulated *Militia*, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is _Necessary_ to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated *Militia* of _Individuals_ of the _People_ of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to continue to repeat that.  But SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, has ruled otherwise.  And has done so consistently.   Never have they ruled that the point of the 2nd amendment was a state militia.  In fact, they have explicitly said differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we ask for a mandamus in order to obtain an answer even more definitive and and comprehensive, than even Madison's, Republican Doctrine?
> 
> The entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.
> 
> _A well regulated *Militia*, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is _Necessary_ to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated *Militia* of _Individuals_ of the _People_ of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to neglect to include the rest of the amendment.
> 
> "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."    Now if this were strictly addressing the militia, it would have been included in the section of the constitution concerning militia.  It was not.
> 
> And there is no need for a mandamus when the ruling in DC v. Heller is quite clear.
> 
> "(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no vacuum of special pleading since it is an appeal to ignorance of the standard operation of the law; thus, the second clause cannot be "read" on its own since it would not be included without the first clause; because, rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not about property rights, per se.
> 
> And the SCOTUS is quite clear about what the 2nd amendment means.   You may disagree, but that changes nothing.  Your attempts to obscure your point in flowery language also changes nothing.  There is no appeal to ignorance by the SCOTUS in their ruling on DC v. Heller.    Perhaps if you did not know Madison's intent, I could say that you are ignorant about the history and reasoning behind the 2nd amendment.  But since I have shown you, I can only call it willful stupidity or a refusal to admit you are wrong.
> 
> I have no issue with your intelligence (much).  But to claim that you are better suited to interpret the US Constitution than the majority of justices on the US Supreme Court is a bit much.
> 
> I have shown you Madison's intent.  I have shown you that the US Supreme Court has ruled against your claims.
> 
> I think I have done enough.  Now you are trolling.
Click to expand...

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument; i rest my case.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to continue to repeat that.  But SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, has ruled otherwise.  And has done so consistently.   Never have they ruled that the point of the 2nd amendment was a state militia.  In fact, they have explicitly said differently.
> 
> 
> 
> Should we ask for a mandamus in order to obtain an answer even more definitive and and comprehensive, than even Madison's, Republican Doctrine?
> 
> The entire and universal Point of our Second Article of Amendment is the security of our free States.
> 
> _A well regulated *Militia*, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> In any Case, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311 regarding what is _Necessary_ to the security of a free State, not rights in private property for Individuals considered specifically not a well regulated *Militia* of _Individuals_ of the _People_ of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to neglect to include the rest of the amendment.
> 
> "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."    Now if this were strictly addressing the militia, it would have been included in the section of the constitution concerning militia.  It was not.
> 
> And there is no need for a mandamus when the ruling in DC v. Heller is quite clear.
> 
> "(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no vacuum of special pleading since it is an appeal to ignorance of the standard operation of the law; thus, the second clause cannot be "read" on its own since it would not be included without the first clause; because, rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not about property rights, per se.
> 
> And the SCOTUS is quite clear about what the 2nd amendment means.   You may disagree, but that changes nothing.  Your attempts to obscure your point in flowery language also changes nothing.  There is no appeal to ignorance by the SCOTUS in their ruling on DC v. Heller.    Perhaps if you did not know Madison's intent, I could say that you are ignorant about the history and reasoning behind the 2nd amendment.  But since I have shown you, I can only call it willful stupidity or a refusal to admit you are wrong.
> 
> I have no issue with your intelligence (much).  But to claim that you are better suited to interpret the US Constitution than the majority of justices on the US Supreme Court is a bit much.
> 
> I have shown you Madison's intent.  I have shown you that the US Supreme Court has ruled against your claims.
> 
> I think I have done enough.  Now you are trolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for ceding the point and the argument; i rest my case.
Click to expand...


LMAO!   If that is what you need to think.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."_
> 
> Can you cite where in our Second Amendment that right is to be found.  _Keep and bear_ is not the same as _acquire and possess_, if we should have to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep and bear are the same as possess.   If we are allowed to keep something, it is allowed in our possession.  If we are allowed to bear arms, we are allowed to possess arms.
Click to expand...

I agree to disagree.  They cannot be the same or we would not need those different phrases in our lexicon.

In any Case, our supreme law of the land cannot be reducible to a mere fraction of its supreme self.

In order to support your claim, we would need to resort to Nine-Tenths of our supreme law of the land regarding possession.

_*Possession is nine-tenths of the law* is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]

Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2]  _Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

Thus, _keeping and bearing_ Arms is more supreme by one-tenth_ _than_ acquiring and possessing._


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."_
> 
> Can you cite where in our Second Amendment that right is to be found.  _Keep and bear_ is not the same as _acquire and possess_, if we should have to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep and bear are the same as possess.   If we are allowed to keep something, it is allowed in our possession.  If we are allowed to bear arms, we are allowed to possess arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree to disagree.  They cannot be the same or we would not need those different phrases in our lexicon.
> 
> In any Case, our supreme law of the land cannot be reducible to a mere fraction of its supreme self.
> 
> In order to support your claim, we would need to resort to Nine-Tenths of our supreme law of the land regarding possession.
> 
> _*Possession is nine-tenths of the law* is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]
> 
> Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2]  _Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law
> 
> Thus, _keeping and bearing_ Arms is more supreme by one-tenth_ _than_ acquiring and possessing._
Click to expand...


If their meaning is not exactly the same, they are certainly close.    If your argument now rests on the claim that "keep and bear" do not mean that citizens cannot have them, you are truly getting desperate.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."_
> 
> Can you cite where in our Second Amendment that right is to be found.  _Keep and bear_ is not the same as _acquire and possess_, if we should have to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep and bear are the same as possess.   If we are allowed to keep something, it is allowed in our possession.  If we are allowed to bear arms, we are allowed to possess arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree to disagree.  They cannot be the same or we would not need those different phrases in our lexicon.
> 
> In any Case, our supreme law of the land cannot be reducible to a mere fraction of its supreme self.
> 
> In order to support your claim, we would need to resort to Nine-Tenths of our supreme law of the land regarding possession.
> 
> _*Possession is nine-tenths of the law* is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]
> 
> Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2]  _Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law
> 
> Thus, _keeping and bearing_ Arms is more supreme by one-tenth_ _than_ acquiring and possessing._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If their meaning is not exactly the same, they are certainly close.    If your argument now rests on the claim that "keep and bear" do not mean that citizens cannot have them, you are truly getting desperate.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly what I mean, should private citizens have to quibble with the Militia of the United States, well regulated, in that office of public Trust.  Did you miss the historical precedent of our Civil War?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."_
> 
> Can you cite where in our Second Amendment that right is to be found.  _Keep and bear_ is not the same as _acquire and possess_, if we should have to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep and bear are the same as possess.   If we are allowed to keep something, it is allowed in our possession.  If we are allowed to bear arms, we are allowed to possess arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree to disagree.  They cannot be the same or we would not need those different phrases in our lexicon.
> 
> In any Case, our supreme law of the land cannot be reducible to a mere fraction of its supreme self.
> 
> In order to support your claim, we would need to resort to Nine-Tenths of our supreme law of the land regarding possession.
> 
> _*Possession is nine-tenths of the law* is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]
> 
> Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2]  _Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law
> 
> Thus, _keeping and bearing_ Arms is more supreme by one-tenth_ _than_ acquiring and possessing._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If their meaning is not exactly the same, they are certainly close.    If your argument now rests on the claim that "keep and bear" do not mean that citizens cannot have them, you are truly getting desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is exactly what I mean, should private citizens have to quibble with the Militia of the United States, well regulated, in that office of public Trust.  Did you miss the historical precedent of our Civil War?
Click to expand...


I did not miss the intent of James Madison.  I did not miss the rulings of the US Supreme Court.

And I am enjoying the benefits of the law of the land which guarantees its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."_
> 
> Can you cite where in our Second Amendment that right is to be found.  _Keep and bear_ is not the same as _acquire and possess_, if we should have to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep and bear are the same as possess.   If we are allowed to keep something, it is allowed in our possession.  If we are allowed to bear arms, we are allowed to possess arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree to disagree.  They cannot be the same or we would not need those different phrases in our lexicon.
> 
> In any Case, our supreme law of the land cannot be reducible to a mere fraction of its supreme self.
> 
> In order to support your claim, we would need to resort to Nine-Tenths of our supreme law of the land regarding possession.
> 
> _*Possession is nine-tenths of the law* is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]
> 
> Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2]  _Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law
> 
> Thus, _keeping and bearing_ Arms is more supreme by one-tenth_ _than_ acquiring and possessing._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If their meaning is not exactly the same, they are certainly close.    If your argument now rests on the claim that "keep and bear" do not mean that citizens cannot have them, you are truly getting desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is exactly what I mean, should private citizens have to quibble with the Militia of the United States, well regulated, in that office of public Trust.  Did you miss the historical precedent of our Civil War?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not miss the intent of James Madison.  I did not miss the rulings of the US Supreme Court.
> 
> And I am enjoying the benefits of the law of the land which guarantees its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Acquire and possess is not the same as keep and bear.

In any case, are you claiming that militias of the United States well regulated, may not Infringe upon the Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms, who may be disturbing the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States; whilst, the militia (well regulated) enjoys literal recourse to our Second Amendment?

_To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep and bear are the same as possess.   If we are allowed to keep something, it is allowed in our possession.  If we are allowed to bear arms, we are allowed to possess arms.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree.  They cannot be the same or we would not need those different phrases in our lexicon.
> 
> In any Case, our supreme law of the land cannot be reducible to a mere fraction of its supreme self.
> 
> In order to support your claim, we would need to resort to Nine-Tenths of our supreme law of the land regarding possession.
> 
> _*Possession is nine-tenths of the law* is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]
> 
> Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2]  _Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law
> 
> Thus, _keeping and bearing_ Arms is more supreme by one-tenth_ _than_ acquiring and possessing._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If their meaning is not exactly the same, they are certainly close.    If your argument now rests on the claim that "keep and bear" do not mean that citizens cannot have them, you are truly getting desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is exactly what I mean, should private citizens have to quibble with the Militia of the United States, well regulated, in that office of public Trust.  Did you miss the historical precedent of our Civil War?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not miss the intent of James Madison.  I did not miss the rulings of the US Supreme Court.
> 
> And I am enjoying the benefits of the law of the land which guarantees its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Acquire and possess is not the same as keep and bear.
> 
> In any case, are you claiming that militias of the United States well regulated, may not Infringe upon the Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms, who may be disturbing the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States; whilst, the militia (well regulated) enjoys literal recourse to our Second Amendment?
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_
Click to expand...


I have never maintained that anyone should be exempt from the laws.  If an armed citizen is breaking the law, they should be disarmed and arrested.  If they are found guilty of a felony they forfeit the right to own a gun.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree.  They cannot be the same or we would not need those different phrases in our lexicon.
> 
> In any Case, our supreme law of the land cannot be reducible to a mere fraction of its supreme self.
> 
> In order to support your claim, we would need to resort to Nine-Tenths of our supreme law of the land regarding possession.
> 
> _*Possession is nine-tenths of the law* is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]
> 
> Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2]  _Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law
> 
> Thus, _keeping and bearing_ Arms is more supreme by one-tenth_ _than_ acquiring and possessing._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If their meaning is not exactly the same, they are certainly close.    If your argument now rests on the claim that "keep and bear" do not mean that citizens cannot have them, you are truly getting desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is exactly what I mean, should private citizens have to quibble with the Militia of the United States, well regulated, in that office of public Trust.  Did you miss the historical precedent of our Civil War?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not miss the intent of James Madison.  I did not miss the rulings of the US Supreme Court.
> 
> And I am enjoying the benefits of the law of the land which guarantees its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Acquire and possess is not the same as keep and bear.
> 
> In any case, are you claiming that militias of the United States well regulated, may not Infringe upon the Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms, who may be disturbing the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States; whilst, the militia (well regulated) enjoys literal recourse to our Second Amendment?
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never maintained that anyone should be exempt from the laws.  If an armed citizen is breaking the law, they should be disarmed and arrested.  If they are found guilty of a felony they forfeit the right to own a gun.
Click to expand...


You are confusing keeping and bearing Arms with acquiring and possessing Arms for personal use as a private citizen.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If their meaning is not exactly the same, they are certainly close.    If your argument now rests on the claim that "keep and bear" do not mean that citizens cannot have them, you are truly getting desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is exactly what I mean, should private citizens have to quibble with the Militia of the United States, well regulated, in that office of public Trust.  Did you miss the historical precedent of our Civil War?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not miss the intent of James Madison.  I did not miss the rulings of the US Supreme Court.
> 
> And I am enjoying the benefits of the law of the land which guarantees its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Acquire and possess is not the same as keep and bear.
> 
> In any case, are you claiming that militias of the United States well regulated, may not Infringe upon the Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms, who may be disturbing the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States; whilst, the militia (well regulated) enjoys literal recourse to our Second Amendment?
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never maintained that anyone should be exempt from the laws.  If an armed citizen is breaking the law, they should be disarmed and arrested.  If they are found guilty of a felony they forfeit the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing keeping and bearing Arms with acquiring and possessing Arms for personal use as a private citizen.
Click to expand...


You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms.  I answered.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is exactly what I mean, should private citizens have to quibble with the Militia of the United States, well regulated, in that office of public Trust.  Did you miss the historical precedent of our Civil War?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not miss the intent of James Madison.  I did not miss the rulings of the US Supreme Court.
> 
> And I am enjoying the benefits of the law of the land which guarantees its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Acquire and possess is not the same as keep and bear.
> 
> In any case, are you claiming that militias of the United States well regulated, may not Infringe upon the Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms, who may be disturbing the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States; whilst, the militia (well regulated) enjoys literal recourse to our Second Amendment?
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never maintained that anyone should be exempt from the laws.  If an armed citizen is breaking the law, they should be disarmed and arrested.  If they are found guilty of a felony they forfeit the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing keeping and bearing Arms with acquiring and possessing Arms for personal use as a private citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms.  I answered.
Click to expand...

The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not miss the intent of James Madison.  I did not miss the rulings of the US Supreme Court.
> 
> And I am enjoying the benefits of the law of the land which guarantees its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Acquire and possess is not the same as keep and bear.
> 
> In any case, are you claiming that militias of the United States well regulated, may not Infringe upon the Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms, who may be disturbing the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States; whilst, the militia (well regulated) enjoys literal recourse to our Second Amendment?
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never maintained that anyone should be exempt from the laws.  If an armed citizen is breaking the law, they should be disarmed and arrested.  If they are found guilty of a felony they forfeit the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing keeping and bearing Arms with acquiring and possessing Arms for personal use as a private citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms.  I answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..
Click to expand...


