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.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.
Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.
Our supreme law of the land claims otherwise.The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the homeThat makes no sense. The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government. How can that not be an individual right?
Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
That's exactly what the militia was when the Constitution was written. At what point did they decide it meant government has the right to have guns rather than the people do?
See my post above and read Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16.
There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311.No, it wasn't or it would have been un-wisely written, thusly: "A well regulated Militia, being un-necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" If, that was the true Intent and Purpose of our Second Article of Amendment regarding the security needs of a free State.If the intent of the Second was that all of the people have the absolute right to be armed, why is the initial phrase included ("A well regulated Militia") when a militia is described in Art. I, Sec. 8 and clause 15 and 16?
"Textualism is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law."
Textualism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
And yet to explain or rationalize his decision in Heller, Scalia needed pages to define each phrase of the Second by parsing them to justify his vote, decided IMO before the matter was heard before The Court. In fact, with all the noise surrounding the justices who ruled on SSM, Scalia should have recused himself on several matters, including Heller, long ago.
Anyone with the ability to comprehend the written word understands that the Militia as described in Art. I, sec. 8 - specifically clause16 - contradicts Scalia's argument. Since we and he can not expect every person to be fit and able to function as a member of the Militia; one must therefore admit the officers appointed to train the militia would have the authority to wash out those incapable - physically or mentally - from the Militia. Anyone, therefore, not trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (has Congress ever done so?) may have their right to owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun infringed by the States or the People (10th Amendment).
True, but why can't you tell us who is and isn't a militia? My answer is simple, we all are. It is up to the people to define militias and up to the people to regulate them, it's not a power of government to do that. In fact the point of it being in the Bill of Rights is to tell government that regulating guns is not a power it possesses
The National Guard? So you think the second amendment protects government's right to have guns? Seriously, you think that in the bill of rights, the document to protect personal liberties, they were so worried that government may not have guns that they decided to throw in the right of government to have guns? You think the second amendment prevents government from taking away their own guns.
You are stoned, even for a Canadian
Nothing but diversion? There is no appeal to ignorance of the definition of the militia of the United States.
Hey, here is an idea. If you don't want to acquire a possess a clue and a Cause; why waste the Peoples' time.There is also no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment as the legislative intent and purpose for the second clause that follows the first clause. It really really is that simple, except to the disingenuous and frivolous, Right.Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians
Hey, here's an idea. If you want to argue with the right, argue with someone on the right
He doesn't know what it means -- you're wasting your time.Is that there is no appeal to ignorance some sort of Canadian mantra? It doesn't even make sense here
There is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311.Our supreme law of the land claims otherwise.The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the homeThat makes no sense. The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government. How can that not be an individual right?
Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
That's exactly what the militia was when the Constitution was written. At what point did they decide it meant government has the right to have guns rather than the people do?
Nothing but diversion? There is no appeal to ignorance of the definition of the militia of the United States. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311.No, it wasn't or it would have been un-wisely written, thusly: "A well regulated Militia, being un-necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" If, that was the true Intent and Purpose of our Second Article of Amendment regarding the security needs of a free State.
True, but why can't you tell us who is and isn't a militia? My answer is simple, we all are. It is up to the people to define militias and up to the people to regulate them, it's not a power of government to do that. In fact the point of it being in the Bill of Rights is to tell government that regulating guns is not a power it possesses
The National Guard? So you think the second amendment protects government's right to have guns? Seriously, you think that in the bill of rights, the document to protect personal liberties, they were so worried that government may not have guns that they decided to throw in the right of government to have guns? You think the second amendment prevents government from taking away their own guns.
You are stoned, even for a Canadian
Nothing but diversion? There is no appeal to ignorance of the definition of the militia of the United States.
Is that there is no appeal to ignorance some sort of Canadian mantra? It doesn't even make sense here. I am asking you who the militia is. You came back with a link saying it's the national guard. The National Guard is government, Holmes. How does it make sense that in the Bill of Rights, which protects individual rights, they said government can have guns? Why would the founding fathers even be worried that the government would decide it can't have guns? Why would government do that?
