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

[danielpalos]

In my own words:
Because a militia is necessary for a free state, the federal government is not going to infringe on an individual's right to bear arms.

Nowhere does it require a militia. It simply states that one is necessary for a state to be secure. It does not say that membership in a militia is a prerequisite to the individual's right to bear arms.

In order for th commie fag interpretation to work, it must state:

A militia is required before people have the right to bear arms.

You are a fucking moron. Ignorance and bullshittery is all on you. Fuck off and die, commie. You will always try to grab all the guns, and I will always demand more guns with more fire power...because you are a pussy.

When this fight actually comes down to a battle (probably not, because you and your ilk are afraid of guns), I will gleefully use my guns as they were intended.

We will have state-of-the-art machine guns in 3 years. There is nothing you weaponless commies can do about it but shit your pants and cry. You are all pussies.

The People are the Militia. Any questions?

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

...does not change anything about the right to bear arms.

Yes, it does. Our Civil War fixed that precedent for All time. Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It is pointless talking to your commie ass. In your cocksucking world, "people" means NOT people and "shall not infringe" means shall infringe.

Fuck off, pinko. Machine guns are coming soon, you commie shit. You can't stop it. Your communist revolution is OVER.

Poor Bolshevik twats. Cry in your femmy appletinis.

 

[danielpalos]

It is pointless talking to your commie ass. In your cocksucking world, "people" means NOT people and "shall not infringe" means shall infringe.

Fuck off, pinko. Machine guns are coming soon, you commie shit. You can't stop it. Your communist revolution is OVER.

Poor Bolshevik twats. Cry in your femmy appletinis.

thanks for ceding the point and the argument by having nothing but repeal. it really is, worth-less in the non-porn sector.

The People are the Militia. Any questions?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

thanks for ceding the point and the argument by having nothing but repeal. it really is, worth-less in the non-porn sector.

I fully admit that repeal is my objective. To me, shall not be infringed means the federal government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of the right to bear arms.

Repeal everything.

We should have machine gun, hand grenades, RPGs, tanks. All of it. We should have private ownership of enough weaponry to wage war against a modern armed force.

The People are the Militia. Any questions?

Who are the people?

I don't think we even agree on the definition of "people" so it is pointless talking to an idiot.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

"One of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty."

 

[evenflow1969]

Leftists have their own fantasy. Black and hispanic criminals armed with automatic and semi automatic weapons will be able to commit any kind of violent act they want on a disarmed white population. That was the whole point of obama's gun running. Arm the cartels so they can use those weapons in American cities against American citizens.

It just didn't quite work out the way they wanted.

The drug wars is what empowered the cartels. It put profit in to dealing big time. That being said, making guns illegal is just stupid. It will not matter to criminals. The only thing it may do is reduce crimes of passion and I am not sure about that. I guess if you are pissed enough you can find another way. Make guns illegal, I can make a zip gun in about fifteen minutes flat and likely have everything I need in my garage with out trying, this is fact. All gun controll does is give people that can make thier own a competitive advantage. What I would like to see in the conversation is what our guns are supposed to protect us from getting a lttle more lip service. Why is no one concerned about unreasonable search and seizure and the attack on free speach by both sides of the isle. The governent siezed more assets from americans with out due process than is stolen by all types of theft last year. Also time for the patriot act to go bye, bye I want my rights back. There is always going to be some lunitic willing to commit attrocities, tilll the end of time. So I am supposed to put up with government intrusion till the end of time. I guess Osama was right a couple of attacks and Americans are willing to give up their rights for the mirage of safety, I thought we were supposed to be bad asses. I am not afraid. A terrorist wants to kill me, so what I am going to die some way. I wanna live free till then. I say fuck the pary lines and start living by common sense again.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why is no one concerned about unreasonable search and seizure and the attack on free speach by both sides of the isle. The governent siezed more assets from americans with out due process than is stolen by all types of theft last year. Also time for the patriot act to go bye, bye I want my rights back.

Preach.

 

[Reasonable]

TO RWer’s the 2nd amendment is all encompassing and unlimited.
The 1st amendment, however, is limited and they would rather it be abolished.