The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights.  They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acquire and possess is not the same as keep and bear.
> 
> In any case, are you claiming that militias of the United States well regulated, may not Infringe upon the Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms, who may be disturbing the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States; whilst, the militia (well regulated) enjoys literal recourse to our Second Amendment?
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never maintained that anyone should be exempt from the laws.  If an armed citizen is breaking the law, they should be disarmed and arrested.  If they are found guilty of a felony they forfeit the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing keeping and bearing Arms with acquiring and possessing Arms for personal use as a private citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms.  I answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights.  They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never maintained that anyone should be exempt from the laws.  If an armed citizen is breaking the law, they should be disarmed and arrested.  If they are found guilty of a felony they forfeit the right to own a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing keeping and bearing Arms with acquiring and possessing Arms for personal use as a private citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms.  I answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights.  They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.
Click to expand...


Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state.  Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?


----------



## 2aguy

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing keeping and bearing Arms with acquiring and possessing Arms for personal use as a private citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms.  I answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights.  They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state.  Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?
Click to expand...



"Shouldn't that be assumed."  I think that is the core of our justice system....innocent until proven guilty, you know, that little thing we have in this country....except when it is inconvenient for the leftwing statists.....


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing keeping and bearing Arms with acquiring and possessing Arms for personal use as a private citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms.  I answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights.  They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state.  Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?
Click to expand...

Gun statistics already asked for their assumption, first.


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms.  I answered.
> 
> 
> 
> The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights.  They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state.  Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Shouldn't that be assumed."  I think that is the core of our justice system....innocent until proven guilty, you know, that little thing we have in this country....except when it is inconvenient for the leftwing statists.....
Click to expand...

Except, it doesn't work if the goals posts are moved via any law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked if I thought the militia could infringe on individuals who keep & bear arms.  I answered.
> 
> 
> 
> The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights.  They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state.  Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun statistics already asked for their assumption, first.
Click to expand...


More nonsense.

The gun stats show the exact opposite.

There are an estimated 75,000,000 legal gun owners in the US.

There are around 9k gun related murders every year.   So if all the gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (not even close) then 0.012% of gun owners have committed a murder with a gun.

In addition to the 9k gun murders there are around 22k people who commit suicide with a gun, 78,000 accidental gun related injuries and around 600 accidental gun deaths.   This puts the total harmed at 109,600.   Again, if all those were legal guns, they still only account for 0.15% of the legal gun owners.   In other words, 99.85% of the legal gun owners have not harmed anyone, including themselves, with their firearms.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is rights in private property may only be Infringed by Due Process, usually--while, keeping and bearing Arms may be Infringed, and denied and disparaged, to citizens in the several States for the security needs of a free State, by well regulated militias of the United States..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights.  They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state.  Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Shouldn't that be assumed."  I think that is the core of our justice system....innocent until proven guilty, you know, that little thing we have in this country....except when it is inconvenient for the leftwing statists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except, it doesn't work if the goals posts are moved via any law.
Click to expand...


So don't move the goal posts.


----------



## danielpalos

You are barking up the wrong tree; it is a "health and safety" issue.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights.  They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state.  Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Shouldn't that be assumed."  I think that is the core of our justice system....innocent until proven guilty, you know, that little thing we have in this country....except when it is inconvenient for the leftwing statists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except, it doesn't work if the goals posts are moved via any law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So don't move the goal posts.
Click to expand...

More nonsense.  Simply manufacturing Any laws is the equivalent to moving some goal posts.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> You are barking up the wrong tree; it is a "health and safety" issue.



No, it is absolutely not.   99.85% of the gun owners in this country have done no harm with their firearms.   (more if you consider the number of illegal guns that are not included in these stats)


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state.  Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Shouldn't that be assumed."  I think that is the core of our justice system....innocent until proven guilty, you know, that little thing we have in this country....except when it is inconvenient for the leftwing statists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except, it doesn't work if the goals posts are moved via any law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So don't move the goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More nonsense.  Simply manufacturing Any laws is the equivalent to moving some goal posts.
Click to expand...


Let's stick to this specific issue, shall we?   You mentioned that it doesn't work if the goal posts are moved via any law.

What law violates the "innocent until proven guilty" idea?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are barking up the wrong tree; it is a "health and safety" issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is absolutely not.   99.85% of the gun owners in this country have done no harm with their firearms.   (more if you consider the number of illegal guns that are not included in these stats)
Click to expand...

Are you claiming, Person on the Right, that Arms do not present any clear and present danger to any other Persons, like some plants?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state.  Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Shouldn't that be assumed."  I think that is the core of our justice system....innocent until proven guilty, you know, that little thing we have in this country....except when it is inconvenient for the leftwing statists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except, it doesn't work if the goals posts are moved via any law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So don't move the goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More nonsense.  Simply manufacturing Any laws is the equivalent to moving some goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's stick to this specific issue, shall we?   You mentioned that it doesn't work if the goal posts are moved via any law.
> 
> What law violates the "innocent until proven guilty" idea?
Click to expand...

Our Wars Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are barking up the wrong tree; it is a "health and safety" issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is absolutely not.   99.85% of the gun owners in this country have done no harm with their firearms.   (more if you consider the number of illegal guns that are not included in these stats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you claiming, Person on the Right, that Arms do not present any clear and present danger to any other Persons, like some plants?
Click to expand...


The guns do not present a danger at all.  It is the person that is dangerous.

Is there a small danger?   Sure.   Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right?   Absolutely not.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Shouldn't that be assumed."  I think that is the core of our justice system....innocent until proven guilty, you know, that little thing we have in this country....except when it is inconvenient for the leftwing statists.....
> 
> 
> 
> Except, it doesn't work if the goals posts are moved via any law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So don't move the goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More nonsense.  Simply manufacturing Any laws is the equivalent to moving some goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's stick to this specific issue, shall we?   You mentioned that it doesn't work if the goal posts are moved via any law.
> 
> What law violates the "innocent until proven guilty" idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Wars Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror.
Click to expand...


If someone is found to be under the influence of drugs, or reasonably suspect of such, they are taken into custody until a determination is made.

Crimes are punished, not prevented.

Terrorists are caught before their acts for breaking other laws.

Wars are not relevant to this conversation, since they operate under a different set of rules.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are barking up the wrong tree; it is a "health and safety" issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is absolutely not.   99.85% of the gun owners in this country have done no harm with their firearms.   (more if you consider the number of illegal guns that are not included in these stats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you claiming, Person on the Right, that Arms do not present any clear and present danger to any other Persons, like some plants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guns do not present a danger at all.  It is the person that is dangerous.
> 
> Is there a small danger?   Sure.   Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right?   Absolutely not.
Click to expand...


Arms are always a danger.  



> Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder. This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder. As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet. The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity.--Source: Gun - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Unlike plants.  Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right?  Absolutely not.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are barking up the wrong tree; it is a "health and safety" issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is absolutely not.   99.85% of the gun owners in this country have done no harm with their firearms.   (more if you consider the number of illegal guns that are not included in these stats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you claiming, Person on the Right, that Arms do not present any clear and present danger to any other Persons, like some plants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guns do not present a danger at all.  It is the person that is dangerous.
> 
> Is there a small danger?   Sure.   Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right?   Absolutely not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arms are always a danger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder. This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder. As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet. The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity.--Source: Gun - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Unlike plants.  Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right?  Absolutely not.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


No, they are not.   As I stated earlier, there are around 109,600 gun related murders, suicides, and accidental shootings annually.   There are 75 million legal gun owners.   That means that (again, assuming all the shootings involve a legally owned gun, which is obviously not true) 74,890,400 gun owners caused no one to be hurt or killed.

And a gun is not dangerous, in and of itself.  It requires action by a person to do any harm at all.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are barking up the wrong tree; it is a "health and safety" issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is absolutely not.   99.85% of the gun owners in this country have done no harm with their firearms.   (more if you consider the number of illegal guns that are not included in these stats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you claiming, Person on the Right, that Arms do not present any clear and present danger to any other Persons, like some plants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guns do not present a danger at all.  It is the person that is dangerous.
> 
> Is there a small danger?   Sure.   Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right?   Absolutely not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arms are always a danger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder. This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder. As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet. The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity.--Source: Gun - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Unlike plants.  Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right?  Absolutely not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.   As I stated earlier, there are around 109,600 gun related murders, suicides, and accidental shootings annually.   There are 75 million legal gun owners.   That means that (again, assuming all the shootings involve a legally owned gun, which is obviously not true) 74,890,400 gun owners caused no one to be hurt or killed.
> 
> And a gun is not dangerous, in and of itself.  It requires action by a person to do any harm at all.
Click to expand...

You are appealing to ignorance of the science of guns.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is absolutely not.   99.85% of the gun owners in this country have done no harm with their firearms.   (more if you consider the number of illegal guns that are not included in these stats)
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming, Person on the Right, that Arms do not present any clear and present danger to any other Persons, like some plants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guns do not present a danger at all.  It is the person that is dangerous.
> 
> Is there a small danger?   Sure.   Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right?   Absolutely not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arms are always a danger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder. This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder. As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet. The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity.--Source: Gun - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Unlike plants.  Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right?  Absolutely not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.   As I stated earlier, there are around 109,600 gun related murders, suicides, and accidental shootings annually.   There are 75 million legal gun owners.   That means that (again, assuming all the shootings involve a legally owned gun, which is obviously not true) 74,890,400 gun owners caused no one to be hurt or killed.
> 
> And a gun is not dangerous, in and of itself.  It requires action by a person to do any harm at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are appealing to ignorance of the science of guns.
Click to expand...


The science of guns?

Please tell me about the science of the gun and how it is a danger to anyone unless someone uses it or does something with it?     If a gun, even a loaded gun, is placed on a table, is it inherently dangerous?

I have been a hunter and recreational shooter for almost 5 decades.  My father was a recreational shooter for longer.  My grandfather was a hunter, recreational shooter and worked in law enforcement for several years.   None of us ever caused anyone the slightest harm with any of our guns.   The guns themselves are not the danger.  The lunatic or idiot holding them is the dangerous factor.


----------



## danielpalos

_Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder. 

This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder. 

As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet. 

The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity._

There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws of Nature.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> _Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder.
> 
> This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder.
> 
> As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet.
> 
> The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity._
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws of Nature.



Oh there is no argument that a gun, when used as a tool, is a powerful device.  

The argument is that it is not inherently dangerous without outside actions.    A gun does not fire itself.  The information about is reasonably accurate about what happens when a gun is fired.  But it requires that someone (or something) use force to operate or fired the gun.

To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance or the laws of nature.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder.
> 
> This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder.
> 
> As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet.
> 
> The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity._
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws of Nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh there is no argument that a gun, when used as a tool, is a powerful device.
> 
> The argument is that it is not inherently dangerous without outside actions.    A gun does not fire itself.  The information about is reasonably accurate about what happens when a gun is fired.  But it requires that someone (or something) use force to operate or fired the gun.
> 
> To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance or the laws of nature.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making my point.  Gun regulation is both necessary and proper as that form of private property in Commerce (well regulated).


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder.
> 
> This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder.
> 
> As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet.
> 
> The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity._
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws of Nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh there is no argument that a gun, when used as a tool, is a powerful device.
> 
> The argument is that it is not inherently dangerous without outside actions.    A gun does not fire itself.  The information about is reasonably accurate about what happens when a gun is fired.  But it requires that someone (or something) use force to operate or fired the gun.
> 
> To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance or the laws of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for making my point.  Gun regulation is both necessary and proper as that form of private property in Commerce (well regulated).
Click to expand...


LMAO!!    Your claims that a gun, with no outside force involved, is inherently dangerous makes a stronger point than anything else.

Yes, I agree with some of the regulations in place, such as those convicted of felonies or ruled insane should not have guns.

However, the attempt to claim that guns fall under the Commerce clause is ridiculous.   But if you want to make the claim that I have proven your point, I guess it makes you feel better.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder.
> 
> This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder.
> 
> As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet.
> 
> The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity._
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws of Nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh there is no argument that a gun, when used as a tool, is a powerful device.
> 
> The argument is that it is not inherently dangerous without outside actions.    A gun does not fire itself.  The information about is reasonably accurate about what happens when a gun is fired.  But it requires that someone (or something) use force to operate or fired the gun.
> 
> To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance or the laws of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for making my point.  Gun regulation is both necessary and proper as that form of private property in Commerce (well regulated).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!    Your claims that a gun, with no outside force involved, is inherently dangerous makes a stronger point than anything else.
> 
> Yes, I agree with some of the regulations in place, such as those convicted of felonies or ruled insane should not have guns.
> 
> However, the attempt to claim that guns fall under the Commerce clause is ridiculous.   But if you want to make the claim that I have proven your point, I guess it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...


Not at all; I am on the federal and liberal left.  I subscribe to the federal doctrine as described in the federalist papers and enumerated in our supreme law of the land.

Any Thing acquired and possessed as private property may be subject to a Commerce Clause; only the Part of Militia of the United States which is necessary and proper to the security of a free State is exempted due the keeping and bearing of Arms, as distinct from acquisition and possession of private property due to the subject of Arms being declared socialized for the Militia, as part of the Most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the Convention with our supreme law of the land.--they really did think of every Thing.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder.
> 
> This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder.
> 
> As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet.
> 
> The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity._
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws of Nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh there is no argument that a gun, when used as a tool, is a powerful device.
> 
> The argument is that it is not inherently dangerous without outside actions.    A gun does not fire itself.  The information about is reasonably accurate about what happens when a gun is fired.  But it requires that someone (or something) use force to operate or fired the gun.
> 
> To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance or the laws of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for making my point.  Gun regulation is both necessary and proper as that form of private property in Commerce (well regulated).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!    Your claims that a gun, with no outside force involved, is inherently dangerous makes a stronger point than anything else.
> 
> Yes, I agree with some of the regulations in place, such as those convicted of felonies or ruled insane should not have guns.
> 
> However, the attempt to claim that guns fall under the Commerce clause is ridiculous.   But if you want to make the claim that I have proven your point, I guess it makes you feel better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all; I am on the federal and liberal left.  I subscribe to the federal doctrine as described in the federalist papers and enumerated in our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Any Thing acquired and possessed as private property may be subject to a Commerce Clause; only the Part of Militia of the United States which is necessary and proper to the security of a free State is exempted due the keeping and bearing of Arms, as distinct from acquisition and possession of private property due to the subject of Arms being declared socialized, as part of the Most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the Convention with our supreme law of the land.--they really did think of every Thing.
Click to expand...