So this is what you think the 2nd amendment does
Government: We are banning ourselves from having guns
The Founding Fathers: Oh no you're not, you can't do that, it's in the bill of rights that government can have guns
Government: Oh crap, OK then, we'll keep our guns
When has government ever wanted to get rid of their own guns? Why do you suppose the Founding Fathers were worried government would want to do that?
They weren't since they included what was necessary to the security of a free State.There is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311.Our supreme law of the land claims otherwise.The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the homeThat makes no sense. The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government. How can that not be an individual right?
Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
That's exactly what the militia was when the Constitution was written. At what point did they decide it meant government has the right to have guns rather than the people do?
And again, why were the Founding Fathers worried that government would take it's own guns away?
Allowing someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?
Well, it the gun is not stored properly, one must assume liability. If a pool is not secure and a child falls in and dies, the pool owner is liable; if keys are left in a car, and it is stolen and crashed causing injury, the car owner is liable. Pools, cars and guns can be an attractive nuisance.
BTW, isn't it putative by gun lovers that having a gun provides one protection from criminals.
What does that last line even mean? How is protecting yourself from a criminal "punitive?"
(apologies to Greg Bear for ripping off the idea from "Eon")
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the homeThat makes no sense. The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government. How can that not be an individual right?
Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court, One vote swing and it will change, as it should.
I support the right to own a gun for self protection in one's home or business.
You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation.
I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics, those who continue to push for more guns in the hands of more people, more powerful guns and more effective killing machines.
It's obvious that gun control exists, and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege, since some citizens are deprived of ever owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun. All civilians are subject to arrest for bringing a firearm into most Court Houses, most State Houses where legislators work, police stations and on airplanes.
Some are denied the privilege because they have been convicted of a Felony or a violent misdemeanor; others because they have been detained in a locked hospital ward after a finding they are (were) a danger to themselves or others.
So don't continue to pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct, it ain't.
I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.
Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the homeThat makes no sense. The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government. How can that not be an individual right?
Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court, One vote swing and it will change, as it should.
I support the right to own a gun for self protection in one's home or business.
You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation.
I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics, those who continue to push for more guns in the hands of more people, more powerful guns and more effective killing machines.
It's obvious that gun control exists, and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege, since some citizens are deprived of ever owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun. All civilians are subject to arrest for bringing a firearm into most Court Houses, most State Houses where legislators work, police stations and on airplanes.
Some are denied the privilege because they have been convicted of a Felony or a violent misdemeanor; others because they have been detained in a locked hospital ward after a finding they are (were) a danger to themselves or others.
So don't continue to pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct, it ain't.
I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.
Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.
Fuck you too. That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed. Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.
Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,
"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."
for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the homeThat makes no sense. The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government. How can that not be an individual right?
Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court, One vote swing and it will change, as it should.
I support the right to own a gun for self protection in one's home or business.
You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation.
I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics, those who continue to push for more guns in the hands of more people, more powerful guns and more effective killing machines.
It's obvious that gun control exists, and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege, since some citizens are deprived of ever owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun. All civilians are subject to arrest for bringing a firearm into most Court Houses, most State Houses where legislators work, police stations and on airplanes.
Some are denied the privilege because they have been convicted of a Felony or a violent misdemeanor; others because they have been detained in a locked hospital ward after a finding they are (were) a danger to themselves or others.
So don't continue to pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct, it ain't.
I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.
Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.
Fuck you too. That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed. Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.
Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,
"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."
for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.
It's pretty basic English. Small wonder you can't seem to understand it, you are a State worker after all. No real education required which explains your sad interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
Nothing but diversion? There is no appeal to ignorance of the definition of the militia of the United States. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311.True, but why can't you tell us who is and isn't a militia? My answer is simple, we all are. It is up to the people to define militias and up to the people to regulate them, it's not a power of government to do that. In fact the point of it being in the Bill of Rights is to tell government that regulating guns is not a power it possesses
The National Guard? So you think the second amendment protects government's right to have guns? Seriously, you think that in the bill of rights, the document to protect personal liberties, they were so worried that government may not have guns that they decided to throw in the right of government to have guns? You think the second amendment prevents government from taking away their own guns.
