Do you notice how RWs never establish a line on their 2nd amendment rights?

[danielpalos]

Militia service is not a natural right. Natural rights are not in question.

The right to bear arms is a natural right. Do you even "John Locke" bro?

No, it isn't. The right to acquire and possess is a natural right. Militia service is an obligation of the People.

You know --- I am continually amazed at the level of ignorance espoused by the left today.

The 1st and 2nd Amendments are an excellent example.

The 1st Amendment clearly limits the government from passing laws abridging several enumerated rights. It says nothing - not a single word - about me abridging your right to speak. The government - not me - not BLM - not Antifa. It is NOT unconstitutional for BLM to block speeches at UC Berkeley - it might be an illegal activity, but it isn't unconstitutional. You will notice that the blockers aren't charged with preventing the speech -they're always charged with rioting, blocking an event, trespassing, whatever the hell the cops can find. But, they're blocking your speech is, in fact, an expression of their freedom of speech (which is NOT guaranteed by the 1st Amendment)

The 2nd Amendment is the same - it prevents the GOVERNMENT from passing laws infringing on the rights of the people to bear arms. "Why" isn't the issue - the attempts to parse the wording in order to arrive at a contorted definition in order to fit a preconceived political position are, simply, wrongheaded.

The Constitution is a restrictive document - it does not "grant" rights to anybody. If it ain't restricted by the Constitution, it's legal. Some would say - myself included - if it isn't SPECIFICALLY restricted by the Constitution, it's legal.

Just lousy reading comprehension? The Second Amendment proclaims what is necessary to the security of a free State; it is most definitely, not about natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Our 21st-Century Second Amendment
"The document does not create the right; the right precedes the document, which merely recognizes it and ensures that the government is constrained when, inevitably, its all-too-human members are tempted to violate that right."

It does state "the right of the people" which does indicate a pre-existing right.

Only well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of the unorganized militia.

Hurt yourself?

I mean - distorting, contorting, averting, and perverting the 2nd Amendment like that sure was a lot of work.

dude, you need an argument, not just your bigotry masquerading as an unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Second Amendment proclaims what is necessary to the security of a free State; it is most definitely, not about natural rights.

True. It's MOST DEFINITELY about how the Federal Government will NOT infringe on said pre-existing right of the people?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

dude, you need an argument, not just your bigotry masquerading as an unsubstantiated opinion.

So do you.

So far, you have made SHIT arguments that wouldn't pass the laugh test of any court that is actually attempting to interpret law, rather than make it.

 

[danielpalos]

Militia service is not a natural right. Natural rights are not in question.

The right to bear arms is a natural right. Do you even "John Locke" bro?

No, it isn't. The right to acquire and possess is a natural right. Militia service is an obligation of the People.

You know --- I am continually amazed at the level of ignorance espoused by the left today.

The 1st and 2nd Amendments are an excellent example.

The 1st Amendment clearly limits the government from passing laws abridging several enumerated rights. It says nothing - not a single word - about me abridging your right to speak. The government - not me - not BLM - not Antifa. It is NOT unconstitutional for BLM to block speeches at UC Berkeley - it might be an illegal activity, but it isn't unconstitutional. You will notice that the blockers aren't charged with preventing the speech -they're always charged with rioting, blocking an event, trespassing, whatever the hell the cops can find. But, they're blocking your speech is, in fact, an expression of their freedom of speech (which is NOT guaranteed by the 1st Amendment)

The 2nd Amendment is the same - it prevents the GOVERNMENT from passing laws infringing on the rights of the people to bear arms. "Why" isn't the issue - the attempts to parse the wording in order to arrive at a contorted definition in order to fit a preconceived political position are, simply, wrongheaded.

The Constitution is a restrictive document - it does not "grant" rights to anybody. If it ain't restricted by the Constitution, it's legal. Some would say - myself included - if it isn't SPECIFICALLY restricted by the Constitution, it's legal.

Acquire and possess is a natural right. Keep and bear is for well regulated militia, for the security needs of their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

The Second Amendment proclaims what is necessary to the security of a free State; it is most definitely, not about natural rights.

True. It's MOST DEFINITELY about how the Federal Government will NOT infringe on said pre-existing right of the people?

It is a declaration for the UnOrganized militia to Yield, to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

dude, you need an argument, not just your bigotry masquerading as an unsubstantiated opinion.

So do you.

So far, you have made SHIT arguments that wouldn't pass the laugh test of any court that is actually attempting to interpret law, rather than make it.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law of economics.

