Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[danielpalos]

nobody takes the right wing seriously.

Ignorance repeated is still ignorance. Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.

I guess the question that should be asked is, What would repealing the 2nd Amendment accomplish?

I am not advocating repealing the Second Amendment; it is current practice in our Republic. Only well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Natural rights are not a consideration, in that Case. It is All about the collective action of a well regulated militia of the whole and entire People.

The South, is a prime example of historical precedent.

The North Had to Win, 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.

But I asked, and I will ask again, maybe making a slight modification to the question. What is accomplished if you change the perceived meaning of the second? What would that change do?

It would be relevant; but, I am not the one changing anything. A literal reading is all I need.

 

[Pop23]

Ignorance repeated is still ignorance. Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.

I guess the question that should be asked is, What would repealing the 2nd Amendment accomplish?

I am not advocating repealing the Second Amendment; it is current practice in our Republic. Only well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Natural rights are not a consideration, in that Case. It is All about the collective action of a well regulated militia of the whole and entire People.

The South, is a prime example of historical precedent.

The North Had to Win, 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.

But I asked, and I will ask again, maybe making a slight modification to the question. What is accomplished if you change the perceived meaning of the second? What would that change do?

It would be relevant; but, I am not the one changing anything. A literal reading is all I need.

You did read the part that included perception, Right?

What would you accomplish?

 

[danielpalos]

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.

I guess the question that should be asked is, What would repealing the 2nd Amendment accomplish?

I am not advocating repealing the Second Amendment; it is current practice in our Republic. Only well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Natural rights are not a consideration, in that Case. It is All about the collective action of a well regulated militia of the whole and entire People.

The South, is a prime example of historical precedent.

The North Had to Win, 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.

But I asked, and I will ask again, maybe making a slight modification to the question. What is accomplished if you change the perceived meaning of the second? What would that change do?

It would be relevant; but, I am not the one changing anything. A literal reading is all I need.

You did read the part that included perception, Right?

What would you accomplish?

and, it is relevant, how? any change to any contract, changes the terms of the contract.

 

[Pop23]

I guess the question that should be asked is, What would repealing the 2nd Amendment accomplish?

I am not advocating repealing the Second Amendment; it is current practice in our Republic. Only well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Natural rights are not a consideration, in that Case. It is All about the collective action of a well regulated militia of the whole and entire People.

The South, is a prime example of historical precedent.

The North Had to Win, 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.

But I asked, and I will ask again, maybe making a slight modification to the question. What is accomplished if you change the perceived meaning of the second? What would that change do?

It would be relevant; but, I am not the one changing anything. A literal reading is all I need.

You did read the part that included perception, Right?

What would you accomplish?

and, it is relevant, how? any change to any contract, changes the terms of the contract.

You don't enter into a contract, nor seek modification of same, without the goal that you will accomplish something. If there is no goal, then what is the point? So what are you seeking to accomplish?

 

[WinterBorn]

If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead. Prison is going to be rough.

nobody takes the right wing seriously.

Ignorance repeated is still ignorance. Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.

Not true. Plenty of liberals appeal to ignorance. You are a prime example.

dude; stories are all right wingers have.

If so, at least they tell the whole story. They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not advocating repealing the Second Amendment; it is current practice in our Republic. Only well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Natural rights are not a consideration, in that Case. It is All about the collective action of a well regulated militia of the whole and entire People.

The South, is a prime example of historical precedent.

The North Had to Win, 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.

But I asked, and I will ask again, maybe making a slight modification to the question. What is accomplished if you change the perceived meaning of the second? What would that change do?

It would be relevant; but, I am not the one changing anything. A literal reading is all I need.

You did read the part that included perception, Right?

What would you accomplish?

and, it is relevant, how? any change to any contract, changes the terms of the contract.

You don't enter into a contract, nor seek modification of same, without the goal that you will accomplish something. If there is no goal, then what is the point? So what are you seeking to accomplish?

I am not trying to change our Second Amendment. Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?

 

[danielpalos]

nobody takes the right wing seriously.

Ignorance repeated is still ignorance. Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.

Not true. Plenty of liberals appeal to ignorance. You are a prime example.

dude; stories are all right wingers have.

If so, at least they tell the whole story. They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.

whatever story they want. it is just another story, to storytellers.

 

[Pop23]

But I asked, and I will ask again, maybe making a slight modification to the question. What is accomplished if you change the perceived meaning of the second? What would that change do?

It would be relevant; but, I am not the one changing anything. A literal reading is all I need.

You did read the part that included perception, Right?

What would you accomplish?

and, it is relevant, how? any change to any contract, changes the terms of the contract.

You don't enter into a contract, nor seek modification of same, without the goal that you will accomplish something. If there is no goal, then what is the point? So what are you seeking to accomplish?

I am not trying to change our Second Amendment. Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?

I see you won't answer, so I can come to no other conclusion that you have unstated motives making discussion and resolution impossible. Your loss.

 

[danielpalos]

It would be relevant; but, I am not the one changing anything. A literal reading is all I need.

You did read the part that included perception, Right?

What would you accomplish?

and, it is relevant, how? any change to any contract, changes the terms of the contract.