Yes they did.  That is why they wrote the 2nd amendment and made it separate from the section on militia.  This is part of why the SCOTUS ruled it an individual right, and specifically said it was unconnected with service in a militia.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder.
> 
> This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder.
> 
> As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet.
> 
> The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity._
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws of Nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh there is no argument that a gun, when used as a tool, is a powerful device.
> 
> The argument is that it is not inherently dangerous without outside actions.    A gun does not fire itself.  The information about is reasonably accurate about what happens when a gun is fired.  But it requires that someone (or something) use force to operate or fired the gun.
> 
> To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance or the laws of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for making my point.  Gun regulation is both necessary and proper as that form of private property in Commerce (well regulated).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!    Your claims that a gun, with no outside force involved, is inherently dangerous makes a stronger point than anything else.
> 
> Yes, I agree with some of the regulations in place, such as those convicted of felonies or ruled insane should not have guns.
> 
> However, the attempt to claim that guns fall under the Commerce clause is ridiculous.   But if you want to make the claim that I have proven your point, I guess it makes you feel better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all; I am on the federal and liberal left.  I subscribe to the federal doctrine as described in the federalist papers and enumerated in our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Any Thing acquired and possessed as private property may be subject to a Commerce Clause; only the Part of Militia of the United States which is necessary and proper to the security of a free State is exempted due the keeping and bearing of Arms, as distinct from acquisition and possession of private property due to the subject of Arms being declared socialized, as part of the Most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the Convention with our supreme law of the land.--they really did think of every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they did.  That is why they wrote the 2nd amendment and made it separate from the section on militia.  This is part of why the SCOTUS ruled it an individual right, and specifically said it was unconnected with service in a militia.
Click to expand...

If, it is an Individual right, then it must have come from a State Constitution.

_All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._

Why should anyone believe Individual rights are declared for what is necessary to the (collective) security of a free State, with the declared terms, militia and the people?

Here is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment:

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh there is no argument that a gun, when used as a tool, is a powerful device.
> 
> The argument is that it is not inherently dangerous without outside actions.    A gun does not fire itself.  The information about is reasonably accurate about what happens when a gun is fired.  But it requires that someone (or something) use force to operate or fired the gun.
> 
> To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance or the laws of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for making my point.  Gun regulation is both necessary and proper as that form of private property in Commerce (well regulated).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!    Your claims that a gun, with no outside force involved, is inherently dangerous makes a stronger point than anything else.
> 
> Yes, I agree with some of the regulations in place, such as those convicted of felonies or ruled insane should not have guns.
> 
> However, the attempt to claim that guns fall under the Commerce clause is ridiculous.   But if you want to make the claim that I have proven your point, I guess it makes you feel better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all; I am on the federal and liberal left.  I subscribe to the federal doctrine as described in the federalist papers and enumerated in our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Any Thing acquired and possessed as private property may be subject to a Commerce Clause; only the Part of Militia of the United States which is necessary and proper to the security of a free State is exempted due the keeping and bearing of Arms, as distinct from acquisition and possession of private property due to the subject of Arms being declared socialized, as part of the Most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the Convention with our supreme law of the land.--they really did think of every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they did.  That is why they wrote the 2nd amendment and made it separate from the section on militia.  This is part of why the SCOTUS ruled it an individual right, and specifically said it was unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If, it is an Individual right, then it must have come from a State Constitution.
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> Why should anyone believe Individual rights are declared for what is necessary to the (collective) security of a free State, with the declared terms, militia and the people?
> 
> Here is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
Click to expand...


Any rights only come from the states?    What nonsense.

The US Constitution guarantees a number of rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for making my point.  Gun regulation is both necessary and proper as that form of private property in Commerce (well regulated).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!    Your claims that a gun, with no outside force involved, is inherently dangerous makes a stronger point than anything else.
> 
> Yes, I agree with some of the regulations in place, such as those convicted of felonies or ruled insane should not have guns.
> 
> However, the attempt to claim that guns fall under the Commerce clause is ridiculous.   But if you want to make the claim that I have proven your point, I guess it makes you feel better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all; I am on the federal and liberal left.  I subscribe to the federal doctrine as described in the federalist papers and enumerated in our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Any Thing acquired and possessed as private property may be subject to a Commerce Clause; only the Part of Militia of the United States which is necessary and proper to the security of a free State is exempted due the keeping and bearing of Arms, as distinct from acquisition and possession of private property due to the subject of Arms being declared socialized, as part of the Most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the Convention with our supreme law of the land.--they really did think of every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they did.  That is why they wrote the 2nd amendment and made it separate from the section on militia.  This is part of why the SCOTUS ruled it an individual right, and specifically said it was unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If, it is an Individual right, then it must have come from a State Constitution.
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> Why should anyone believe Individual rights are declared for what is necessary to the (collective) security of a free State, with the declared terms, militia and the people?
> 
> Here is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any rights only come from the states?    What nonsense.
> 
> The US Constitution guarantees a number of rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Yes, rights in the federal districts come from the authority of our federal Constitution.  It really is that simple for the several Citizens in the several and sovereign and free States.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!    Your claims that a gun, with no outside force involved, is inherently dangerous makes a stronger point than anything else.
> 
> Yes, I agree with some of the regulations in place, such as those convicted of felonies or ruled insane should not have guns.
> 
> However, the attempt to claim that guns fall under the Commerce clause is ridiculous.   But if you want to make the claim that I have proven your point, I guess it makes you feel better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all; I am on the federal and liberal left.  I subscribe to the federal doctrine as described in the federalist papers and enumerated in our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Any Thing acquired and possessed as private property may be subject to a Commerce Clause; only the Part of Militia of the United States which is necessary and proper to the security of a free State is exempted due the keeping and bearing of Arms, as distinct from acquisition and possession of private property due to the subject of Arms being declared socialized, as part of the Most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the Convention with our supreme law of the land.--they really did think of every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they did.  That is why they wrote the 2nd amendment and made it separate from the section on militia.  This is part of why the SCOTUS ruled it an individual right, and specifically said it was unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If, it is an Individual right, then it must have come from a State Constitution.
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> Why should anyone believe Individual rights are declared for what is necessary to the (collective) security of a free State, with the declared terms, militia and the people?
> 
> Here is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any rights only come from the states?    What nonsense.
> 
> The US Constitution guarantees a number of rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, rights in the federal districts come from the authority of our federal Constitution.  It really is that simple for the several Citizens in the several and sovereign and free States.
Click to expand...


The rights in all 50 states plus federal districts come from the US Constitution first, and states second.


----------



## danielpalos

The general government is Only delegated the social Power to legislate "in all Cases whatsoever", in the federal districts, not in the several and sovereign and free States.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> The general government is Only delegated the social Power to legislate "in all Cases whatsoever", in the federal districts, not in the several and sovereign and free States.



The rights outlined in the first 10 amendments cannot be set aside by any state.  Nor can any constitutionally guaranteed right.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The general government is Only delegated the social Power to legislate "in all Cases whatsoever", in the federal districts, not in the several and sovereign and free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rights outlined in the first 10 amendments cannot be set aside by any state.  Nor can any constitutionally guaranteed right.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment clearly states what is necessary to the security of a free State--10USC311.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The general government is Only delegated the social Power to legislate "in all Cases whatsoever", in the federal districts, not in the several and sovereign and free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rights outlined in the first 10 amendments cannot be set aside by any state.  Nor can any constitutionally guaranteed right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states what is necessary to the security of a free State--10USC311.
Click to expand...


Our 2nd amendment clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.   And the highest court has ruled in that it is an individual right.


----------



## danielpalos

Our Second Amendment clearly states what is necessary to the security of a free State--10USC311--thus, the People who are a well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State; gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause, are not.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment clearly states what is necessary to the security of a free State--10USC311--thus, the People who are a well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State; gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause, are not.



The 2nd amendment clearly states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.".    And the SCOTUS has ruled that this is an individual right, unconnected to service in the militia.


----------



## PredFan

Come on people, Palos is an idiot troll. Let's leave this thread to talk about how gun grabbers Luke him are severely butthurt.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states what is necessary to the security of a free State--10USC311--thus, the People who are a well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State; gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause, are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment clearly states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.".    And the SCOTUS has ruled that this is an individual right, unconnected to service in the militia.
Click to expand...

If, the People are the Militia, then which Persons of the People may not be Infringed, literally; regardless of all of the other  ones?


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> Come on people, Palos is an idiot troll. Let's leave this thread to talk about how gun grabbers Luke him are severely butthurt.


the only idiots are the ones who are full of fallacy and have advanced degrees.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states what is necessary to the security of a free State--10USC311--thus, the People who are a well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State; gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause, are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment clearly states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.".    And the SCOTUS has ruled that this is an individual right, unconnected to service in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If, the People are the Militia, then which Persons of the People may not be Infringed, literally; regardless of all of the other  ones?
Click to expand...


I never said the people were the militia.  And SCOTUS has ruled that service in a militia is not required to enjoy the rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people, Palos is an idiot troll. Let's leave this thread to talk about how gun grabbers Luke him are severely butthurt.
> 
> 
> 
> the only idiots are the ones who are full of fallacy and have advanced degrees.
Click to expand...


No, I think those who makes claims that a SCOTUS ruling supports their position, when in fact, it specifically and explicitly contradicts that position, can be termed an idiot as well.

That you disagree with the SCOTUS does not matter.  Their ruling is the law of the land and they have been consistent.  So now, if it comes up again, that ruling (and others) provides precedent.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people, Palos is an idiot troll. Let's leave this thread to talk about how gun grabbers Luke him are severely butthurt.
> 
> 
> 
> the only idiots are the ones who are full of fallacy and have advanced degrees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I think those who makes claims that a SCOTUS ruling supports their position, when in fact, it specifically and explicitly contradicts that position, can be termed an idiot as well.
> 
> That you disagree with the SCOTUS does not matter.  Their ruling is the law of the land and they have been consistent.  So now, if it comes up again, that ruling (and others) provides precedent.
Click to expand...



Which facts are those?

If, the People are the Militia, then which Persons of the People (10USC311) may not be Infringed, literally; regardless of all of the other ones.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on people, Palos is an idiot troll. Let's leave this thread to talk about how gun grabbers Luke him are severely butthurt.
> 
> 
> 
> the only idiots are the ones who are full of fallacy and have advanced degrees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I think those who makes claims that a SCOTUS ruling supports their position, when in fact, it specifically and explicitly contradicts that position, can be termed an idiot as well.
> 
> That you disagree with the SCOTUS does not matter.  Their ruling is the law of the land and they have been consistent.  So now, if it comes up again, that ruling (and others) provides precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which facts are those?
> 
> If, the People are the Militia, then which Persons of the People (10USC311) may not be Infringed, literally; regardless of all of the other ones.
Click to expand...


The people are the militia when needed.  But the US Code does NOT override the US Constitution, no matter how many times you post it.  And the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not dependent on service in a militia, no matter how many times you try and claim differently.  A citizens militia can be created from armed citizens, which can also remove a tyrannical gov't, both foreign & domestic.  A gov't operated militia could not.  Which is one of the reasons Madison wrote the 2nd amendment separately from the main body of the US Constitution which covers militia.  If they had intended the 2nd amendment to only apply to the gov't militia, they would not have amde the 2nd amendment separate.


----------



## danielpalos

US Code complements our Constitution; 10USC311 merely defines the term, _militia_.  

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.

Which facts are those?

If, the People are the Militia, then which Persons of the People (10USC311) may not be Infringed, literally; regardless of all of the other ones.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> US Code complements our Constitution; 10USC311 merely defines the term, _militia_.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Which facts are those?
> 
> If, the People are the Militia, then which Persons of the People (10USC311) may not be Infringed, literally; regardless of all of the other ones.



The fact is that the founding fathers never intended for the 2nd amendment to refer only to gov't militias.    That is why it is not in the section which discusses militia.  That is also why the SCOTUS ruled as it did.

Which facts?   How about the fact that the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.  How about the fact that the SCOTUS has never ruled that the 2nd amendment refers to state's rights or that it is reserved only for militia.   With those two facts your claims fold like a cheap lawn chair.


----------



## danielpalos

Are you claiming the People are not the Militia?

Isn't that disingenuous.

If, the People are the Militia, then which Persons of the People (10USC311) may not be Infringed, literally; regardless of all of the other ones.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Are you claiming the People are not the Militia?
> 
> Isn't that disingenuous.
> 
> If, the People are the Militia, then which Persons of the People (10USC311) may not be Infringed, literally; regardless of all of the other ones.



No, I am not saying the people are not militia.


----------



## danielpalos

The _People_ are the _Militia_.

Our Second Amendment is not ambiguous at all.

_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._

Thus, Only well regulated *Militias of the People* may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> The _People_ are the _Militia_.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not ambiguous at all.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Thus, Only well regulated *Militias of the People* may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.



A citizens militia is formed as needed.  An armed people makes that possible.   The 2nd amendment is not solely for state militias.  The SCOTUS has ruled on that consistently as well.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _People_ are the _Militia_.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not ambiguous at all.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Thus, Only well regulated *Militias of the People* may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A citizens militia is formed as needed.  An armed people makes that possible.   The 2nd amendment is not solely for state militias.  The SCOTUS has ruled on that consistently as well.
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.


----------



## danielpalos

Dear gun lovers,

Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.

_*Posse comitatus* is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--S_ource: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _People_ are the _Militia_.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not ambiguous at all.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Thus, Only well regulated *Militias of the People* may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A citizens militia is formed as needed.  An armed people makes that possible.   The 2nd amendment is not solely for state militias.  The SCOTUS has ruled on that consistently as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.
Click to expand...


It defines the militia run by the gov't.   The US Code does not override the 2nd amendment, which is an individual right.   This has been settled by the highest court in the land.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _People_ are the _Militia_.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not ambiguous at all.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Thus, Only well regulated *Militias of the People* may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A citizens militia is formed as needed.  An armed people makes that possible.   The 2nd amendment is not solely for state militias.  The SCOTUS has ruled on that consistently as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It defines the militia run by the gov't.   The US Code does not override the 2nd amendment, which is an individual right.   This has been settled by the highest court in the land.
Click to expand...


