Gun control vs. Terrorism (Dem hypocrisy)

[danielpalos]

We need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.

You got to read those words in context of that era, it doesn’t mean the same now as it did then.
Enforce the current laws, and don’t allow any new frivolous laws

The context hasn't changed. It means the same now as it did then.

No, not at all.
the second amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

No, it doesn't. Arms are declared socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8. Any more reading comprehension issues?

Na, The Second Amendment is solely for the individual

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

 

[danielpalos]

Not for registered posse.

For the average citizen it is unconstitutional to require firearm registration… Fact

Not sure why. Well regulated militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State.

What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment?

It does not mean, acquire and possess, that is a natural right not found in our Second Amendment.

The second amendment pertains to the individuals rights to own and bear arms… fact

No, it doesn't. Natural rights do that, not our Second Amendment. The subject of Arms is declared socialized for the militia.

 

[Rustic]

You got to read those words in context of that era, it doesn’t mean the same now as it did then.
Enforce the current laws, and don’t allow any new frivolous laws

The context hasn't changed. It means the same now as it did then.

No, not at all.
the second amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

No, it doesn't. Arms are declared socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8. Any more reading comprehension issues?

Na, The Second Amendment is solely for the individual

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Na, It’s an individual thing you would not understand…

 

[Rustic]

For the average citizen it is unconstitutional to require firearm registration… Fact

Not sure why. Well regulated militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State.

What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment?

It does not mean, acquire and possess, that is a natural right not found in our Second Amendment.

The second amendment pertains to the individuals rights to own and bear arms… fact

No, it doesn't. Natural rights do that, not our Second Amendment. The subject of Arms is declared socialized for the militia.

Firearm ownership is none of the federal government business

 

[danielpalos]

The context hasn't changed. It means the same now as it did then.

No, not at all.
the second amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

No, it doesn't. Arms are declared socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8. Any more reading comprehension issues?

Na, The Second Amendment is solely for the individual

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Na, It’s an individual thing you would not understand…

lol. Projecting much, right wingers?

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

 

[danielpalos]

Not sure why. Well regulated militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State.

What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment?

It does not mean, acquire and possess, that is a natural right not found in our Second Amendment.

The second amendment pertains to the individuals rights to own and bear arms… fact

No, it doesn't. Natural rights do that, not our Second Amendment. The subject of Arms is declared socialized for the militia.

Firearm ownership is none of the federal government business

It has to be in the federal districts.

 

[Rustic]

No, not at all.
the second amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

No, it doesn't. Arms are declared socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8. Any more reading comprehension issues?

Na, The Second Amendment is solely for the individual

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Na, It’s an individual thing you would not understand…

lol. Projecting much, right wingers?

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Self defense has always been an individual thing, like it or not. LOL

 

[Rustic]

What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment?

It does not mean, acquire and possess, that is a natural right not found in our Second Amendment.

The second amendment pertains to the individuals rights to own and bear arms… fact

No, it doesn't. Natural rights do that, not our Second Amendment. The subject of Arms is declared socialized for the militia.

Firearm ownership is none of the federal government business

It has to be in the federal districts.

There is a reason why after background checks have been performed all record of the purchase has to be destroyed by the FBI. Firearm registration is absolutely unconstitutional

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. Arms are declared socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8. Any more reading comprehension issues?

Na, The Second Amendment is solely for the individual

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Na, It’s an individual thing you would not understand…

lol. Projecting much, right wingers?

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Self defense has always been an individual thing, like it or not. LOL

Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[danielpalos]

It does not mean, acquire and possess, that is a natural right not found in our Second Amendment.

The second amendment pertains to the individuals rights to own and bear arms… fact

No, it doesn't. Natural rights do that, not our Second Amendment. The subject of Arms is declared socialized for the militia.

Firearm ownership is none of the federal government business

It has to be in the federal districts.