Only well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It is a declaration for the UnOrganized militia to Yield, to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

But, the right of individual still shall not be infringed. PERIOD!!! It states a reason, not a mandate.

Why is that so hard to get through your communist, freedom-hating skull?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

BULLSHIT!!! You're making shit up again.

Where does it state that only a well regulated militia get to bear arms???

It SPECIFICALLY identifies a RIGHT of individuals that shall not be infringed. Why? Because a militia is necessary. NOT: you must have a militia to have the right. NOT: until a militia is no longer necessary. NOT: until firearms are too powerful. NOT: until communist fucks decide they want to confiscate!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law of economics.

What the fuck does this have to do with 2A?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
How can you possibly spin this into meaning anything but stating a need to secure rights? It does not command states organize militias or the people to be militiamen. It simply states a need or a reason to WHAT? See the second half---

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
As in, the already-existing, inalienable, individual right to keep and bear arms...

shall not be infringed
Shall = must
Shall not = must not
in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb

1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
   "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
   synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
   • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

The ONLY thing the 2A MANDATES is that the Federal Government SHALL NOT INFRINGE on the RIGHT of the individuals to keep and bear arms.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN???

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the possession of ANY weapon.

And, thanks to the alleged brilliance of the 14th Amendment, now no STATE can make a law infringing on the right of the individuals to have any weapon available.

Scalia did state in dicta in the Heller decision that congress could restrict the possession of unusual and dangerous weapons. Absent a specific example, I would limit that restriction to nuclear weapons, bio weapons, and other WMD. One can hardly claim that a belt-fed fully automatic light machine gun is an unusual weapon.

But, I digress...

Fuck commies..

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Acquire and possess is a natural right. Keep and bear is for well regulated militia, for the security needs of their State or the Union.

No, see, that would require you to read more into the 2A than is there. It does not say "the right of militias to keep and bear arms." It says the (already-existing, inalienable) right of the people (individuals) to keep and bear arms.

It already presumed that people (individuals) have the right to keep and bear arms. It simply states that the Federal Government shall not infringe on that right. It is no different in meaning than stating the following:

Congress shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

It means the same thing.

 

[Spare_change]

Militia service is not a natural right. Natural rights are not in question.

The right to bear arms is a natural right. Do you even "John Locke" bro?

No, it isn't. The right to acquire and possess is a natural right. Militia service is an obligation of the People.

You know --- I am continually amazed at the level of ignorance espoused by the left today.

The 1st and 2nd Amendments are an excellent example.

The 1st Amendment clearly limits the government from passing laws abridging several enumerated rights. It says nothing - not a single word - about me abridging your right to speak. The government - not me - not BLM - not Antifa. It is NOT unconstitutional for BLM to block speeches at UC Berkeley - it might be an illegal activity, but it isn't unconstitutional. You will notice that the blockers aren't charged with preventing the speech -they're always charged with rioting, blocking an event, trespassing, whatever the hell the cops can find. But, they're blocking your speech is, in fact, an expression of their freedom of speech (which is NOT guaranteed by the 1st Amendment)

The 2nd Amendment is the same - it prevents the GOVERNMENT from passing laws infringing on the rights of the people to bear arms. "Why" isn't the issue - the attempts to parse the wording in order to arrive at a contorted definition in order to fit a preconceived political position are, simply, wrongheaded.

The Constitution is a restrictive document - it does not "grant" rights to anybody. If it ain't restricted by the Constitution, it's legal. Some would say - myself included - if it isn't SPECIFICALLY restricted by the Constitution, it's legal.

Just lousy reading comprehension? The Second Amendment proclaims what is necessary to the security of a free State; it is most definitely, not about natural rights.

See what i mean????

The purpose of the Constitution is to place restrictions on the government ---- period.

The 2nd Amendment does just that - nothing more, nothing less. "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Quit trying to make bullshit out of banana peels.

 

[Kosh]

This proves that the far left wants to trash the constitution as it interferes with their agenda!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And if you're going to be a dick and use the funny button for posts because you can't use words to express your thoughts, then I'm not going to bother with you.

Children can press the funny button. I'm not here to be around children.

Sorry you don't like the funny button...

You should be used to it by now, considering your posts

Tell you what, seeing as you can't have an adult conversation, I'm saying bye.

Another person who, when presented with indisputable facts, acts like a child.

Bye.

Sorry I'm not locked into your wavelength.