This is what our Second Amendment means: Only well regulated *Militias of the People* may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

_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._

A Posse is not a Militia.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Dear gun lovers,
> 
> Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.
> 
> _*Posse comitatus* is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--S_ource: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



Dear Pretend Legal scholars

Please do not subscribe to the idea that the US Supreme Court rulings have ever stated that the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Should we ask for a (writ of) mandate to quibble a few points of contention.

_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._

Arms for the People of the Militia but not the People of the Posse are declared Socialized, should we need to quibble in legal venues.

_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;_

By simply being wise enough to socialize Arms for the Militia of the United States our Founding Fathers were most unambiguous in our Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Should we ask for a (writ of) mandate to quibble a few points of contention.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Arms for the People of the Militia but not the People of the Posse are declared Socialized, should we need to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> _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;_
> 
> By simply being wise enough to socialize Arms for the Militia of the United States our Founding Fathers were most unambiguous in our Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land.



It has already been quibbled over.   It went all the way to the US Supreme Court in DC v. Heller.    They ruled that it is an individual right.

" 1. The Second Amendment protects an* individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should we ask for a (writ of) mandate to quibble a few points of contention.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Arms for the People of the Militia but not the People of the Posse are declared Socialized, should we need to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> _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;_
> 
> By simply being wise enough to socialize Arms for the Militia of the United States our Founding Fathers were most unambiguous in our Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has already been quibbled over.   It went all the way to the US Supreme Court in DC v. Heller.    They ruled that it is an individual right.
> 
> " 1. The Second Amendment protects an* individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia and the militia is defined in 10USC311; the Judicature does not get to define what the militia is or is not regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should we ask for a (writ of) mandate to quibble a few points of contention.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Arms for the People of the Militia but not the People of the Posse are declared Socialized, should we need to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> _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;_
> 
> By simply being wise enough to socialize Arms for the Militia of the United States our Founding Fathers were most unambiguous in our Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has already been quibbled over.   It went all the way to the US Supreme Court in DC v. Heller.    They ruled that it is an individual right.
> 
> " 1. The Second Amendment protects an* individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia and the militia is defined in 10USC311; the Judicature does not get to define what the militia is or is not regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


They didn't.  They ruled that the 2nd amendment was an individual right, as they should have.  The writings of Madison and the fact that the right is detailed in an amendment and not in the section concerning militia shows this.

The SCOTUS did not define the militia at all.  They simply, and correctly, ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.


----------



## turtledude

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear gun lovers,
> 
> Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.
> 
> _*Posse comitatus* is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--S_ource: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Pretend Legal scholars
> 
> Please do not subscribe to the idea that the US Supreme Court rulings have ever stated that the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
Click to expand...


Danbot has admitted on other forums he has no legal training.  I, having lectured at several accredited law schools and having a law degree, knew that the minute I read his aborted English psychobabble

IGNORE THE BOT


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should we ask for a (writ of) mandate to quibble a few points of contention.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Arms for the People of the Militia but not the People of the Posse are declared Socialized, should we need to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> _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;_
> 
> By simply being wise enough to socialize Arms for the Militia of the United States our Founding Fathers were most unambiguous in our Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has already been quibbled over.   It went all the way to the US Supreme Court in DC v. Heller.    They ruled that it is an individual right.
> 
> " 1. The Second Amendment protects an* individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia and the militia is defined in 10USC311; the Judicature does not get to define what the militia is or is not regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't.  They ruled that the 2nd amendment was an individual right, as they should have.  The writings of Madison and the fact that the right is detailed i an amendment and not in the section concerning militia shows this.
> 
> The SCOTUS did not define the militia at all.  They simply, and correctly, ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.
Click to expand...

The People are the  Militia; Arms are declared _Socialized_ for the Militia in Article 1, Section 8; thus, no rights in private property can be established via the Militia clause of our Second Amendment..


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear gun lovers,
> 
> Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.
> 
> _*Posse comitatus* is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--S_ource: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Pretend Legal scholars
> 
> Please do not subscribe to the idea that the US Supreme Court rulings have ever stated that the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Danbot has admitted on other forums he has no legal training.  I, having lectured at several accredited law schools and having a law degree, knew that the minute I read his aborted English psychobabble
> 
> IGNORE THE BOT
Click to expand...

turtledude has claimed to be every Thing under the sun.  Ignore the ones who are the most full of fallacy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should we ask for a (writ of) mandate to quibble a few points of contention.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Arms for the People of the Militia but not the People of the Posse are declared Socialized, should we need to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> _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;_
> 
> By simply being wise enough to socialize Arms for the Militia of the United States our Founding Fathers were most unambiguous in our Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has already been quibbled over.   It went all the way to the US Supreme Court in DC v. Heller.    They ruled that it is an individual right.
> 
> " 1. The Second Amendment protects an* individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia and the militia is defined in 10USC311; the Judicature does not get to define what the militia is or is not regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't.  They ruled that the 2nd amendment was an individual right, as they should have.  The writings of Madison and the fact that the right is detailed i an amendment and not in the section concerning militia shows this.
> 
> The SCOTUS did not define the militia at all.  They simply, and correctly, ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the  Militia; Arms are declared _Socialized_ for the Militia in Article 1, Section 8; thus, no rights in private property can be established via the Militia clause of our Second Amendment..
Click to expand...


Not all the people are the militia.   And the militia clause does not need to establish property rights.  The second clause establishes that quite nicely.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear gun lovers,
> 
> Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.
> 
> _*Posse comitatus* is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--S_ource: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Pretend Legal scholars
> 
> Please do not subscribe to the idea that the US Supreme Court rulings have ever stated that the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Danbot has admitted on other forums he has no legal training.  I, having lectured at several accredited law schools and having a law degree, knew that the minute I read his aborted English psychobabble
> 
> IGNORE THE BOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> turtledude has claimed to be every Thing under the sun.  Ignore the ones who are the most full of fallacy.
Click to expand...


But you have no real legal training, do you?    You have a fondness for vocabulary and think that makes a difference.  It doesn't.    You have been shown to be wrong on several different fronts.  But you refuse to admit it.


----------



## turtledude

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear gun lovers,
> 
> Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.
> 
> _*Posse comitatus* is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--S_ource: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Pretend Legal scholars
> 
> Please do not subscribe to the idea that the US Supreme Court rulings have ever stated that the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Danbot has admitted on other forums he has no legal training.  I, having lectured at several accredited law schools and having a law degree, knew that the minute I read his aborted English psychobabble
> 
> IGNORE THE BOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> turtledude has claimed to be every Thing under the sun.  Ignore the ones who are the most full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you have no real legal training, do you?    You have a fondness for vocabulary and think that makes a difference.  It doesn't.    You have been shown to be wrong on several different fronts.  But you refuse to admit it.
Click to expand...


of course he doesn't have any legal training.  and his use of English appears to be either an affectation caused by a mental illness or due to his programmer not being especially skilled.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should we ask for a (writ of) mandate to quibble a few points of contention.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Arms for the People of the Militia but not the People of the Posse are declared Socialized, should we need to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> _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;_
> 
> By simply being wise enough to socialize Arms for the Militia of the United States our Founding Fathers were most unambiguous in our Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has already been quibbled over.   It went all the way to the US Supreme Court in DC v. Heller.    They ruled that it is an individual right.
> 
> " 1. The Second Amendment protects an* individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia and the militia is defined in 10USC311; the Judicature does not get to define what the militia is or is not regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't.  They ruled that the 2nd amendment was an individual right, as they should have.  The writings of Madison and the fact that the right is detailed i an amendment and not in the section concerning militia shows this.
> 
> The SCOTUS did not define the militia at all.  They simply, and correctly, ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the  Militia; Arms are declared _Socialized_ for the Militia in Article 1, Section 8; thus, no rights in private property can be established via the Militia clause of our Second Amendment..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all the people are the militia.   And the militia clause does not need to establish property rights.  The second clause establishes that quite nicely.
Click to expand...

No one is claiming our Second Amendment establishes any rights in private property.  Mere possession is Only nine-tenths of the law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear gun lovers,
> 
> Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.
> 
> _*Posse comitatus* is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--S_ource: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Pretend Legal scholars
> 
> Please do not subscribe to the idea that the US Supreme Court rulings have ever stated that the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Danbot has admitted on other forums he has no legal training.  I, having lectured at several accredited law schools and having a law degree, knew that the minute I read his aborted English psychobabble
> 
> IGNORE THE BOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> turtledude has claimed to be every Thing under the sun.  Ignore the ones who are the most full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you have no real legal training, do you?    You have a fondness for vocabulary and think that makes a difference.  It doesn't.    You have been shown to be wrong on several different fronts.  But you refuse to admit it.
Click to expand...

dude; I know how to read and resort to the fewest fallacies.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear gun lovers,
> 
> Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.
> 
> _*Posse comitatus* is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--S_ource: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Pretend Legal scholars
> 
> Please do not subscribe to the idea that the US Supreme Court rulings have ever stated that the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Danbot has admitted on other forums he has no legal training.  I, having lectured at several accredited law schools and having a law degree, knew that the minute I read his aborted English psychobabble
> 
> IGNORE THE BOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> turtledude has claimed to be every Thing under the sun.  Ignore the ones who are the most full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you have no real legal training, do you?    You have a fondness for vocabulary and think that makes a difference.  It doesn't.    You have been shown to be wrong on several different fronts.  But you refuse to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course he doesn't have any legal training.  and his use of English appears to be either an affectation caused by a mental illness or due to his programmer not being especially skilled.
Click to expand...

says the guy who claims to have all of the training in the world.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear gun lovers,
> 
> Please do not subscribe to fallacies of false Cause and Composition as they are appeals to ignorance of the law in legal venues.
> 
> _*Posse comitatus* is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--S_ource: Posse comitatus common law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Pretend Legal scholars
> 
> Please do not subscribe to the idea that the US Supreme Court rulings have ever stated that the 2nd amendment is anything but an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Danbot has admitted on other forums he has no legal training.  I, having lectured at several accredited law schools and having a law degree, knew that the minute I read his aborted English psychobabble
> 
> IGNORE THE BOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> turtledude has claimed to be every Thing under the sun.  Ignore the ones who are the most full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you have no real legal training, do you?    You have a fondness for vocabulary and think that makes a difference.  It doesn't.    You have been shown to be wrong on several different fronts.  But you refuse to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; I know how to read and resort to the fewest fallacies.
Click to expand...


Fewest fallacies?

1) You claimed the DC v. Heller supported your position (that the 2nd is for militia only). 
2) You claim that the statistics show guns are a threat to our nation.
3) You claim guns are inherently dangerous without outside forces.
4) You claim the Federalist papers support your position (that the 2nd is for militia only).
5) You claim that the 2nd was intended to provide weapons for state militias.


That is 5 that I can think of off the top of my head.


----------



## turtledude

WinterBorn said:


> Fewest fallacies?
> 
> 1) You claimed the DC v. Heller supported your position (that the 2nd is for militia only).
> 2) You claim that the statistics show guns are a threat to our nation.
> 3) You claim guns are inherently dangerous without outside forces.
> 4) You claim the Federalist papers support your position (that the 2nd is for militia only).
> 5) You claim that the 2nd was intended to provide weapons for state militias.
> 
> 
> That is 5 that I can think of off the top of my head.


He's a fucking bot.  he spews idiocy in an effort to troll people.  he does this on numerous boards-several of which he has been banned on.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has already been quibbled over.   It went all the way to the US Supreme Court in DC v. Heller.    They ruled that it is an individual right.
> 
> " 1. The Second Amendment protects an* individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia and the militia is defined in 10USC311; the Judicature does not get to define what the militia is or is not regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't.  They ruled that the 2nd amendment was an individual right, as they should have.  The writings of Madison and the fact that the right is detailed i an amendment and not in the section concerning militia shows this.
> 
> The SCOTUS did not define the militia at all.  They simply, and correctly, ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the  Militia; Arms are declared _Socialized_ for the Militia in Article 1, Section 8; thus, no rights in private property can be established via the Militia clause of our Second Amendment..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all the people are the militia.   And the militia clause does not need to establish property rights.  The second clause establishes that quite nicely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is claiming our Second Amendment establishes any rights in private property.  Mere possession is Only nine-tenths of the law.
Click to expand...


No, but you DID claim that no property rights can be claimed via the militia clause of the 2nd, like that means something.  It does not address property rights at all.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia and the militia is defined in 10USC311; the Judicature does not get to define what the militia is or is not regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't.  They ruled that the 2nd amendment was an individual right, as they should have.  The writings of Madison and the fact that the right is detailed i an amendment and not in the section concerning militia shows this.
> 
> The SCOTUS did not define the militia at all.  They simply, and correctly, ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the  Militia; Arms are declared _Socialized_ for the Militia in Article 1, Section 8; thus, no rights in private property can be established via the Militia clause of our Second Amendment..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all the people are the militia.   And the militia clause does not need to establish property rights.  The second clause establishes that quite nicely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is claiming our Second Amendment establishes any rights in private property.  Mere possession is Only nine-tenths of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but you DID claim that no property rights can be claimed via the militia clause of the 2nd, like that means something.  It does not address property rights at all.
Click to expand...

No.  I did not say that simply because I distinguish between acquiring and possessing and keeping and bearing, merely to resort to the fewest fallacies in any given venue.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't.  They ruled that the 2nd amendment was an individual right, as they should have.  The writings of Madison and the fact that the right is detailed i an amendment and not in the section concerning militia shows this.
> 
> The SCOTUS did not define the militia at all.  They simply, and correctly, ruled that the 2nd is an individual right.
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the  Militia; Arms are declared _Socialized_ for the Militia in Article 1, Section 8; thus, no rights in private property can be established via the Militia clause of our Second Amendment..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all the people are the militia.   And the militia clause does not need to establish property rights.  The second clause establishes that quite nicely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is claiming our Second Amendment establishes any rights in private property.  Mere possession is Only nine-tenths of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but you DID claim that no property rights can be claimed via the militia clause of the 2nd, like that means something.  It does not address property rights at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I did not say that simply because I distinguish between acquiring and possessing and keeping and bearing, merely to resort to the fewest fallacies in any given venue.
Click to expand...


You cannot distinguish between a ruling that supports your contention and one that does not.

But, for the record, I meant to say that you "can't".  But you resorting to claiming that the "militia clause" addresses anything about property rights is laughable.