There is a reason why after background checks have been performed all record of the purchase has to be destroyed by the FBI. Firearm registration is absolutely unconstitutional

Maybe for private citizens; not for the organized or unorganized militia.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Na, The Second Amendment is solely for the individual

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Na, It’s an individual thing you would not understand…

lol. Projecting much, right wingers?

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Self defense has always been an individual thing, like it or not. LOL

Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There is no due process needed for a right to exist it is only needed when attempting to deny rights to an individual

 

[Rustic]

Na, The Second Amendment is solely for the individual

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Na, It’s an individual thing you would not understand…

lol. Projecting much, right wingers?

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Self defense has always been an individual thing, like it or not. LOL

Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

And when it comes right down to it, ultimately it is an individual thing

 

[danielpalos]

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Na, It’s an individual thing you would not understand…

lol. Projecting much, right wingers?

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Self defense has always been an individual thing, like it or not. LOL

Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There is no due process needed for a right to exist it is only needed when attempting to deny rights to an individual

Yes, there is. Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are confusing defense of self and property, with defense of a State or the Union.

 

[Rustic]

The second amendment pertains to the individuals rights to own and bear arms… fact

No, it doesn't. Natural rights do that, not our Second Amendment. The subject of Arms is declared socialized for the militia.

Firearm ownership is none of the federal government business

It has to be in the federal districts.

There is a reason why after background checks have been performed all record of the purchase has to be destroyed by the FBI. Firearm registration is absolutely unconstitutional

Maybe for private citizens; not for the organized or unorganized militia.

See if you’re confused, go back and read the second amendment in the context of the era.
It’s all about the individual and the right for the individual to own firearms, Without any interference from the federal government.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Na, It’s an individual thing you would not understand…

lol. Projecting much, right wingers?

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Self defense has always been an individual thing, like it or not. LOL

Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

And when it comes right down to it, ultimately is an individual thing

Only for defense of self; well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. Natural rights do that, not our Second Amendment. The subject of Arms is declared socialized for the militia.

Firearm ownership is none of the federal government business

It has to be in the federal districts.

There is a reason why after background checks have been performed all record of the purchase has to be destroyed by the FBI. Firearm registration is absolutely unconstitutional

Maybe for private citizens; not for the organized or unorganized militia.

See if you’re confused, go back and read the second amendment in the context of the era.
It’s all about the individual and the right for the individual to own firearms, Without any interference from the federal government.

You need better reading comprehension.

 

[Rustic]

Na, It’s an individual thing you would not understand…

lol. Projecting much, right wingers?

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Self defense has always been an individual thing, like it or not. LOL

Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There is no due process needed for a right to exist it is only needed when attempting to deny rights to an individual

Yes, there is. Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are confusing defense of self and property, with defense of a State or the Union.

The state of the union means nothing without the individual… There is no need for a collective

 

[danielpalos]

lol. Projecting much, right wingers?

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Self defense has always been an individual thing, like it or not. LOL

Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There is no due process needed for a right to exist it is only needed when attempting to deny rights to an individual

Yes, there is. Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are confusing defense of self and property, with defense of a State or the Union.

The state of the union means nothing without the individual… There is no need for a collective

Only in right wing fantasy, not real life.

 

[Rustic]

Na, It’s an individual thing you would not understand…

lol. Projecting much, right wingers?

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Self defense has always been an individual thing, like it or not. LOL

Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

And when it comes right down to it, ultimately is an individual thing

Only for defense of self; well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

That has nothing to do with individual firearm ownership and the second amendment… The country and the government are not one in the same.
The Constitution is there for protection of the country from the federal government.

 

[Rustic]

Firearm ownership is none of the federal government business

It has to be in the federal districts.

There is a reason why after background checks have been performed all record of the purchase has to be destroyed by the FBI. Firearm registration is absolutely unconstitutional

Maybe for private citizens; not for the organized or unorganized militia.

See if you’re confused, go back and read the second amendment in the context of the era.
It’s all about the individual and the right for the individual to own firearms, Without any interference from the federal government.

You need better reading comprehension.

The second amendment has nothing to do with the military…