CDZ Law abiding citizens should be able to carry a gun, open or concealed in any state...

[danielpalos]

Doesn't say "firearms" --- it says "Arms". Nukes are arms. Torpedoes on the submarines are arms.

This of course leads us to the context of what "arms" meant in the 18th century since obviously those technologies did not yet exist, nor did plane bombers or drones, nor did the Minié ball which itself considerably changed the definition of what "arms" could do ----- and the attendant question of whether the Founders, had they had the clairvoyance to anticipate these future technologies, would have second-guessed their wording here, or whether they really did mean that if I can afford one I can have a nuke.

It doesn't matter what you think it should have said, what matters is what it actually says. If you do not like what it says, go ahead and try to amend the constitution.

The clause says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Everybody with adequate reading comprehension skills understands that the right is not exclusive to people who are members of a militia.

Actually I just *QUOTED* exactly what it says, and raised (again) the question of WHY it says that. And intrinsic to that question is whether or not that is exclusive. A question you completely failed to address and which you're running away from right now.

And no, the clause is the first part. It has no verb. What you quoted is the statement. The qualifier (and/or basis) comes first. And that's the question. If you don't like the qualifier being in there or can't hack it being examined, then YOU go get it changed. But right now it IS in there.

So answer the question --- if you can: If the first thirteen word subordinate clause is not there as a limitation ----- then what is its purpose?

Do we have an Amendment stating "A well-informed Populace being necessary to the Function of a free State, Congress shall make no Law abridging Freedom of Speech, or of the Press" etc?

No we do not. It simply says "Congress shall make no Law...." PERIOD. There's no need to qualify it.

Sorry....plain english.....the Right of the People...to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed....it does not state the Right of a militia to keep and bear arms...you are wrong....again....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

It does not say the Right of the states to arm and equip a militia shall not be infringed....the Right of the People shall not be infringed....

The actual people have the Right to keep and bear arms.....and serve in a militia...twit....

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

 

[rightwinger]

gun control laws have every Thing to do with it; gun lovers are not more moral, with more guns.

legal gun owners are less likely to be criminals not more

legal gun owners are subject to State gun control laws.

no fucking shit Sherlock

and legal gun owners are less likely to become criminals not more likely simply because they own guns

gun control laws help ensure the health and safety of the State.

Then why do states with the most gun control have the most crime?

Chicken and the egg

They may have more gun control as a response to more crime

 

[Skull Pilot]

legal gun owners are less likely to be criminals not more

legal gun owners are subject to State gun control laws.

no fucking shit Sherlock

and legal gun owners are less likely to become criminals not more likely simply because they own guns

gun control laws help ensure the health and safety of the State.

Then why do states with the most gun control have the most crime?

Chicken and the egg

They may have more gun control as a response to more crime

And the gun control has not reduced the crime

 

[danielpalos]

It doesn't matter what you think it should have said, what matters is what it actually says. If you do not like what it says, go ahead and try to amend the constitution.

The clause says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Everybody with adequate reading comprehension skills understands that the right is not exclusive to people who are members of a militia.

Actually I just *QUOTED* exactly what it says, and raised (again) the question of WHY it says that. And intrinsic to that question is whether or not that is exclusive. A question you completely failed to address and which you're running away from right now.

And no, the clause is the first part. It has no verb. What you quoted is the statement. The qualifier (and/or basis) comes first. And that's the question. If you don't like the qualifier being in there or can't hack it being examined, then YOU go get it changed. But right now it IS in there.

So answer the question --- if you can: If the first thirteen word subordinate clause is not there as a limitation ----- then what is its purpose?

Do we have an Amendment stating "A well-informed Populace being necessary to the Function of a free State, Congress shall make no Law abridging Freedom of Speech, or of the Press" etc?

No we do not. It simply says "Congress shall make no Law...." PERIOD. There's no need to qualify it.

Sorry....plain english.....the Right of the People...to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed....it does not state the Right of a militia to keep and bear arms...you are wrong....again....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

you have to understand the context. the second clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto itself; but, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

The People are the Militia.