----------



## danielpalos

I only distinguish because the terms keep and bear are found in our Second Amendment while _acquire and possess_, denoting specifically, rights in private property regardless of militia service is to be found in State Constitutions.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> I only distinguish because the terms keep and bear are found in our Second Amendment while _acquire and possess_, denoting specifically, rights in private property regardless of militia service is to be found in State Constitutions.



State constitutions are irrelevant in this discussion.

If your arguing is based on the meaning of "keep and bear", you have lost.   There is no ambiguity in what that means.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only distinguish because the terms keep and bear are found in our Second Amendment while _acquire and possess_, denoting specifically, rights in private property regardless of militia service is to be found in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State constitutions are irrelevant in this discussion.
> 
> If your arguing is based on the meaning of "keep and bear", you have lost.   There is no ambiguity in what that means.
Click to expand...

How did I lose?  

Keep and bear has military significance, acquire and possess does not.  Thus, militia service can have bearing and Standing.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Militia clause of our Second Amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only distinguish because the terms keep and bear are found in our Second Amendment while _acquire and possess_, denoting specifically, rights in private property regardless of militia service is to be found in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State constitutions are irrelevant in this discussion.
> 
> If your arguing is based on the meaning of "keep and bear", you have lost.   There is no ambiguity in what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did I lose?
> 
> Keep and bear has military significance, acquire and possess does not.  Thus, militia service can have bearing and Standing.
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the Militia clause of our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


"Keep" and "bear" have significance.  They are not military terms.  They are simple words with basic meanings.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only distinguish because the terms keep and bear are found in our Second Amendment while _acquire and possess_, denoting specifically, rights in private property regardless of militia service is to be found in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State constitutions are irrelevant in this discussion.
> 
> If your arguing is based on the meaning of "keep and bear", you have lost.   There is no ambiguity in what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did I lose?
> 
> Keep and bear has military significance, acquire and possess does not.  Thus, militia service can have bearing and Standing.
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the Militia clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Keep" and "bear" have significance.  They are not military terms.  They are simple words with basic meanings.
Click to expand...

Those terms have military significance, not civilian significance.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only distinguish because the terms keep and bear are found in our Second Amendment while _acquire and possess_, denoting specifically, rights in private property regardless of militia service is to be found in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State constitutions are irrelevant in this discussion.
> 
> If your arguing is based on the meaning of "keep and bear", you have lost.   There is no ambiguity in what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did I lose?
> 
> Keep and bear has military significance, acquire and possess does not.  Thus, militia service can have bearing and Standing.
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the Militia clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Keep" and "bear" have significance.  They are not military terms.  They are simple words with basic meanings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those terms have military significance, not civilian significance.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.   Are you saying that "keep" is a military term?   "Bear" is a military term?   Absolute hogwash.

While "bear" may have fallen into less use over the 2+ centuries, it is certainly not a military term.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only distinguish because the terms keep and bear are found in our Second Amendment while _acquire and possess_, denoting specifically, rights in private property regardless of militia service is to be found in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State constitutions are irrelevant in this discussion.
> 
> If your arguing is based on the meaning of "keep and bear", you have lost.   There is no ambiguity in what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did I lose?
> 
> Keep and bear has military significance, acquire and possess does not.  Thus, militia service can have bearing and Standing.
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the Militia clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Keep" and "bear" have significance.  They are not military terms.  They are simple words with basic meanings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those terms have military significance, not civilian significance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.   Are you saying that "keep" is a military term?   "Bear" is a military term?   Absolute hogwash.
> 
> While "bear" may have fallen into less use over the 2+ centuries, it is certainly not a military term.
Click to expand...

Yes, they must be military terms for a Militia, but not civilians of the People who may acquire and possess private property without any militia service


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> State constitutions are irrelevant in this discussion.
> 
> If your arguing is based on the meaning of "keep and bear", you have lost.   There is no ambiguity in what that means.
> 
> 
> 
> How did I lose?
> 
> Keep and bear has military significance, acquire and possess does not.  Thus, militia service can have bearing and Standing.
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the Militia clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Keep" and "bear" have significance.  They are not military terms.  They are simple words with basic meanings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those terms have military significance, not civilian significance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.   Are you saying that "keep" is a military term?   "Bear" is a military term?   Absolute hogwash.
> 
> While "bear" may have fallen into less use over the 2+ centuries, it is certainly not a military term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they must be military terms for a Militia, but not civilians of the People who may acquire and possess private property without any militia service
Click to expand...


They must be?    Why must they be?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I lose?
> 
> Keep and bear has military significance, acquire and possess does not.  Thus, militia service can have bearing and Standing.
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the Militia clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Keep" and "bear" have significance.  They are not military terms.  They are simple words with basic meanings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those terms have military significance, not civilian significance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.   Are you saying that "keep" is a military term?   "Bear" is a military term?   Absolute hogwash.
> 
> While "bear" may have fallen into less use over the 2+ centuries, it is certainly not a military term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they must be military terms for a Militia, but not civilians of the People who may acquire and possess private property without any militia service
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must be?    Why must they be?
Click to expand...

Simply because, keep and bear means something specific to a militia that is not found in purely civilian affairs where a Sheriff can "commandeer" gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, under His authority.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Keep" and "bear" have significance.  They are not military terms.  They are simple words with basic meanings.
> 
> 
> 
> Those terms have military significance, not civilian significance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.   Are you saying that "keep" is a military term?   "Bear" is a military term?   Absolute hogwash.
> 
> While "bear" may have fallen into less use over the 2+ centuries, it is certainly not a military term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they must be military terms for a Militia, but not civilians of the People who may acquire and possess private property without any militia service
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must be?    Why must they be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply because, keep and bear means something specific to a militia that is not found in purely civilian affairs where a Sheriff can "commandeer" gun lovers without any clue and any Cause, under His authority.
Click to expand...


No, they mean the same in both places.


----------



## danielpalos

Acquire and possess _must be distinct_ from keep and bear since they are different processes with different goals.

Acquire and possess can be accomplished at a store for that class of private property.


Keep and bear is something well regulated militias may have to do, for the security and domestic Tranquillity of a free State.


----------



## WinterBorn

The word "keep" is a simple word.  Used in all sorts of modern phrases.  "Keep your hands to yourself", "Keep off the grass", and more.  There is nothing militia related about it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> The word "keep" is a simple word.  Used in all sorts of modern phrases.  "Keep your hands to yourself", "Keep off the grass", and more.  There is nothing militia related about it.


_Keep and bear_ are the terms used.  And, in that string of words, have a very specific meaning regarding any Militia of the People.

_To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_


----------



## WinterBorn

"Keep and bear" are simple words.  Your attempt to attach military significance to them is ridiculous.  Or as you might say it, "there is no appeal to ignorance of vocabulary".   Unless you have a link showing this to be more than a weak attempt at continuing this nonsense, I'm done.


----------



## danielpalos

Sounds like we may need a writ of mandate to settle this issue.

There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.  

The People are the Militia.  Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Sounds like we may need a writ of mandate to settle this issue.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.



No need for a writ of mandate.  It has already been settled by the highest court in the nation, as I have stated numerous times.

And just as an FYI:

From Merriam-Webster
"*keep*
_verb_ \ˈkēp\
:* to continue having or holding (something) : to not return, lose, sell, give away, or throw away (something)*

: to continue in a specified state, condition, or position

: to cause (someone or something) to continue in a specified state, condition, or position"


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like we may need a writ of mandate to settle this issue.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for a writ of mandate.  It has already been settled by the highest court in the nation, as I have stated numerous times.
> 
> And just as an FYI:
> 
> From Merriam-Webster
> "*keep*
> _verb_ \ˈkēp\
> :* to continue having or holding (something) : to not return, lose, sell, give away, or throw away (something)*
> 
> : to continue in a specified state, condition, or position
> 
> : to cause (someone or something) to continue in a specified state, condition, or position"
Click to expand...

I didn't see this argument in any holding.

There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.  Both terms are plural, not Individual.

Keep is not the Only term used.  Keep is presented with bear; which has specific military applications for a militia, but not Individuals merely acquiring and possessing private property in the class called Arms.

The People are the Militia.  A well regulated Militia of the People is necessary to the security of a free State.  Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like we may need a writ of mandate to settle this issue.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for a writ of mandate.  It has already been settled by the highest court in the nation, as I have stated numerous times.
> 
> And just as an FYI:
> 
> From Merriam-Webster
> "*keep*
> _verb_ \ˈkēp\
> :* to continue having or holding (something) : to not return, lose, sell, give away, or throw away (something)*
> 
> : to continue in a specified state, condition, or position
> 
> : to cause (someone or something) to continue in a specified state, condition, or position"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't see this argument in any holding.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.  Both terms are plural, not Individual.
> 
> Keep is not the Only term used.  Keep is presented with bear; which has specific military applications for a militia, but not Individuals merely acquiring and possessing private property in the class called Arms.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  A well regulated Militia of the People is necessary to the security of a free State.  Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


"Bear" is not a military term.   This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.

And of course "the People" is plural.   The amendment cover all citizens.  Even back then there were more than one.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like we may need a writ of mandate to settle this issue.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for a writ of mandate.  It has already been settled by the highest court in the nation, as I have stated numerous times.
> 
> And just as an FYI:
> 
> From Merriam-Webster
> "*keep*
> _verb_ \ˈkēp\
> :* to continue having or holding (something) : to not return, lose, sell, give away, or throw away (something)*
> 
> : to continue in a specified state, condition, or position
> 
> : to cause (someone or something) to continue in a specified state, condition, or position"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't see this argument in any holding.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.  Both terms are plural, not Individual.
> 
> Keep is not the Only term used.  Keep is presented with bear; which has specific military applications for a militia, but not Individuals merely acquiring and possessing private property in the class called Arms.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  A well regulated Militia of the People is necessary to the security of a free State.  Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Bear" is not a military term.   This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.
> 
> And of course "the People" is plural.   The amendment cover all citizens.  Even back then there were more than one.
Click to expand...


Yes, bear is a military term.  To bear Arms for our Republic is one such usage.

The People is plural as is Militia but not Individual.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like we may need a writ of mandate to settle this issue.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for a writ of mandate.  It has already been settled by the highest court in the nation, as I have stated numerous times.
> 
> And just as an FYI:
> 
> From Merriam-Webster
> "*keep*
> _verb_ \ˈkēp\
> :* to continue having or holding (something) : to not return, lose, sell, give away, or throw away (something)*
> 
> : to continue in a specified state, condition, or position
> 
> : to cause (someone or something) to continue in a specified state, condition, or position"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't see this argument in any holding.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.  Both terms are plural, not Individual.
> 
> Keep is not the Only term used.  Keep is presented with bear; which has specific military applications for a militia, but not Individuals merely acquiring and possessing private property in the class called Arms.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  A well regulated Militia of the People is necessary to the security of a free State.  Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Bear" is not a military term.   This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.
> 
> And of course "the People" is plural.   The amendment cover all citizens.  Even back then there were more than one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, bear is a military term.  To bear Arms for our Republic is one such usage.
> 
> The People is plural as is Militia but not Individual.
Click to expand...


Absolutely ridiculous.

The word "bear" may not be part of the common vernacular, but there is nothing at all to suggest that it relates only to a militia.   You are grasping at straws.   There is no appeal to ignorance of vocabulary.

The 4th amendment uses the word "people" too.  Does that mean that only the state or a militia is guaranteed to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


And if "people" means the state, then why does the 10th amendment say "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, *or* to the people."?

The 10th amendment makes it VERY obvious that "the people" and "the state(s)" are not the same thing at all.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like we may need a writ of mandate to settle this issue.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for a writ of mandate.  It has already been settled by the highest court in the nation, as I have stated numerous times.
> 
> And just as an FYI:
> 
> From Merriam-Webster
> "*keep*
> _verb_ \ˈkēp\
> :* to continue having or holding (something) : to not return, lose, sell, give away, or throw away (something)*
> 
> : to continue in a specified state, condition, or position
> 
> : to cause (someone or something) to continue in a specified state, condition, or position"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't see this argument in any holding.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.  Both terms are plural, not Individual.
> 
> Keep is not the Only term used.  Keep is presented with bear; which has specific military applications for a militia, but not Individuals merely acquiring and possessing private property in the class called Arms.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  A well regulated Militia of the People is necessary to the security of a free State.  Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Bear" is not a military term.   This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.
> 
> And of course "the People" is plural.   The amendment cover all citizens.  Even back then there were more than one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, bear is a military term.  To bear Arms for our Republic is one such usage.
> 
> The People is plural as is Militia but not Individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> The word "bear" may not be part of the common vernacular, but there is nothing at all to suggest that it relates only to a militia.   You are grasping at straws.   There is no appeal to ignorance of vocabulary.
> 
> The 4th amendment uses the word "people" too.  Does that mean that only the state or a militia is guaranteed to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects?
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> 
> 
> And if "people" means the state, then why does the 10th amendment say "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, *or* to the people."?
> 
> The 10th amendment makes it VERY obvious that "the people" and "the state(s)" are not the same thing at all.
Click to expand...

How can I be grasping at straws when those terms were included by our Founding Fathers in an amendment that contains a militia clause.  

A militia is a military body of the citizenry and military terms are appropriate.  Individual terms are not appropriate in our Second Amendment since the Intent and Purpose is the security of a free State, not security of Individual rights in private property.  

Because, Arms are declared socialized for the Militia should there be any need to quibble this point in legal venues; simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself and cannot be read on its own should there be Any ambiguity.

The Fourth Amendment does not contain a militia clause.  Both the People and the Militia are collective, not Individual.