You don't enter into a contract, nor seek modification of same, without the goal that you will accomplish something. If there is no goal, then what is the point? So what are you seeking to accomplish?

I am not trying to change our Second Amendment. Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?

I see you won't answer, so I can come to no other conclusion that you have unstated motives making discussion and resolution impossible. Your loss.

Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?

 

[Pop23]

You did read the part that included perception, Right?

What would you accomplish?

and, it is relevant, how? any change to any contract, changes the terms of the contract.

You don't enter into a contract, nor seek modification of same, without the goal that you will accomplish something. If there is no goal, then what is the point? So what are you seeking to accomplish?

I am not trying to change our Second Amendment. Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?

I see you won't answer, so I can come to no other conclusion that you have unstated motives making discussion and resolution impossible. Your loss.

Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?

Why does the left never expose their actual goals?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

and, it is relevant, how? any change to any contract, changes the terms of the contract.

You don't enter into a contract, nor seek modification of same, without the goal that you will accomplish something. If there is no goal, then what is the point? So what are you seeking to accomplish?

I am not trying to change our Second Amendment. Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?

I see you won't answer, so I can come to no other conclusion that you have unstated motives making discussion and resolution impossible. Your loss.

Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?

Why does the left never expose their actual goals?

What America Needs Is an Ambidextrous Guillotine

Because their instinctive goal is to provoke people into voting for the Right. They don't have minds of their own; only fools believe in their self-convincing poses for the media.

 

[danielpalos]

and, it is relevant, how? any change to any contract, changes the terms of the contract.

You don't enter into a contract, nor seek modification of same, without the goal that you will accomplish something. If there is no goal, then what is the point? So what are you seeking to accomplish?

I am not trying to change our Second Amendment. Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?

I see you won't answer, so I can come to no other conclusion that you have unstated motives making discussion and resolution impossible. Your loss.

Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?

Why does the left never expose their actual goals?

Our Second Amendment has our actual goals; the security of a free State.

We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.

 

[Pop23]

You don't enter into a contract, nor seek modification of same, without the goal that you will accomplish something. If there is no goal, then what is the point? So what are you seeking to accomplish?

I am not trying to change our Second Amendment. Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?

I see you won't answer, so I can come to no other conclusion that you have unstated motives making discussion and resolution impossible. Your loss.

Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?

Why does the left never expose their actual goals?

Our Second Amendment has our actual goals; the security of a free State.

We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.

I never asked about the goals of the constitution, I asked what you hope to accomplish.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not trying to change our Second Amendment. Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?

I see you won't answer, so I can come to no other conclusion that you have unstated motives making discussion and resolution impossible. Your loss.

Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?

Why does the left never expose their actual goals?

Our Second Amendment has our actual goals; the security of a free State.

We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.

I never asked about the goals of the constitution, I asked what you hope to accomplish.

We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.

 

[WinterBorn]

Ignorance repeated is still ignorance. Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.

Not true. Plenty of liberals appeal to ignorance. You are a prime example.

dude; stories are all right wingers have.

If so, at least they tell the whole story. They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.

whatever story they want. it is just another story, to storytellers.

No. What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are. I think my work here is done. Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously? No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.

 

[danielpalos]

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.

Not true. Plenty of liberals appeal to ignorance. You are a prime example.

dude; stories are all right wingers have.

If so, at least they tell the whole story. They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.

whatever story they want. it is just another story, to storytellers.

No. What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are. I think my work here is done. Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously? No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.

y'all have, nothing but fallacy. i like to practice, just for fun.

 

[Pop23]

Not true. Plenty of liberals appeal to ignorance. You are a prime example.

dude; stories are all right wingers have.

If so, at least they tell the whole story. They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.

whatever story they want. it is just another story, to storytellers.

No. What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are. I think my work here is done. Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously? No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.

y'all have, nothing but fallacy. i like to practice, just for fun.

As do most gun owners

 

[WinterBorn]

Not true. Plenty of liberals appeal to ignorance. You are a prime example.

dude; stories are all right wingers have.

If so, at least they tell the whole story. They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.

whatever story they want. it is just another story, to storytellers.

No. What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are. I think my work here is done. Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously? No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.

y'all have, nothing but fallacy. i like to practice, just for fun.

Yeah, I know you like to practice. But you like to practice with girls who want a friend and you pretend to be that to get practice. Had any takers on the offer of a free massage with happy endings? lol

 

[Flopper]

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable;

So, natural rights are inalienable and universal but...

Natural rights become legal rights only when incorporated into the law. For example the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some our most important natural rights. Natural rights can only be enforced if they become legal rights.

What happened to the inalienable part?

Inalienable or natural rights are those which can not be taken away, endowed by the creator, or rights that all have we have at birth for example life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are rather general philosophical not legal terms that are subject to the opinion. Legal rights are often derived from natural rights. Our legal system enforces legal rights, not natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

dude; stories are all right wingers have.

If so, at least they tell the whole story. They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.

whatever story they want. it is just another story, to storytellers.

No. What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are. I think my work here is done. Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously? No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.

y'all have, nothing but fallacy. i like to practice, just for fun.

As do most gun owners

so what. well regulated militia don't whine about gun control laws; only the unorganized militia, does that.