Only well regulated militia of the People, are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

The Bill of rights secures the right of the PEOPLE not the government

Therefore

The PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Wrong; our Government secures our Rights; it Must function do so. Our Second Amendment, secures that right for the several States.

 

[danielpalos]

legal gun owners are subject to State gun control laws.

no fucking shit Sherlock

and legal gun owners are less likely to become criminals not more likely simply because they own guns

gun control laws help ensure the health and safety of the State.

Then why do states with the most gun control have the most crime?

Chicken and the egg

They may have more gun control as a response to more crime

And the gun control has not reduced the crime

yes, it has, even with more guns being acquired and possessed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Actually I just *QUOTED* exactly what it says, and raised (again) the question of WHY it says that. And intrinsic to that question is whether or not that is exclusive. A question you completely failed to address and which you're running away from right now.

And no, the clause is the first part. It has no verb. What you quoted is the statement. The qualifier (and/or basis) comes first. And that's the question. If you don't like the qualifier being in there or can't hack it being examined, then YOU go get it changed. But right now it IS in there.

So answer the question --- if you can: If the first thirteen word subordinate clause is not there as a limitation ----- then what is its purpose?

Do we have an Amendment stating "A well-informed Populace being necessary to the Function of a free State, Congress shall make no Law abridging Freedom of Speech, or of the Press" etc?

No we do not. It simply says "Congress shall make no Law...." PERIOD. There's no need to qualify it.

Sorry....plain english.....the Right of the People...to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed....it does not state the Right of a militia to keep and bear arms...you are wrong....again....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

you have to understand the context. the second clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto itself; but, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

The People are the Militia.

Only well regulated militia of the People, are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

The Bill of rights secures the right of the PEOPLE not the government

Therefore

The PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Wrong; our Government secures our Rights; it Must function do so. Our Second Amendment, secures that right for the several States.

The government is THE PEOPLE

 

[danielpalos]

legal gun owners are subject to State gun control laws.

no fucking shit Sherlock

and legal gun owners are less likely to become criminals not more likely simply because they own guns

gun control laws help ensure the health and safety of the State.

Then why do states with the most gun control have the most crime?

the law of large numbers. that is why i know, the right wing is merely full of fallacy.

You don't eve know what the law of large numbers is

you don't even know you have nothing but fallacy to work with.

 

[Skull Pilot]

no fucking shit Sherlock

and legal gun owners are less likely to become criminals not more likely simply because they own guns

gun control laws help ensure the health and safety of the State.

Then why do states with the most gun control have the most crime?

Chicken and the egg

They may have more gun control as a response to more crime

And the gun control has not reduced the crime

yes, it has, even with more guns being acquired and possessed.

Really so then why despite all the harsh gun laws in IL doe they have 40 plus murders per weekend in Chicago?

 

[danielpalos]

Sorry....plain english.....the Right of the People...to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed....it does not state the Right of a militia to keep and bear arms...you are wrong....again....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

you have to understand the context. the second clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto itself; but, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

The People are the Militia.

Only well regulated militia of the People, are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

The Bill of rights secures the right of the PEOPLE not the government

Therefore

The PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Wrong; our Government secures our Rights; it Must function do so. Our Second Amendment, secures that right for the several States.

The government is THE PEOPLE

The People are the Militia. Only well regulated (according to Government) militia of the whole People are necessary to the security of a free State, and may not be Infringed as a result.

 

[Skull Pilot]

no fucking shit Sherlock

and legal gun owners are less likely to become criminals not more likely simply because they own guns

gun control laws help ensure the health and safety of the State.

Then why do states with the most gun control have the most crime?

the law of large numbers. that is why i know, the right wing is merely full of fallacy.

You don't eve know what the law of large numbers is

you don't even know you have nothing but fallacy to work with.

you know just because you say something doesn't mean it's true

 

[danielpalos]

gun control laws help ensure the health and safety of the State.

Then why do states with the most gun control have the most crime?

Chicken and the egg

They may have more gun control as a response to more crime

And the gun control has not reduced the crime

yes, it has, even with more guns being acquired and possessed.

