Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
See, I knew you would make that error. And it is an error, due to lack of good education on the types of statements and their negations. A class in discrete mathematics would have helped. Or higher level philosophy courses.Going by your 'version' of it, no one under the age of 16, or over the age of 45, or female, would be allowed to have a firearm.
Mathematics?See, I knew you would make that error. And it is an error, due to lack of good education on the types of statements and their negations. A class in discrete mathematics would have helped. Or higher level philosophy courses.
No, one cannot definitively say that, either. It simply gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in a well-regulated militia. Unfortunately, it does not delineate whether it does or does not extend that right to others. And, if you check your history, you will see that, in our nascent nation, our military and the militias helping them went around and confiscated lots and lots of guns. Were they wrong to do so? Maybe. But they had nothing definitively telling them that they could not do it.Then you agree with me, that the Right was given to the People, NOT the militia.
Correct. And your cackling demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of either and how they both deal with, among lots of other things, delineation of the types of statements and their negations. Computer Science also touches on this, as statements in computer programming must be very clear, as well as their negations. Else the code fails.Mathematics?
Philosophy?
The following statement is true:Mathematics?
Philosophy?
Clearly not everyone.Which is all most people want.
No, one cannot definitively say that, either. It simply gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in a well-regulated militia. Unfortunately, it does not delineate whether it does or does not extend that right to others. And, if you check your history, you will see that, in our nascent nation, our military and the militias helping them went around and confiscated lots and lots of guns. Were they wrong to do so? Maybe. But they had nothing definitively telling them that they could not do it.
And that is why we have a Supreme Court. Things are "constitutional" precisely and only to the extent the SCOTUS says they are. That's the system. That's what we got. If anyone has a better idea, let's hear it.
It simply gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in a well-regulated militia.
The following statement is true:
If WillHaftawaite is a 90-year old tranny riding a rainbow unicorn, then the Moon is made of cheese.
Weird, huh? I assume you are not a 90-year old tranny. For the purpose of this exercise, anyway.
Laws that place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights consistent with Constitutional case law is not to ‘infringe.’Even Kavanaugh is wrong.
Why should one be required to give any reason why he should be allowed to exercise a right? It's enough that the right is explicitly declared and protected in the Constitution, and that the Constitution forbids this right from being infringed.
Sorry pal. That's what the statement conveys. that is its content. You can stomp your feet all night, makes no difference. It gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well regulated militias. That's all it says. you are being simple. I have done a fair job at explaining your errors and misunderstanding. I can't gift you with years of college education.No, it doesn't.
Sorry pal. That's what the statement conveys. that is its content. You can stomp your feet all night, makes no difference. It gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well regulated militias. That's all it says. you are being simple. I have done a fair job at explaining your errors and misunderstanding. I can't gift you with years of college education.
It gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well regulated militias.
Sorry pal. That's what the statement conveys. that is its content. You can stomp your feet all night, makes no difference. It gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well regulated militias. That's all it says. you are being simple. I have done a fair job at explaining your errors and misunderstanding. I can't gift you with years of college education.
Wrong again.It gives the people the right to bear arms, but not for the purpose of participating in a militia.
A weak and childish attempt at insult, as the discussion is about parsing the meaning of the one sentence, as stated. What it states and does not state.What ever was paid for that education was wasted, a least as far as understanding the Constitution goes.
Wrong again.
It clearly contextualizes that right as being invented because we needed well-regulated militias.
Here are two things it also does NOT say:
1) Those who may possibly participate in the future have the right to bear arms
2) Those who may participate in a militia in the future, but who are not in one now, do NOT have the right to bear arms
It neither grants or denies the right to bear arms to people not currently in a militia. Which allowed out nascent government to go around and confiscate a LOT of guns. Seems like you keep forgetting that little fact of history.
So it is not clear. For the purposes of instituting rights and forming code of law, we have a bbody we rely on 100% to interpret these unclear statements, using context of British Commonlaw, other existing parts of code of law, other documents from the time, etc. Which gave the SCOTUS plenty of room to mangle what was likely the original intent of the amendment and to take it places it was never meant to go.
But if anyone has a better system, I am all ears.
Unfortunately, that isn't totally clear, in the language. Which is why it had to be clarified. I get it. I get your opinion of the feeling of the statement. I got it the first 100 times.It gives the people the right to keep and bear arms, it does not require militia membership to do so.
A weak and childish attempt at insult, as the discussion is about parsing the meaning of the one sentence, as stated. What it states and does not state.
But now I know that you don't have much of an education in any related subject. So you should probably just pay attention and learn something
I did not invent any dependencies. I clearly said it is just unclear. PLEASE try to follow.Parsing words that the right does not depend upon to invent dependencies is anti-constitutional.
ORLY?I did not invent any dependencies. I clearly said it is just unclear. PLEASE try to follow.
if you are asking me to parse the literal meaning via syntax, it clearly implies that people should be able to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well-regulated militias.
It simply gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in a well-regulated militia.
It gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well regulated militias.
Let’s say Second Amendment absolutists are having a bad day – in that it seems as if shall issue concealed carry permitting laws will remain Constitutional.Guns are having a VERY bad day at SCOTUS