The Tenth Amendment also covers Body politics such as States and the People in their collective capacity as the electorate and citizenry in the several States; with corresponding privileges and immunities.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for a writ of mandate.  It has already been settled by the highest court in the nation, as I have stated numerous times.
> 
> And just as an FYI:
> 
> From Merriam-Webster
> "*keep*
> _verb_ \ˈkēp\
> :* to continue having or holding (something) : to not return, lose, sell, give away, or throw away (something)*
> 
> : to continue in a specified state, condition, or position
> 
> : to cause (someone or something) to continue in a specified state, condition, or position"
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see this argument in any holding.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.  Both terms are plural, not Individual.
> 
> Keep is not the Only term used.  Keep is presented with bear; which has specific military applications for a militia, but not Individuals merely acquiring and possessing private property in the class called Arms.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  A well regulated Militia of the People is necessary to the security of a free State.  Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Bear" is not a military term.   This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.
> 
> And of course "the People" is plural.   The amendment cover all citizens.  Even back then there were more than one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, bear is a military term.  To bear Arms for our Republic is one such usage.
> 
> The People is plural as is Militia but not Individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> The word "bear" may not be part of the common vernacular, but there is nothing at all to suggest that it relates only to a militia.   You are grasping at straws.   There is no appeal to ignorance of vocabulary.
> 
> The 4th amendment uses the word "people" too.  Does that mean that only the state or a militia is guaranteed to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects?
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> 
> 
> And if "people" means the state, then why does the 10th amendment say "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, *or* to the people."?
> 
> The 10th amendment makes it VERY obvious that "the people" and "the state(s)" are not the same thing at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can I be grasping at straws when those terms were included by our Founding Fathers in an amendment that contains a militia clause.
> 
> A militia is a military body of the citizenry and military terms are appropriate.  Individual terms are not appropriate in our Second Amendment since the Intent and Purpose is the security of a free State, not security of Individual rights in private property.
> 
> Because, Arms are declared socialized for the Militia should there be any need to quibble this point in legal venues; simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself and cannot be read on its own should there be Any ambiguity.
> 
> The Fourth Amendment does not contain a militia clause.  Both the People and the Militia are collective, not Individual.
> 
> The Tenth Amendment also covers Body politics such as States and the People in their collective capacity as the electorate and citizenry in the several States; with corresponding privileges and immunities.
Click to expand...


No, the 2nd is not a constitution unto itself.   That is why it is quite clear what the founding fathers meant by the placement of the 2nd.  The fact that it was not included in the section dealing with militia makes that very clear.

You are grasping at straws because you are trying to redefine "keep" and "bear" to mean something strictly military.   That is laughable.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see this argument in any holding.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in private property with the terms, Militia and the People.  Both terms are plural, not Individual.
> 
> Keep is not the Only term used.  Keep is presented with bear; which has specific military applications for a militia, but not Individuals merely acquiring and possessing private property in the class called Arms.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  A well regulated Militia of the People is necessary to the security of a free State.  Thus, the Only question is whether or not Individuals of the People are well regulated in Order to be necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Bear" is not a military term.   This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.
> 
> And of course "the People" is plural.   The amendment cover all citizens.  Even back then there were more than one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, bear is a military term.  To bear Arms for our Republic is one such usage.
> 
> The People is plural as is Militia but not Individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> The word "bear" may not be part of the common vernacular, but there is nothing at all to suggest that it relates only to a militia.   You are grasping at straws.   There is no appeal to ignorance of vocabulary.
> 
> The 4th amendment uses the word "people" too.  Does that mean that only the state or a militia is guaranteed to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects?
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> 
> 
> And if "people" means the state, then why does the 10th amendment say "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, *or* to the people."?
> 
> The 10th amendment makes it VERY obvious that "the people" and "the state(s)" are not the same thing at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can I be grasping at straws when those terms were included by our Founding Fathers in an amendment that contains a militia clause.
> 
> A militia is a military body of the citizenry and military terms are appropriate.  Individual terms are not appropriate in our Second Amendment since the Intent and Purpose is the security of a free State, not security of Individual rights in private property.
> 
> Because, Arms are declared socialized for the Militia should there be any need to quibble this point in legal venues; simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself and cannot be read on its own should there be Any ambiguity.
> 
> The Fourth Amendment does not contain a militia clause.  Both the People and the Militia are collective, not Individual.
> 
> The Tenth Amendment also covers Body politics such as States and the People in their collective capacity as the electorate and citizenry in the several States; with corresponding privileges and immunities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the 2nd is not a constitution unto itself.   That is why it is quite clear what the founding fathers meant by the placement of the 2nd.  The fact that it was not included in the section dealing with militia makes that very clear.
> 
> You are grasping at straws because you are trying to redefine "keep" and "bear" to mean something strictly military.   That is laughable.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are referring to.  Our Second Amendment is an amendment like any other amendment; place doesn't matter.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Bear" is not a military term.   This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.
> 
> And of course "the People" is plural.   The amendment cover all citizens.  Even back then there were more than one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, bear is a military term.  To bear Arms for our Republic is one such usage.
> 
> The People is plural as is Militia but not Individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> The word "bear" may not be part of the common vernacular, but there is nothing at all to suggest that it relates only to a militia.   You are grasping at straws.   There is no appeal to ignorance of vocabulary.
> 
> The 4th amendment uses the word "people" too.  Does that mean that only the state or a militia is guaranteed to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects?
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> 
> 
> And if "people" means the state, then why does the 10th amendment say "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, *or* to the people."?
> 
> The 10th amendment makes it VERY obvious that "the people" and "the state(s)" are not the same thing at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can I be grasping at straws when those terms were included by our Founding Fathers in an amendment that contains a militia clause.
> 
> A militia is a military body of the citizenry and military terms are appropriate.  Individual terms are not appropriate in our Second Amendment since the Intent and Purpose is the security of a free State, not security of Individual rights in private property.
> 
> Because, Arms are declared socialized for the Militia should there be any need to quibble this point in legal venues; simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself and cannot be read on its own should there be Any ambiguity.
> 
> The Fourth Amendment does not contain a militia clause.  Both the People and the Militia are collective, not Individual.
> 
> The Tenth Amendment also covers Body politics such as States and the People in their collective capacity as the electorate and citizenry in the several States; with corresponding privileges and immunities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the 2nd is not a constitution unto itself.   That is why it is quite clear what the founding fathers meant by the placement of the 2nd.  The fact that it was not included in the section dealing with militia makes that very clear.
> 
> You are grasping at straws because you are trying to redefine "keep" and "bear" to mean something strictly military.   That is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what you are referring to.  Our Second Amendment is an amendment like any other amendment; place doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


Certainly it matters.  It was not an amendment added much later.  It was added to answer the calls from several states for limits on governmental powers and to protect individual liberties.

Much like trying to redefine two words, you are trying anything you can to cast doubt on a simple concept.  That is why the SCOTUS has ruled consistently that the 2nd is an individual right.


----------



## danielpalos

Our Second Amendment clearly describes a State's Individual right to its own security via the collectivism of a well regulated militia of the People.


----------



## danielpalos

Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?



Perhaps because they can read?   Paragraph (1) clearly states that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a state militia.

" 1. The *Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53"


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps because they can read?   Paragraph (1) clearly states that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a state militia.
> 
> " 1. The *Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53"
Click to expand...

There are no Persons unconnected with the Militia, only Persons unconnected with Militia service, well regulated--10USC311.

And, 

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment clearly describes a State's Individual right to its own security via the collectivism of a well regulated militia of the People.



No, the 2nd clearly states that an individual's right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

As was described by the SCOTUS in DC v. Heller:

_"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.* The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms*. Pp. 2–22.

 (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.* The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.* Pp. 22–28."_

They wanted to preserve the ideal of a citizen's militia, to make sure that no gov't (our or others) could disarm our people.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps because they can read?   Paragraph (1) clearly states that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a state militia.
> 
> " 1. The *Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no Persons unconnected with the Militia, only Persons unconnected with Militia service, well regulated--10USC311.
> 
> And,
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
Click to expand...


No according to DC v. Heller.  And since that ruling comes from our highest court, it stands as law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps because they can read?   Paragraph (1) clearly states that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a state militia.
> 
> " 1. The *Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no Persons unconnected with the Militia, only Persons unconnected with Militia service, well regulated--10USC311.
> 
> And,
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No according to DC v. Heller.  And since that ruling comes from our highest court, it stands as law.
Click to expand...

It is in our supreme law of the land regarding the Militia.

The People are the Militia whether organized or not.

Only well regulated, thus well organized militias (of the People) are _necessary_ to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed due to that _necessity_.

There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment for the militias of the several United States, well regulated, due to the subject of Arms being socialized for the Militia, should we need to quibble this point in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps because they can read?   Paragraph (1) clearly states that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a state militia.
> 
> " 1. The *Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no Persons unconnected with the Militia, only Persons unconnected with Militia service, well regulated--10USC311.
> 
> And,
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No according to DC v. Heller.  And since that ruling comes from our highest court, it stands as law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is in our supreme law of the land regarding the Militia.
> 
> The People are the Militia whether organized or not.
> 
> Only well regulated, thus well organized militias (of the People) are _necessary_ to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed due to that _necessity_.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment for the militias of the several United States, well regulated, due to the subject of Arms being socialized for the Militia, should we need to quibble this point in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...


The mistake you make is assuming that all militia are controlled by the state.  The founding fathers had just fought a war with their governing power.  For them, the ability to throw off a tyrannical ruling power was critical to a free people.  So they reserved that right for the citizens.  That is why, as I quoted above, the armed people and the citizens militia it could form, were not under the control of the gov't.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps because they can read?   Paragraph (1) clearly states that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a state militia.
> 
> " 1. The *Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no Persons unconnected with the Militia, only Persons unconnected with Militia service, well regulated--10USC311.
> 
> And,
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No according to DC v. Heller.  And since that ruling comes from our highest court, it stands as law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is in our supreme law of the land regarding the Militia.
> 
> The People are the Militia whether organized or not.
> 
> Only well regulated, thus well organized militias (of the People) are _necessary_ to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed due to that _necessity_.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment for the militias of the several United States, well regulated, due to the subject of Arms being socialized for the Militia, should we need to quibble this point in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...


There is no quibbling needed.  The highest court has already ruled the 2nd is an individual right, and that it is unconnected with service in a militia.   And they explained it quite clearly.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps because they can read?   Paragraph (1) clearly states that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a state militia.
> 
> " 1. The *Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no Persons unconnected with the Militia, only Persons unconnected with Militia service, well regulated--10USC311.
> 
> And,
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No according to DC v. Heller.  And since that ruling comes from our highest court, it stands as law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is in our supreme law of the land regarding the Militia.
> 
> The People are the Militia whether organized or not.
> 
> Only well regulated, thus well organized militias (of the People) are _necessary_ to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed due to that _necessity_.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment for the militias of the several United States, well regulated, due to the subject of Arms being socialized for the Militia, should we need to quibble this point in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mistake you make is assuming that all militia are controlled by the state.  The founding fathers had just fought a war with their governing power.  For them, the ability to throw off a tyrannical ruling power was critical to a free people.  So they reserved that right for the citizens.  That is why, as I quoted above, the armed people and the citizens militia it could form, were not under the control of the gov't.
Click to expand...

All militias of the United States are regulated as prescribed by our federal Congress.  There is no militia of the several United States that is not subject to the authority of Congress or a State.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do those of the opposing view not believe that paragraph (1) of DC v. Heller must apply to the organized militias of the several United States whilst, paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller must apply to the unorganized militias of the several United States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps because they can read?   Paragraph (1) clearly states that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a state militia.
> 
> " 1. The *Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no Persons unconnected with the Militia, only Persons unconnected with Militia service, well regulated--10USC311.
> 
> And,
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No according to DC v. Heller.  And since that ruling comes from our highest court, it stands as law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is in our supreme law of the land regarding the Militia.
> 
> The People are the Militia whether organized or not.
> 
> Only well regulated, thus well organized militias (of the People) are _necessary_ to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed due to that _necessity_.
> 
> There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment for the militias of the several United States, well regulated, due to the subject of Arms being socialized for the Militia, should we need to quibble this point in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling needed.  The highest court has already ruled the 2nd is an individual right, and that it is unconnected with service in a militia.   And they explained it quite clearly.
Click to expand...

There are no Individual rights in the collective terms Militia and the People.  It is a simple error in reasoning.

_*Statutory Construction*

*Definition*
The process of determining what a particular statute means so that a court may apply it accurately.

*Overview*
Any question of statutory interpretation begins with looking at the plain language of the statute to discover its original intent. To discover a statute's original intent, courts first look to the words of the statute and apply their usual and ordinary meanings.

If after looking at the language of the statute the meaning of the statute remains unclear, courts attempt to ascertain the intent of the legislature by looking at legislative history and other sources. Courts generally steer clear of any interpretation that would create an absurd result which the Legislature did not intend.

Other rules of statutory interpretation include, but are not limited to:
_

_Statutes should be internally consistent. A particular section of the statute should not be inconsistent with the rest of the statute._
_When the legislature enumerates an exception to a rule, one can infer that there are no other exceptions._
_When the legislature includes limiting language in an earlier version of a statute, but deletes it prior to enactment of the statute, it can be presumed that the limitation was not intended by the legislature._
_The legislature is presumed to act intentionally and purposely when it includes language in one section but omits it in another._
_Where legislation and case law conflict, courts generally presume that legislation takes precedence over case law._
_The Rule of Lenity: in construing an ambiguous criminal statute, a court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant._
_A court may also look at: the common usage of a word, case law, dictionaries, parallel reasoning, punctuation_
_Statutes are sometimes ambiguous enough to support more than one interpretation. In these cases, courts are free to interpret statutes themselves. Once a court interprets the statute, other courts usually will not go through the exercise again, but rather will enforce the statute as interpreted by the other court.

Source: Statutory Construction Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute_


----------



## WinterBorn

But there are individual rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.  And one of those is the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> But there are individual rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.  And one of those is the right to keep and bear arms.


No, there are not.  Only _Due Process_ is secured in our federal Constitution not rights in property.  Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms, _acquire and possess_, not _keep and bear_.


----------



## pauls

This is nothing but a troll bot. 
It can't answer a direct question:

Who makes up the Militia? What it the militia?
Who has jurisdiction over the militia?
Who commands the militia.
Who appoints the officers of the militia?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> But there are individual rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.  And one of those is the right to keep and bear arms.


Keep and bear is not acquire and possess; and, only well regulated Militias of the People may not be Infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

pauls said:


> This is nothing but a troll bot.
> It can't answer a direct question:
> 
> Who makes up the Militia? What it the militia?
> Who has jurisdiction over the militia?
> Who commands the militia.
> Who appoints the officers of the militia?


Haven't actually read the thread, yet?

The _People_ are the _Militia_.

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.


----------



## pauls

Keep is to possess within the confines of ones abode.
Bear is to carry or possess on ones person outside of ones abode.

We have the right to keep and bear guns as a means of defense against a tyrannical government or any that would wish harm to us or our property. 

Now answer the question: Who is the militia?


----------



## danielpalos

pauls said:


> Keep is to possess within the confines of ones abode.
> Bear is to carry or possess on ones person outside of ones abode.
> 
> We have the right to keep and bear guns as a means of defense against a tyrannical government or any that would wish harm to us or our property.
> 
> Now answer the question: Who is the militia?