Really so then why despite all the harsh gun laws in IL doe they have 40 plus murders per weekend in Chicago?

it would be higher, without those gun control laws. only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

you have to understand the context. the second clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto itself; but, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

The People are the Militia.

Only well regulated militia of the People, are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

The Bill of rights secures the right of the PEOPLE not the government

Therefore

The PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Wrong; our Government secures our Rights; it Must function do so. Our Second Amendment, secures that right for the several States.

The government is THE PEOPLE

The People are the Militia. Only well regulated (according to Government) militia of the whole People are necessary to the security of a free State, and may not be Infringed as a result.

right so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

you are constantly contradicting yourself

 

[danielpalos]

gun control laws help ensure the health and safety of the State.

Then why do states with the most gun control have the most crime?

the law of large numbers. that is why i know, the right wing is merely full of fallacy.

You don't eve know what the law of large numbers is

you don't even know you have nothing but fallacy to work with.

you know just because you say something doesn't mean it's true

it is if i am making sure, the other guy resorts to fallacy for his Cause, first.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then why do states with the most gun control have the most crime?

Chicken and the egg

They may have more gun control as a response to more crime

And the gun control has not reduced the crime

yes, it has, even with more guns being acquired and possessed.

Really so then why despite all the harsh gun laws in IL doe they have 40 plus murders per weekend in Chicago?

it would be higher, without those gun control laws. only the right wing, never gets it.

prove that

 

[danielpalos]

you have to understand the context. the second clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto itself; but, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

The People are the Militia.

Only well regulated militia of the People, are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

The Bill of rights secures the right of the PEOPLE not the government

Therefore

The PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Wrong; our Government secures our Rights; it Must function do so. Our Second Amendment, secures that right for the several States.

The government is THE PEOPLE

The People are the Militia. Only well regulated (according to Government) militia of the whole People are necessary to the security of a free State, and may not be Infringed as a result.

right so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

you are constantly contradicting yourself

the right of well regulated militia of the People. i don't contradict myself; you merely have lousy reading comprehension.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then why do states with the most gun control have the most crime?

the law of large numbers. that is why i know, the right wing is merely full of fallacy.

You don't eve know what the law of large numbers is

you don't even know you have nothing but fallacy to work with.

you know just because you say something doesn't mean it's true

it is if i am making sure, the other guy resorts to fallacy for his Cause, first.

I have used no fallacy

It is a fact that states with the most restrictive gun laws have more crime than the states with the least restrictive gun laws

 

[danielpalos]

Chicken and the egg

They may have more gun control as a response to more crime

And the gun control has not reduced the crime

yes, it has, even with more guns being acquired and possessed.

Really so then why despite all the harsh gun laws in IL doe they have 40 plus murders per weekend in Chicago?

it would be higher, without those gun control laws. only the right wing, never gets it.

prove that

prove that more guns means less crime.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Bill of rights secures the right of the PEOPLE not the government

Therefore

The PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Wrong; our Government secures our Rights; it Must function do so. Our Second Amendment, secures that right for the several States.

The government is THE PEOPLE

The People are the Militia. Only well regulated (according to Government) militia of the whole People are necessary to the security of a free State, and may not be Infringed as a result.

right so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

you are constantly contradicting yourself

the right of well regulated militia of the People. i don't contradict myself; you merely have lousy reading comprehension.

THE second does not say the right of the militia

 

[danielpalos]

the law of large numbers. that is why i know, the right wing is merely full of fallacy.

You don't eve know what the law of large numbers is

you don't even know you have nothing but fallacy to work with.

you know just because you say something doesn't mean it's true

it is if i am making sure, the other guy resorts to fallacy for his Cause, first.

I have used no fallacy

It is a fact that states with the most restrictive gun laws have more crime than the states with the least restrictive gun laws

the law of large numbers claims you have to be full of fallacy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And the gun control has not reduced the crime

yes, it has, even with more guns being acquired and possessed.

Really so then why despite all the harsh gun laws in IL doe they have 40 plus murders per weekend in Chicago?

it would be higher, without those gun control laws. only the right wing, never gets it.

prove that

prove that more guns means less crime.

I never said that

You said there would be more violence in Chicago without the gun laws so you prove it