The 2nd amendment was established when muskets fired one bullet at a time. Our founders never imagined the damage these assault weapons could do to hundreds of people.

 

[evenflow1969]

The

TO RWer’s the 2nd amendment is all encompassing and unlimited.
The 1st amendment, however, is limited and they would rather it be abolished.

The 2nd amendment was established when muskets fired one bullet at a time. Our founders never imagined the damage these assault weapons could do to hundreds of people.

There are much more efrective weapons to commit attrocities with with than an assult rifle. I do not want to name them becuase I do not want to give idiots any ideas, but there are things crazy easy to manufacture that can kill thousands. I veiw an assult rifle as an effective means to repel an attack by a larger force I am not sure I want it taken out of my bag of tricks when again those who use it for evil do not care about laws. About all you can do common sense wise is a waiting period for purchases of fire arms, this will stop the person that is pissed now and give them time to cool off. If they are fully intent on commiting attrocities they will find a way. We realy want to cut down on murders, the best way of doing so in the long run is to figure out ways of reducing the stress that life has to offer. Less pissed off stressed people means less murders for the long run. Unfortunately I do not have any ways to offer for this stress reduction, but I am hoping maybe some of you do!

 

[danielpalos]

thanks for ceding the point and the argument by having nothing but repeal. it really is, worth-less in the non-porn sector.

I fully admit that repeal is my objective. To me, shall not be infringed means the federal government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of the right to bear arms.

Repeal everything.

We should have machine gun, hand grenades, RPGs, tanks. All of it. We should have private ownership of enough weaponry to wage war against a modern armed force.

The People are the Militia. Any questions?

Who are the people?

I don't think we even agree on the definition of "people" so it is pointless talking to an idiot.

10USC246 is federal law. Don't be illegal to the law, right wingers.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It has been pointed out, and proven time after time to little danielpalos, that this is not so.

Apparently enough time has gone by since his last drubbing at the hands of those who present actual facts, that he feels he can start telling the same lie about "only militias may not be infringed" all over again as though

(sigh)

Time for another reprint.

From Taking On Gun Control - The Unabridged Second Amendment

The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The 'to keep and bear arms' is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account of the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"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.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

------------------------------------------

©1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved his fib hasn't already been debunked.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Possible "reasons" for the Second Amendment


When all else fails, read the directions.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."

That's the reason they put the 2nd amendment into the Constitution.

Because the best way to get security and freedom, was to let every able-bodied citizen arm himself as he wanted to.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[Auld Phart]

TO RWer’s the 2nd amendment is all encompassing and unlimited.
The 1st amendment, however, is limited and they would rather it be abolished.

The 2nd amendment was established when muskets fired one bullet at a time. Our founders never imagined the damage these assault weapons could do to hundreds of people.

The 2nd amendment was established when muskets fired one bullet at a time. Our founders never imagined the damage these assault weapons could do to hundreds of people.

You do know there were at least 2 firearms invented, and used, long before the 2nd was written, that would be considered machine guns in this day and age.

or don't you?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Which of course in no way contradicts what I said. It was their position in response to Vegas.

Cute try.

I provided their statement.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights.

Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights.

Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions.

Correct. It is about limitations on the Federal Government, or at least until the 14th Amendment was ratified. Then, it became a limitation on States.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

10USC246 is federal law. Don't be illegal to the law, right wingers

What the fuck is "illegal to the law"?

From the statute you cited:

(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.

Subsection (2) means everyone else. So, we're all in the militia, and our rights shall not be infringed.

Give me my motherfucking machine guns, and get the fuck out of here, commie!!!

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights.

Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions.

Correct. It is about limitations on the Federal Government, or at least until the 14th Amendment was ratified. Then, it became a limitation on States.

Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions, not in our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

10USC246 is federal law. Don't be illegal to the law, right wingers

What the fuck is "illegal to the law"?

From the statute you cited:

(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.

Subsection (2) means everyone else. So, we're all in the militia, and our rights shall not be infringed.

Give me my motherfucking machine guns, and get the fuck out of here, commie!!!

yes, dear. Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia are not. Only one subset of the militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.