Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. The right wing has Nothing, but appeal to ignorance of the law

You don't even know what that means.

Yes, I do.

 

[danielpalos]

Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States, must be Prescribed by our federal Congress.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the right to arms. Your interpritation renders the 2nd Amenfment meaningless. No need to add the 2nd if it is already coverec under article 8.

Go read some teatises on interpretation of laws and contracts. Your method is wrong on every level.

Neither does our Second Amendment. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, I do

Well, explain your useabe to me, because appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy, not a legal term of art. Tell me what you mean.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, I do

Well, explain your useabe to me, because appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy, not a legal term of art. Tell me what you mean.

there is literally, no appeal to ignorance of the law in our Republic.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Neither does our Second Amendment. Natural rights are recognized and secured in

Purhaps, but you are just repeating the same shit without explaining anything.

Which of these statements do you agree with:

The 2nd Amendment does not grant rights.

The 2nd does not establish a militia.

The 2nd does not preserve rights.

The 2nd limits the power of Congress.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

there is literally, no appeal to ignorance of the law in our Republic.

That literally makes no sense. What do you mean?

 

[danielpalos]

Neither does our Second Amendment. Natural rights are recognized and secured in

Purhaps, but you are just repeating the same shit without explaining anything.

Which of these statements do you agree with:

The 2nd Amendment does not grant rights.

The 2nd does not establish a militia.

The 2nd does not preserve rights.

The 2nd limits the power of Congress.

Our Second Article of Amendment, is clearly about the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

 

[danielpalos]

there is literally, no appeal to ignorance of the law in our Republic.

That literally makes no sense. What do you mean?

Laws are made of words; those words have meaning. The meaning of those those words is clear. Well regulated militia of the whole People, are Necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

there is literally, no appeal to ignorance of the law in our Republic.

That literally makes no sense. What do you mean?

Laws are made of words; those words have meaning. The meaning of those those words is clear. Well regulated militia of the whole People, are Necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Note to all: This boy's potato has been baking far to long.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Article of Amendment, is clearly about the security of a free State, n

It is not clearly about the security of anything. It is about the limits on the power of Congress. States maintain the power, the the 2nd tells Congress (not States) to not infringe.

Which means all federal gun laws are unconstitutional, but also means States can regulate arms in an way they see fit.

My interpretation makes more sense.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Laws are made of words; those words have meaning. The meaning of those those words is clear. Well regulated militia of the whole People, are Necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Un

But the 2nd LITERALLY does not say what you just typed. Literally.

Words have meaning, but you added a bunch.

A militia is necessary, so the right will not be infringed.

No organized or unorganized bullshit is there or needed for it to make sense.

It is just a limit on Congrss. Nothing more.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Our Second Article of Amendment, is clearly about the security of a free State, n

It is not clearly about the security of anything. It is about the limits on the power of Congress. States maintain the power, the the 2nd tells Congress (not States) to not infringe.

Which means all federal gun laws are unconstitutional, but also means States can regulate arms in an way they see fit.

Well, no. The states can increase the protections afforded by the Constitution, but cannot diminish them.

 

[danielpalos]

there is literally, no appeal to ignorance of the law in our Republic.

That literally makes no sense. What do you mean?

Laws are made of words; those words have meaning. The meaning of those those words is clear. Well regulated militia of the whole People, are Necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Note to all: This boy's potato has been baking far to long.

note to all; nothing but fallacy such as, ad hominems, instead of Any valid rebuttal, is All the right wing has.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Article of Amendment, is clearly about the security of a free State, n

It is not clearly about the security of anything. It is about the limits on the power of Congress. States maintain the power, the the 2nd tells Congress (not States) to not infringe.

Which means all federal gun laws are unconstitutional, but also means States can regulate arms in an way they see fit.

My interpretation makes more sense.

It clearly states, well regulated militia are Necessary, not optional, to the security of a free State.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well, no. The states can increase the protections afforded by the Constitution, but cannot diminish them.

There is the misstep going the other direction.

The only protection affordrd by the 2nd is a reservstion of power to the States and away from Congress. To read anything more into the 2nd goes awry.

It make much more sense the way I interpret the 2nd. It gives meaning to the whole Constitution, not just parts.

 

[danielpalos]

We should have no security problems in our free States. We have a Second Amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It clearly states, well regulated militia are Necessary, not optional, to the security of a free State

So....what about the second part? this is where you conflate the 2nd with a 1903 law defining organized v. Unorganized militia. That was 100 years later.

So, is the 2nd a provision demanding that States have a militia, like you suggest, or is it simply a limt on Congrssional power? Which is more likely?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We should have no security problems in our free States. We have a Second Amendment.

So, the 2nd guarantees no security problems? Well, why do we have security problems? The 2nd didn't work....or you have misinterpreted it.

Which is more likely?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The right to weapons is protected from Congress.

Congress shall make no law

Not States, Congress.

It's protected, period. “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” It does not say that the states may infringe this right. It says that this right shall not be infringed. Period.

 

[danielpalos]

It clearly states, well regulated militia are Necessary, not optional, to the security of a free State

So....what about the second part? this is where you conflate the 2nd with a 1903 law defining organized v. Unorganized militia. That was 100 years later.

So, is the 2nd a provision demanding that States have a militia, like you suggest, or is it simply a limt on Congrssional power? Which is more likely?

the second part means, the lgbt community never had anything to worry about.