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.
not bright enough to understand the law? i thought, only the right wing was, "that dumb".STOP USING YOUR GODDAMN BULLSHIT BUZZWORDS THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND.this was established as the common law for the common defense, with the ratification of our federal Constitution. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of it.
What was established? Explain it in FULL detail. You are making it more confusing.
No, it wasn't. The first clause explains the intent and purpose. We have a First Amendment for what you allege.The purpose of the Second Amendment was for THE PEOPLE to retain the ultimate power over a tyrannical government. It was for the People to retain freedom. Government was meant to be a necessary evil, not an all controlling, all encompassing entity.
The first clause is the intent and purpose?The Congressional intent and purpose is in the first clause; no amount of Judicial activism, can change that legal fact in our Republic.
Because, there is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.The first clause is the intent and purpose?The Congressional intent and purpose is in the first clause; no amount of Judicial activism, can change that legal fact in our Republic.
But, what does the second clause do? Why even include the second? Say it like this:
"States shall have a well-regulated militia."
That also ignores Article 1, Section 8:
- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
You are arguing that the 2nd Amendment does what Article 1, Section 8 does.
- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
We must assume that all terms have meaning. Your interpretation of the 2nd is a redundancy. My interpretation makes WAY more sense.
Congress can provide for, arm, and train a militia. (Art 1, Section 8)
Congress will not confiscate weapons from the people. (2nd Amendment)
You know I am fucking right.
Not bright enough to state your argument in a coherent, specific fashion?not bright enough to understand the law? i thought, only the right wing was, "that dumb".
No, it wasn't. The first clause explains the intent and purpose. We have a First Amendment for what you allege.The purpose of the Second Amendment was for THE PEOPLE to retain the ultimate power over a tyrannical government. It was for the People to retain freedom. Government was meant to be a necessary evil, not an all controlling, all encompassing entity.
The first clause is the intent and purpose?The Congressional intent and purpose is in the first clause; no amount of Judicial activism, can change that legal fact in our Republic.
But, what does the second clause do? Why even include the second? Say it like this:
"States shall have a well-regulated militia."
That also ignores Article 1, Section 8:
- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
You are arguing that the 2nd Amendment does what Article 1, Section 8 does.
- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
We must assume that all terms have meaning. Your interpretation of the 2nd is a redundancy. My interpretation makes WAY more sense.
Congress can provide for, arm, and train a militia. (Art 1, Section 8)
Congress will not confiscate weapons from the people. (2nd Amendment)
You know I am fucking right.
What are you talking about?Because, there is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."Not bright enough to state your argument in a coherent, specific fashion?not bright enough to understand the law? i thought, only the right wing was, "that dumb".
No one here has any doubt what my argument is. Yours on the other hand....it's still a guessing game.
Yes. OUR militia is well regulated( Militia=non felon gun owners who went through proper channels). The enemy is not. They run wild with impunity and the meatheads in blue are far too small in number and busy with important things like collecting revenues to defend anything other than their right to overtime while abusing the average citizen trying to go about his or her day.the people are the militia. now, do you understand?Then it would say simply:that which is declared Necessary to the security of a free State shall not be InfringedSo, the 2nd guarantees no security problems? Well, why do we have security problems? The 2nd didn't work....or you have misinterpreted it.We should have no security problems in our free States. We have a Second Amendment.
Which is more likely?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In fact, it would look like someone copied and pasted the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in the wrong place and forgot about it having not proofread the sentence. Your argument, unfortunately, falls apart given that there was no "copy and paste" when this was written, you clown!
the republican doctrine Only has excuses, not results.What are you talking about?Because, there is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.
What excuses?
What's not clear and obvious is ANYTHING danpalos types.Words alone can not stop a tyrannical government. The Founders new that to have the ability to speak freely, that the PEOPLE needed to retain the legal means of self defense. It is very clear, and obvious.
That's not explaining shit.the republican doctrine Only has excuses, not results.
you must be a republican; all i hear is excuses. We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.Yes. OUR militia is well regulated( Militia=non felon gun owners who went through proper channels). The enemy is not. They run wild with impunity and the meatheads in blue are far too small in number and busy with important things like collecting revenues to defend anything other than their right to overtime while abusing the average citizen trying to go about his or her day.the people are the militia. now, do you understand?Then it would say simply:that which is declared Necessary to the security of a free State shall not be InfringedSo, the 2nd guarantees no security problems? Well, why do we have security problems? The 2nd didn't work....or you have misinterpreted it.We should have no security problems in our free States. We have a Second Amendment.
Which is more likely?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In fact, it would look like someone copied and pasted the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in the wrong place and forgot about it having not proofread the sentence. Your argument, unfortunately, falls apart given that there was no "copy and paste" when this was written, you clown!
"I'll need to cite you. No seat belt, turn signal out,loud mufflers,beads hanging from mirror $700". Meanwhile 2 houses are being burglarized and nobody is responding to the alarm and an old guy just got hit in the head and his wallet jacked 2 blocks away. But that doesn't allow for raises now does it ?
ONO. They arent patrolling over in the "dual citizen" encampment due to they themselves being sued-written up for " racial profiling"
why are you allowed to vote.What's not clear and obvious is ANYTHING danpalos types.Words alone can not stop a tyrannical government. The Founders new that to have the ability to speak freely, that the PEOPLE needed to retain the legal means of self defense. It is very clear, and obvious.
Results not excuses, you wellness of necessary regulated militiapeople.
So, why is our right to military-grade weapons being infringed?what part of that do you not get? it applies, specifically to our Second Amendment.
learn how, to use a, comma.you must be a republican; all i hear is excuses. We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.
Is that a question or are you being rhetorical?why are you allowed to vote.
it isn't. only the slackers of the unorganized militia whine about it; well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.So, why is our right to military-grade weapons being infringed?what part of that do you not get? it applies, specifically to our Second Amendment.
learn how to stop resorting to fallacy.learn how, to use a, comma.you must be a republican; all i hear is excuses. We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.
Learn how to explain how I am resorting to fallacy.learn how to stop resorting to fallacy.