(I seriously hope that few are)

but, you dont' seem to get the point.

and it's unlikely you ever will.

It doesn't matter what the arguments were in conceiving the 2nd, what matters is what was ratified.

You don't even bother taking the time. You just jump to the funny button. You start acting like a child because you haven't bothered to take the time to understand someone.

If I wanted to talk to people like this, I'd hang around with little kids.

I give you a funny, because you don't seem to understand the facts.

you present the opinions of people, and ignore the fact of what the 2nd actually says.

you present the opinions of people, and ignore the fact of what the 2nd actually says.

What the 2nd actually says is based solely on the opinions of people. Nine people to be exact.

 

[Auld Phart]

Sorry you don't like the funny button...

You should be used to it by now, considering your posts

Tell you what, seeing as you can't have an adult conversation, I'm saying bye.

Another person who, when presented with indisputable facts, acts like a child.

Bye.

Sorry I'm not locked into your wavelength.

(I seriously hope that few are)

but, you dont' seem to get the point.

and it's unlikely you ever will.

It doesn't matter what the arguments were in conceiving the 2nd, what matters is what was ratified.

You don't even bother taking the time. You just jump to the funny button. You start acting like a child because you haven't bothered to take the time to understand someone.

If I wanted to talk to people like this, I'd hang around with little kids.

I give you a funny, because you don't seem to understand the facts.

you present the opinions of people, and ignore the fact of what the 2nd actually says.

you present the opinions of people, and ignore the fact of what the 2nd actually says.

What the 2nd actually says is based solely on the opinions of people. Nine people to be exact.

and there were far more than those 9 opining on it before it was written.
Fortunately, the opinions of those 9 won out, and the second says what it does today

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Tell you what, seeing as you can't have an adult conversation, I'm saying bye.

Another person who, when presented with indisputable facts, acts like a child.

Bye.

Sorry I'm not locked into your wavelength.

(I seriously hope that few are)

but, you dont' seem to get the point.

and it's unlikely you ever will.

It doesn't matter what the arguments were in conceiving the 2nd, what matters is what was ratified.

You don't even bother taking the time. You just jump to the funny button. You start acting like a child because you haven't bothered to take the time to understand someone.

If I wanted to talk to people like this, I'd hang around with little kids.

I give you a funny, because you don't seem to understand the facts.

you present the opinions of people, and ignore the fact of what the 2nd actually says.

you present the opinions of people, and ignore the fact of what the 2nd actually says.

What the 2nd actually says is based solely on the opinions of people. Nine people to be exact.

and there were far more than those 9 opining on it before it was written.
Fortunately, the opinions of those 9 won out, and the second says what it does today

The 2nd says what it's always said. The interpretaion of those words is what's important. It's not unlimited.

 

[easyt65]

'Do you notice how RWs never establish a line on their 2nd amendment rights?'

Notice how liberals do the same thing with ABORTIONS?

 

[Spare_change]

Sorry you don't like the funny button...

You should be used to it by now, considering your posts

Tell you what, seeing as you can't have an adult conversation, I'm saying bye.

Another person who, when presented with indisputable facts, acts like a child.

Bye.

Sorry I'm not locked into your wavelength.

(I seriously hope that few are)

but, you dont' seem to get the point.

and it's unlikely you ever will.

It doesn't matter what the arguments were in conceiving the 2nd, what matters is what was ratified.

You don't even bother taking the time. You just jump to the funny button. You start acting like a child because you haven't bothered to take the time to understand someone.

If I wanted to talk to people like this, I'd hang around with little kids.

I give you a funny, because you don't seem to understand the facts.

you present the opinions of people, and ignore the fact of what the 2nd actually says.

you present the opinions of people, and ignore the fact of what the 2nd actually says.

What the 2nd actually says is based solely on the opinions of people. Nine people to be exact.

Actually, it doesn't say that all ----- I have no idea where you guys get such idiotic interpretations of the Constitution.

It clearly says that gun ownership is none of the government's business --- period. And, oh yea, they put in a bench of 9 people to make sure you don't violate that separation. THAT is what the Constitution says.

 

[danielpalos]

It is a declaration for the UnOrganized militia to Yield, to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

But, the right of individual still shall not be infringed. PERIOD!!! It states a reason, not a mandate.

Why is that so hard to get through your communist, freedom-hating skull?

dear, Only the organized militia is Necessary to the security of a free State, not unorganized gun lovers. it really is that simple.