Possession is only nine-tenths of the law.  Keep and bear may be, at all costs.

The People are the Militia and the Militia is the People; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there are individual rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.  And one of those is the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> No, there are not.  Only _Due Process_ is secured in our federal Constitution not rights in property.  Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms, _acquire and possess_, not _keep and bear_.
Click to expand...


The 2nd is quite clear in that it does, in fact, guarantee the right to keep and bear arms.   Your attempts at an argument in semantics is ridiculous.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep is to possess within the confines of ones abode.
> Bear is to carry or possess on ones person outside of ones abode.
> 
> We have the right to keep and bear guns as a means of defense against a tyrannical government or any that would wish harm to us or our property.
> 
> Now answer the question: Who is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possession is only nine-tenths of the law.  Keep and bear may be, at all costs.
> 
> The People are the Militia and the Militia is the People; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


The SCOTUS was quite clear in its ruling in DC v. Heller.    

"The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

"The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

"The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that *unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.* Pp. 30–32."


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep is to possess within the confines of ones abode.
> Bear is to carry or possess on ones person outside of ones abode.
> 
> We have the right to keep and bear guns as a means of defense against a tyrannical government or any that would wish harm to us or our property.
> 
> Now answer the question: Who is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possession is only nine-tenths of the law.  Keep and bear may be, at all costs.
> 
> The People are the Militia and the Militia is the People; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS was quite clear in its ruling in DC v. Heller.
> 
> "The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."
> 
> "The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."
> 
> "The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that *unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.* Pp. 30–32."
Click to expand...

It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia.


----------



## turtledude

pauls said:


> Keep is to possess within the confines of ones abode.
> Bear is to carry or possess on ones person outside of ones abode.
> 
> We have the right to keep and bear guns as a means of defense against a tyrannical government or any that would wish harm to us or our property.
> 
> Now answer the question: Who is the militia?



Ignore the bot-its a failed experiment in artificial intelligence.  Its use of English is not of human origin


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep is to possess within the confines of ones abode.
> Bear is to carry or possess on ones person outside of ones abode.
> 
> We have the right to keep and bear guns as a means of defense against a tyrannical government or any that would wish harm to us or our property.
> 
> Now answer the question: Who is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possession is only nine-tenths of the law.  Keep and bear may be, at all costs.
> 
> The People are the Militia and the Militia is the People; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS was quite clear in its ruling in DC v. Heller.
> 
> "The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."
> 
> "The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."
> 
> "The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that *unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.* Pp. 30–32."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia.
Click to expand...


Not according to the US Supreme Court.


----------



## WinterBorn

turtledude said:


> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep is to possess within the confines of ones abode.
> Bear is to carry or possess on ones person outside of ones abode.
> 
> We have the right to keep and bear guns as a means of defense against a tyrannical government or any that would wish harm to us or our property.
> 
> Now answer the question: Who is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignore the bot-its a failed experiment in artificial intelligence.  Its use of English is not of human origin
Click to expand...


Yeah, I know.  

Why is everyone so worried about my responding to this thread?   Does it matter to anyone?  If I am bored and want to respond, I will respond.  If I don't want to respond I won't.   It doesn't use up the web site.  Why do you care?


----------



## turtledude

WinterBorn said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep is to possess within the confines of ones abode.
> Bear is to carry or possess on ones person outside of ones abode.
> 
> We have the right to keep and bear guns as a means of defense against a tyrannical government or any that would wish harm to us or our property.
> 
> Now answer the question: Who is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignore the bot-its a failed experiment in artificial intelligence.  Its use of English is not of human origin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know.
> 
> Why is everyone so worried about my responding to this thread?   Does it matter to anyone?  If I am bored and want to respond, I will respond.  If I don't want to respond I won't.   It doesn't use up the web site.  Why do you care?
Click to expand...


because I have seen DanielTrollus operate on other forums and when he is ignored, he takes his bot spam to another board.  He is a bot.  his use of English is not of this world.  He's also low hanging fruit and best seen as a BOBO doll.  you hit it and hit it and hit it and hit it and it just keeps bouncing back up

benign neglect kills attention whore bots


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep is to possess within the confines of ones abode.
> Bear is to carry or possess on ones person outside of ones abode.
> 
> We have the right to keep and bear guns as a means of defense against a tyrannical government or any that would wish harm to us or our property.
> 
> Now answer the question: Who is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignore the bot-its a failed experiment in artificial intelligence.  Its use of English is not of human origin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know.
> 
> Why is everyone so worried about my responding to this thread?   Does it matter to anyone?  If I am bored and want to respond, I will respond.  If I don't want to respond I won't.   It doesn't use up the web site.  Why do you care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because I have seen DanielTrollus operate on other forums and when he is ignored, he takes his bot spam to another board.  He is a bot.  his use of English is not of this world.  He's also low hanging fruit and best seen as a BOBO doll.  you hit it and hit it and hit it and hit it and it just keeps bouncing back up
> 
> benign neglect kills attention whore bots
Click to expand...

dude, you and those of your point of view are full of fallacy, simply Because I say so.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep is to possess within the confines of ones abode.
> Bear is to carry or possess on ones person outside of ones abode.
> 
> We have the right to keep and bear guns as a means of defense against a tyrannical government or any that would wish harm to us or our property.
> 
> Now answer the question: Who is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possession is only nine-tenths of the law.  Keep and bear may be, at all costs.
> 
> The People are the Militia and the Militia is the People; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS was quite clear in its ruling in DC v. Heller.
> 
> "The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."
> 
> "The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."
> 
> "The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that *unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.* Pp. 30–32."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the US Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep is to possess within the confines of ones abode.
> Bear is to carry or possess on ones person outside of ones abode.
> 
> We have the right to keep and bear guns as a means of defense against a tyrannical government or any that would wish harm to us or our property.
> 
> Now answer the question: Who is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possession is only nine-tenths of the law.  Keep and bear may be, at all costs.
> 
> The People are the Militia and the Militia is the People; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS was quite clear in its ruling in DC v. Heller.
> 
> "The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."
> 
> "The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."
> 
> "The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that *unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.* Pp. 30–32."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the US Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?
Click to expand...


Never said they did.   

"It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia" is not the same as "When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?".


----------



## frigidweirdo

WinterBorn said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep is to possess within the confines of ones abode.
> Bear is to carry or possess on ones person outside of ones abode.
> 
> We have the right to keep and bear guns as a means of defense against a tyrannical government or any that would wish harm to us or our property.
> 
> Now answer the question: Who is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignore the bot-its a failed experiment in artificial intelligence.  Its use of English is not of human origin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know.
> 
> Why is everyone so worried about my responding to this thread?   Does it matter to anyone?  If I am bored and want to respond, I will respond.  If I don't want to respond I won't.   It doesn't use up the web site.  Why do you care?
Click to expand...


You're evil for respond on a public forum, how dare you? This is a public forum, you aren't public. 



(Note to those missing the sarcasm, this is sarcasm). 



It does get on my wick when people ask others why they're replying on public forum.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep is to possess within the confines of ones abode.
> Bear is to carry or possess on ones person outside of ones abode.
> 
> We have the right to keep and bear guns as a means of defense against a tyrannical government or any that would wish harm to us or our property.
> 
> Now answer the question: Who is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignore the bot-its a failed experiment in artificial intelligence.  Its use of English is not of human origin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know.
> 
> Why is everyone so worried about my responding to this thread?   Does it matter to anyone?  If I am bored and want to respond, I will respond.  If I don't want to respond I won't.   It doesn't use up the web site.  Why do you care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because I have seen DanielTrollus operate on other forums and when he is ignored, he takes his bot spam to another board.  He is a bot.  his use of English is not of this world.  He's also low hanging fruit and best seen as a BOBO doll.  you hit it and hit it and hit it and hit it and it just keeps bouncing back up
> 
> benign neglect kills attention whore bots
Click to expand...


I'm surprised people are still talking to him. He reeks of troll.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possession is only nine-tenths of the law.  Keep and bear may be, at all costs.
> 
> The People are the Militia and the Militia is the People; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS was quite clear in its ruling in DC v. Heller.
> 
> "The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."
> 
> "The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."
> 
> "The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that *unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.* Pp. 30–32."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the US Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said they did.
> 
> "It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia" is not the same as "When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?".
Click to expand...


That changes the meaning more than this does: 
_A well regulated People being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._

The People=The Militia

It is still consistent; unlike the other interpretation.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pauls said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep is to possess within the confines of ones abode.
> Bear is to carry or possess on ones person outside of ones abode.
> 
> We have the right to keep and bear guns as a means of defense against a tyrannical government or any that would wish harm to us or our property.
> 
> Now answer the question: Who is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignore the bot-its a failed experiment in artificial intelligence.  Its use of English is not of human origin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know.
> 
> Why is everyone so worried about my responding to this thread?   Does it matter to anyone?  If I am bored and want to respond, I will respond.  If I don't want to respond I won't.   It doesn't use up the web site.  Why do you care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because I have seen DanielTrollus operate on other forums and when he is ignored, he takes his bot spam to another board.  He is a bot.  his use of English is not of this world.  He's also low hanging fruit and best seen as a BOBO doll.  you hit it and hit it and hit it and hit it and it just keeps bouncing back up
> 
> benign neglect kills attention whore bots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm surprised people are still talking to him. He reeks of troll.
Click to expand...

Only to Persons with Only propaganda and rhetoric at their disposal, but no critical reasoning skills.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> I'm surprised people are still talking to him. He reeks of troll.



He oozes trollbot in every rivet and screw hole of his pot metal body


----------



## danielpalos

_A well regulated People being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._

The People=The Militia


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS was quite clear in its ruling in DC v. Heller.
> 
> "The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."
> 
> "The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."
> 
> "The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that *unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.* Pp. 30–32."
> 
> 
> 
> It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the US Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said they did.
> 
> "It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia" is not the same as "When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That changes the meaning more than this does:
> _A well regulated People being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The People=The Militia
> 
> It is still consistent; unlike the other interpretation.
Click to expand...

Revisit the ruling in DC v. Heller.   It covers it quite nicely


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the US Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said they did.
> 
> "It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia" is not the same as "When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That changes the meaning more than this does:
> _A well regulated People being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The People=The Militia
> 
> It is still consistent; unlike the other interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revisit the ruling in DC v. Heller.   It covers it quite nicely
Click to expand...


Here is the ambiguous Part:

_Held: 

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for 
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. 
_
What is meant by service in a militia.

The People are the Militia, whether organized and well regulated or unorganized and not-well-regulated. That which is not necessary to the security of a free State may be infringed by that is which is necessary to the security of a free State.

_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._

Thus, only_ well regulated militias of the People_ may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State, should we have to quibble in any legal venue.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the US Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said they did.
> 
> "It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia" is not the same as "When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That changes the meaning more than this does:
> _A well regulated People being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The People=The Militia
> 
> It is still consistent; unlike the other interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revisit the ruling in DC v. Heller.   It covers it quite nicely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the ambiguous Part:
> 
> _Held:
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> _
> What is meant by service in a militia.
> 
> The People are the Militia, whether organized and well regulated or unorganized and not-well-regulated. That which is not necessary to the security of a free State may be infringed by that is which is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Thus, only_ well regulated militias of the People_ may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State, should we have to quibble in any legal venue.
Click to expand...

Since the ruling stated that the right was unconnected with service in militia, it doesn't matter how you define "militia".


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said they did.
> 
> "It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia" is not the same as "When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That changes the meaning more than this does:
> _A well regulated People being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The People=The Militia
> 
> It is still consistent; unlike the other interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revisit the ruling in DC v. Heller.   It covers it quite nicely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the ambiguous Part:
> 
> _Held:
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> _
> What is meant by service in a militia.
> 
> The People are the Militia, whether organized and well regulated or unorganized and not-well-regulated. That which is not necessary to the security of a free State may be infringed by that is which is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Thus, only_ well regulated militias of the People_ may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State, should we have to quibble in any legal venue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the ruling stated that the right was unconnected with service in militia, it doesn't matter how you define "militia".
Click to expand...

You may be missing the point.  The People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State; thus, defining that which is necessary to the security of a free State is relevant--in Any case of ambiguity.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said they did.
> 
> "It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia" is not the same as "When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That changes the meaning more than this does:
> _A well regulated People being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The People=The Militia
> 
> It is still consistent; unlike the other interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revisit the ruling in DC v. Heller.   It covers it quite nicely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the ambiguous Part:
> 
> _Held:
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> _
> What is meant by service in a militia.
> 
> The People are the Militia, whether organized and well regulated or unorganized and not-well-regulated. That which is not necessary to the security of a free State may be infringed by that is which is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Thus, only_ well regulated militias of the People_ may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State, should we have to quibble in any legal venue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the ruling stated that the right was unconnected with service in militia, it doesn't matter how you define "militia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may be missing the point.  The People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State; thus, defining that which is necessary to the security of a free State is relevant--in Any case of ambiguity.
Click to expand...


No, I stated the point.   If the ruling is that the right is unconnected with militia service, there is no need to define "militia".  

Whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as every able-bodied man or whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as left-handed, myopic, red-headed step-children, it is unconnected with the individual right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That changes the meaning more than this does:
> _A well regulated People being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The People=The Militia
> 
> It is still consistent; unlike the other interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisit the ruling in DC v. Heller.   It covers it quite nicely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the ambiguous Part:
> 
> _Held:
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> _
> What is meant by service in a militia.
> 
> The People are the Militia, whether organized and well regulated or unorganized and not-well-regulated. That which is not necessary to the security of a free State may be infringed by that is which is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Thus, only_ well regulated militias of the People_ may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State, should we have to quibble in any legal venue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the ruling stated that the right was unconnected with service in militia, it doesn't matter how you define "militia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may be missing the point.  The People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State; thus, defining that which is necessary to the security of a free State is relevant--in Any case of ambiguity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I stated the point.   If the ruling is that the right is unconnected with militia service, there is no need to define "militia".
> 
> Whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as every able-bodied man or whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as left-handed, myopic, red-headed step-children, it is unconnected with the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only unconnected with militia service well regulated.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revisit the ruling in DC v. Heller.   It covers it quite nicely
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the ambiguous Part:
> 
> _Held:
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> _
> What is meant by service in a militia.
> 
> The People are the Militia, whether organized and well regulated or unorganized and not-well-regulated. That which is not necessary to the security of a free State may be infringed by that is which is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Thus, only_ well regulated militias of the People_ may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State, should we have to quibble in any legal venue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the ruling stated that the right was unconnected with service in militia, it doesn't matter how you define "militia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may be missing the point.  The People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State; thus, defining that which is necessary to the security of a free State is relevant--in Any case of ambiguity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I stated the point.   If the ruling is that the right is unconnected with militia service, there is no need to define "militia".
> 
> Whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as every able-bodied man or whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as left-handed, myopic, red-headed step-children, it is unconnected with the individual right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only unconnected with militia service well regulated.
Click to expand...