You are stoned, even for a Canadian
Nothing but diversion? There is no appeal to ignorance of the definition of the militia of the United States.
Is that there is no appeal to ignorance some sort of Canadian mantra? It doesn't even make sense here. I am asking you who the militia is. You came back with a link saying it's the national guard. The National Guard is government, Holmes. How does it make sense that in the Bill of Rights, which protects individual rights, they said government can have guns? Why would the founding fathers even be worried that the government would decide it can't have guns? Why would government do that?
So this is what you think the 2nd amendment does
Government: We are banning ourselves from having guns
The Founding Fathers: Oh no you're not, you can't do that, it's in the bill of rights that government can have guns
Government: Oh crap, OK then, we'll keep our guns
When has government ever wanted to get rid of their own guns? Why do you suppose the Founding Fathers were worried government would want to do that?
Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.
What makes you say that when you are the who is resorting to fallacy?Nothing but diversion? There is no appeal to ignorance of the definition of the militia of the United States. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311.
The National Guard? So you think the second amendment protects government's right to have guns? Seriously, you think that in the bill of rights, the document to protect personal liberties, they were so worried that government may not have guns that they decided to throw in the right of government to have guns? You think the second amendment prevents government from taking away their own guns.
You are stoned, even for a Canadian
Nothing but diversion? There is no appeal to ignorance of the definition of the militia of the United States.
Is that there is no appeal to ignorance some sort of Canadian mantra? It doesn't even make sense here. I am asking you who the militia is. You came back with a link saying it's the national guard. The National Guard is government, Holmes. How does it make sense that in the Bill of Rights, which protects individual rights, they said government can have guns? Why would the founding fathers even be worried that the government would decide it can't have guns? Why would government do that?
So this is what you think the 2nd amendment does
Government: We are banning ourselves from having guns
The Founding Fathers: Oh no you're not, you can't do that, it's in the bill of rights that government can have guns
Government: Oh crap, OK then, we'll keep our guns
When has government ever wanted to get rid of their own guns? Why do you suppose the Founding Fathers were worried government would want to do that?
Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.
Did you actually graduate from the government school you went to because the education wing of the democrat party didn't do a very good job of teaching you how to read.....
Do alleged conservatives always appeal to ignorance of the intent and purpose of any law to conserve?Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.Subject to very few limitations.
Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians
I don't know, why don't you ask one?
Protected MY ass 24 hours ago, son.Allowing someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.
Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.
Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold. Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.
Well, it the gun is not stored properly, one must assume liability. If a pool is not secure and a child falls in and dies, the pool owner is liable; if keys are left in a car, and it is stolen and crashed causing injury, the car owner is liable. Pools, cars and guns can be an attractive nuisance.
BTW, isn't it putative by gun lovers that having a gun provides one protection from criminals.
Hey, here is an idea. If you don't want to acquire a possess a clue and a Cause; why waste the Peoples' time.There is also no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment as the legislative intent and purpose for the second clause that follows the first clause. It really really is that simple, except to the disingenuous and frivolous, Right.Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians
Hey, here's an idea. If you want to argue with the right, argue with someone on the right
Canadians are very strange. Can you translate this post into English for me?
My question was why do you keep asking me about conservatives? I don't give a shit what they think, so why don't you take it up with them?
Same for National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (ACA individual mandate)That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court, One vote swing and it will change, as it should.
Do alleged conservatives always appeal to ignorance of the intent and purpose of any law to conserve?Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians
I don't know, why don't you ask one?Protected MY ass 24 hours ago, son.Allowing someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.
Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.
Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold. Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.
Well, it the gun is not stored properly, one must assume liability. If a pool is not secure and a child falls in and dies, the pool owner is liable; if keys are left in a car, and it is stolen and crashed causing injury, the car owner is liable. Pools, cars and guns can be an attractive nuisance.
BTW, isn't it putative by gun lovers that having a gun provides one protection from criminals.