An 85 year old blind woman is connected to the militia??

You are stretching again.   If the right is unconnected with service in a militia, then the definition of "militia" is not relevant to this discussion.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the ambiguous Part:
> 
> _Held:
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> _
> What is meant by service in a militia.
> 
> The People are the Militia, whether organized and well regulated or unorganized and not-well-regulated. That which is not necessary to the security of a free State may be infringed by that is which is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Thus, only_ well regulated militias of the People_ may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State, should we have to quibble in any legal venue.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the ruling stated that the right was unconnected with service in militia, it doesn't matter how you define "militia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may be missing the point.  The People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State; thus, defining that which is necessary to the security of a free State is relevant--in Any case of ambiguity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I stated the point.   If the ruling is that the right is unconnected with militia service, there is no need to define "militia".
> 
> Whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as every able-bodied man or whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as left-handed, myopic, red-headed step-children, it is unconnected with the individual right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only unconnected with militia service well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An 85 year old blind woman is connected to the militia??
> 
> You are stretching again.   If the right is unconnected with service in a militia, then the definition of "militia" is not relevant to this discussion.
Click to expand...

Yes, the People are the Militia.

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the ruling stated that the right was unconnected with service in militia, it doesn't matter how you define "militia".
> 
> 
> 
> You may be missing the point.  The People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State; thus, defining that which is necessary to the security of a free State is relevant--in Any case of ambiguity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I stated the point.   If the ruling is that the right is unconnected with militia service, there is no need to define "militia".
> 
> Whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as every able-bodied man or whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as left-handed, myopic, red-headed step-children, it is unconnected with the individual right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only unconnected with militia service well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An 85 year old blind woman is connected to the militia??
> 
> You are stretching again.   If the right is unconnected with service in a militia, then the definition of "militia" is not relevant to this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People are the Militia.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
Click to expand...


Ok, if you say so.  But that is a different discussion.  The SCOTUS has ruiled that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.


----------



## danielpalos

WinIt is not my say so terBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be missing the point.  The People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State; thus, defining that which is necessary to the security of a free State is relevant--in Any case of ambiguity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I stated the point.   If the ruling is that the right is unconnected with militia service, there is no need to define "militia".
> 
> Whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as every able-bodied man or whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as left-handed, myopic, red-headed step-children, it is unconnected with the individual right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only unconnected with militia service well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An 85 year old blind woman is connected to the militia??
> 
> You are stretching again.   If the right is unconnected with service in a militia, then the definition of "militia" is not relevant to this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People are the Militia.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, if you say so.  But that is a different discussion.  The SCOTUS has ruiled that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
Click to expand...

It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller.  I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinIt is not my say so terBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I stated the point.   If the ruling is that the right is unconnected with militia service, there is no need to define "militia".
> 
> Whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as every able-bodied man or whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as left-handed, myopic, red-headed step-children, it is unconnected with the individual right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only unconnected with militia service well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An 85 year old blind woman is connected to the militia??
> 
> You are stretching again.   If the right is unconnected with service in a militia, then the definition of "militia" is not relevant to this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People are the Militia.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, if you say so.  But that is a different discussion.  The SCOTUS has ruiled that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller.  I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.
Click to expand...

Nor am I.  I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd.  And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinIt is not my say so terBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only unconnected with militia service well regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An 85 year old blind woman is connected to the militia??
> 
> You are stretching again.   If the right is unconnected with service in a militia, then the definition of "militia" is not relevant to this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People are the Militia.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, if you say so.  But that is a different discussion.  The SCOTUS has ruiled that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller.  I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor am I.  I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd.  And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".
Click to expand...

Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.

_The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
_
Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights.  Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

_All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._

All people is inclusive of Individual rights.  The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.

That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.

_In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller_


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinIt is not my say so terBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> An 85 year old blind woman is connected to the militia??
> 
> You are stretching again.   If the right is unconnected with service in a militia, then the definition of "militia" is not relevant to this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the People are the Militia.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, if you say so.  But that is a different discussion.  The SCOTUS has ruiled that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller.  I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor am I.  I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd.  And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.
> 
> _The Supreme Court held:[44]
> 
> (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> _
> Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights.  Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> All people is inclusive of Individual rights.  The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.
> 
> That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.
> 
> _In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller_
Click to expand...


There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinIt is not my say so terBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the People are the Militia.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, if you say so.  But that is a different discussion.  The SCOTUS has ruiled that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller.  I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor am I.  I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd.  And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.
> 
> _The Supreme Court held:[44]
> 
> (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> _
> Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights.  Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> All people is inclusive of Individual rights.  The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.
> 
> That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.
> 
> _In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinIt is not my say so terBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, if you say so.  But that is a different discussion.  The SCOTUS has ruiled that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller.  I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor am I.  I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd.  And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.
> 
> _The Supreme Court held:[44]
> 
> (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> _
> Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights.  Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> All people is inclusive of Individual rights.  The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.
> 
> That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.
> 
> _In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.
Click to expand...


No need.  There is, as I have shown you several times, an excellent explanation in Keller v. DC.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller.  I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor am I.  I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd.  And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.
> 
> _The Supreme Court held:[44]
> 
> (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> _
> Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights.  Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> All people is inclusive of Individual rights.  The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.
> 
> That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.
> 
> _In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.  There is, as I have shown you several times, an excellent explanation in Keller v. DC.
Click to expand...

Any State is welcome to my argument in the public domain, should a State need to quibble in legal venues.  I already know those of the opposing view don't have a better argument.


----------



## turtledude

Don't feed the troll.  its like athletes' foot, the more you scratch it the more it spreads.

spray it with the Tinactin of benign neglect and this fungus will dry up and blow away to another board


----------



## danielpalos

Back from being banned for being clueless and Causeless?


----------



## turtledude

Daniel Trollus has been banned on several forums.  On others we ignored him and he buggered off.  I suggest we ignore him here.  He craves attention and is a bot who does not think for itself


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> Daniel Trollus has been banned on several forums.  On others we ignored him and he buggered off.  I suggest we ignore him here.  He craves attention and is a bot who does not think for itself


I got banned for winning my arguments with the clueless and the Causeless as a form of "equal work for equal pay".  Don't let me catch y'all whining in the affirmative action threads.

No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?

I have no problem with gun lovers registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.

Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.

Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.

Since DC v Heller paragraph (1) was "plagiarized" from Posse comitatus; it should lose relevance and Standing should gun lovers refuse posse duty.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Trollus has been banned on several forums.  On others we ignored him and he buggered off.  I suggest we ignore him here.  He craves attention and is a bot who does not think for itself
> 
> 
> 
> I got banned for winning my arguments with the clueless and the Causeless as a form of "equal work for equal pay".  Don't let me catch y'all whining in the affirmative action threads.
> 
> No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?
> 
> I have no problem with gun lovers registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.
> 
> Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.
> 
> Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.
> 
> Since DC v Heller paragraph (1) was "plagiarized" from Posse comitatus; it should lose relevance and Standing should gun lovers refuse posse duty.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but the highest court in the land has ruled consistently that the 2nd speaks of an individual right.  Feel free to continue to post vague nonsense while trying to sound intelligent.   But until the SCOTUS rules differently, I get to keep my guns and not sign up for any service.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Trollus has been banned on several forums.  On others we ignored him and he buggered off.  I suggest we ignore him here.  He craves attention and is a bot who does not think for itself
> 
> 
> 
> I got banned for winning my arguments with the clueless and the Causeless as a form of "equal work for equal pay".  Don't let me catch y'all whining in the affirmative action threads.
> 
> No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?
> 
> I have no problem with gun lovers registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.
> 
> Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.
> 
> Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.
> 
> Since DC v Heller paragraph (1) was "plagiarized" from Posse comitatus; it should lose relevance and Standing should gun lovers refuse posse duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the highest court in the land has ruled consistently that the 2nd speaks of an individual right.  Feel free to continue to post vague nonsense while trying to sound intelligent.   But until the SCOTUS rules differently, I get to keep my guns and not sign up for any service.
Click to expand...

Still nothing but fallacy?  When are gun lovers going to get a clue and a Cause; gun control (the police power) is not gun Prohibition; rights in private property are already secured in State Constitutions--not our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Trollus has been banned on several forums.  On others we ignored him and he buggered off.  I suggest we ignore him here.  He craves attention and is a bot who does not think for itself
> 
> 
> 
> I got banned for winning my arguments with the clueless and the Causeless as a form of "equal work for equal pay".  Don't let me catch y'all whining in the affirmative action threads.
> 
> No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?
> 
> I have no problem with gun lovers registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.
> 
> Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.
> 
> Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.
> 
> Since DC v Heller paragraph (1) was "plagiarized" from Posse comitatus; it should lose relevance and Standing should gun lovers refuse posse duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the highest court in the land has ruled consistently that the 2nd speaks of an individual right.  Feel free to continue to post vague nonsense while trying to sound intelligent.   But until the SCOTUS rules differently, I get to keep my guns and not sign up for any service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing but fallacy?  When are gun lovers going to get a clue and a Cause; gun control (the police power) is not gun Prohibition; rights in private property are already secured in State Constitutions--not our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...


Fallacy?   So some kid posts that it is a fallacy, and the SCOTUS rules that it is an individual right.   Hmmm, I wonder which is more qualified?

And this "property rights" nonsense is ridiculous.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Trollus has been banned on several forums.  On others we ignored him and he buggered off.  I suggest we ignore him here.  He craves attention and is a bot who does not think for itself
> 
> 
> 
> I got banned for winning my arguments with the clueless and the Causeless as a form of "equal work for equal pay".  Don't let me catch y'all whining in the affirmative action threads.
> 
> No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?
> 
> I have no problem with gun lovers registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.
> 
> Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.
> 
> Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.
> 
> Since DC v Heller paragraph (1) was "plagiarized" from Posse comitatus; it should lose relevance and Standing should gun lovers refuse posse duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the highest court in the land has ruled consistently that the 2nd speaks of an individual right.  Feel free to continue to post vague nonsense while trying to sound intelligent.   But until the SCOTUS rules differently, I get to keep my guns and not sign up for any service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing but fallacy?  When are gun lovers going to get a clue and a Cause; gun control (the police power) is not gun Prohibition; rights in private property are already secured in State Constitutions--not our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy?   So some kid posts that it is a fallacy, and the SCOTUS rules that it is an individual right.   Hmmm, I wonder which is more qualified?
> 
> And this "property rights" nonsense is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Simply appealing to authority instead of reason is also a fallacy.  The whole world knows gun lovers have nothing but fallacy; and, the judicature merely needs to get "called on it" in a relevant case.  Some on the left know they don't have a better argument, either.

It is merely and Only the difference between someone who is well regulated, in this case with words, and gun lovers without a clue or a Cause.


----------



## turtledude

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Fallacy?   So some kid posts that it is a fallacy, and the SCOTUS rules that it is an individual right.   Hmmm, I wonder which is more qualified?
> 
> And this "property rights" nonsense is ridiculous.


Daneil Trollus is a failed experiment in artificial intelligence.  His programmer needs to expand his bot's vocabulary


----------



## danielpalos

turtleTroll is even slower than molasses on a cold winter day, even in the summer.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinIt is not my say so terBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, if you say so.  But that is a different discussion.  The SCOTUS has ruiled that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller.  I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor am I.  I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd.  And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.
> 
> _The Supreme Court held:[44]
> 
> (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> _
> Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights.  Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> All people is inclusive of Individual rights.  The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.
> 
> That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.
> 
> _In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.
Click to expand...

True. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## turtledude

LOki said:


> True. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


 SpamielTrollus is a retard all over the internet.  He's one of the biggest inter-forum jokes known to man


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller.  I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor am I.  I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd.  And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.
> 
> _The Supreme Court held:[44]
> 
> (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> _
> Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights.  Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> All people is inclusive of Individual rights.  The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.
> 
> That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.
> 
> _In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

If you don't have a better answer; i am right.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor am I.  I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd.  And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.
> 
> _The Supreme Court held:[44]
> 
> (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> _
> Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights.  Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> All people is inclusive of Individual rights.  The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.
> 
> That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.
> 
> _In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't have a better answer; i am right.
Click to expand...

But I do; thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.
> 
> _The Supreme Court held:[44]
> 
> (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> _
> Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights.  Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> All people is inclusive of Individual rights.  The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.
> 
> That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.
> 
> _In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't have a better answer; i am right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I do; thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

This is the law, not mere opinion:

Article 1, Section 8: _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;_

Second Amendment: _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._


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.
> 
> You are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't have a better answer; i am right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I do; thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the law, not mere opinion:
> 
> Article 1, Section 8: _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;_
> 
> Second Amendment: _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._
Click to expand...

Correct; it is not opinion. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.
> 
> 
> 
> True. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't have a better answer; i am right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I do; thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the law, not mere opinion:
> 
> Article 1, Section 8: _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;_
> 
> Second Amendment: _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._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct; it is not opinion. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

_The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people._

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law as a privilege or immunity in our Republic.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't have a better answer; i am right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I do; thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the law, not mere opinion:
> 
> Article 1, Section 8: _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;_
> 
> Second Amendment: _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._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct; it is not opinion. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people._
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law as a privilege or immunity in our Republic.
Click to expand...

Correct. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


----------



## turtledude

LOki said:


> Correct. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*


Ignore DanielTrollus and it might migrate to yet another board and spew its idiotic Bot Speak.


----------



## PredFan

Again, bad times for the gun grabbers.

A gun shop was allowed by a federal court to be a Muslim Free Zone, and Black Friday broke records for gun sales.

Liberals are soiling their panties and it's a good day!


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't have a better answer; i am right.
> 
> 
> 
> But I do; thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the law, not mere opinion:
> 
> Article 1, Section 8: _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;_
> 
> Second Amendment: _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._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct; it is not opinion. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people._
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law as a privilege or immunity in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. *AGAIN. STILL.*
Click to expand...

thanks for ceding the point and the argument by having nothing but fallacy, again, still.


----------

