Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

Your appeals to ignorance instead of a valid argument, inspire absolutely, no confidence in your sincerity when you claim what you do with your unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[LOki]

Your appeals to ignorance instead of a valid argument, inspire absolutely, no confidence in your sincerity when you claim what you do with your unsubstantiated opinion.

No appeal to ignorance was ever made. No attempt to demonstrate such an appeal was ever made by you. I predict that no such demonstration with be forthcoming.

Your repeated misapplication of "appeal to ignorance" is both stupid and boring.

Every argument I have asserted was presented with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality. No attempt was made to refute my arguments or facts.

My opinions have been fully substantiated by valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality. I have specifically addressed each of your assertions, and every single one of your assertions has been discredited by applying valid logic to verifiable facts of reality.

You have no argument, only baseless accusations. You have no facts that validate your assertions, and you rely entirely upon logical fallacies, and made-up principles of argumentation to advance your meaningless points. I predict that you will continue with these patently invalid tactics. Your argument (such as it is) is stupid and boring.

Considering that all the arguments against yours were presented without contest; that having refuted and rebutted (with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality) your every assertion; that not once did you present anything resembling a valid counter-argument in response, the only conclusion to be drawn is that you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you predictably, once more, to your place of shame.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

And for all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you claiming you make no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 regarding a description of what Part of the Militia of the United States is Necessary to the security of a free State?

 

[LOki]

Are you claiming you make no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 regarding a description of what Part of the Militia of the United States is Necessary to the security of a free State?

Correct. I have specifically addressed your meaningless point regarding 10 USC 311 directly, decisively, and numerous times.

I have made no appeal to ignorance of 10 USC 311.

I defy you to demonstrate (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) that I have made any "Appeal to Ignorance."

 

[danielpalos]

Are you claiming you make no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 regarding a description of what Part of the Militia of the United States is Necessary to the security of a free State?

Correct. I have specifically addressed your meaningless point regarding 10 USC 311 directly, decisively, and numerous times.

I have made no appeal to ignorance of 10 USC 311.

I defy you to demonstrate (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) that I have made any "Appeal to Ignorance."

There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311? Can you explain your line of reasoning? It must not have been very clear or very concise, the first time.

Not all of the Militia of the United States is organized and well regulated; only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, is expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

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.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.

 

[WinterBorn]

Are you claiming you make no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 regarding a description of what Part of the Militia of the United States is Necessary to the security of a free State?

Correct. I have specifically addressed your meaningless point regarding 10 USC 311 directly, decisively, and numerous times.

I have made no appeal to ignorance of 10 USC 311.

I defy you to demonstrate (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) that I have made any "Appeal to Ignorance."

There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311? Can you explain your line of reasoning? It must not have been very clear or very concise, the first time.

Not all of the Militia of the United States is organized and well regulated; only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, is expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

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.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.

In the case District of Columbia vs Heller, the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment is, in fact, and individual right. Since the SCOTUS is the highest authority we have as far as interpreting the US Constitution, your claims that the US Code overrides the US Constitution, is obviously wrong.

from: The Right to Bear Arms
"In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court considered the following question: Do D.C. Code Section 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns; Section 22-4504(a), which bars carrying a pistol without a license; and Section 7-2507.02, which requires that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
The Court concluded that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting. The Court concluded that the D.C. gun ban could not stand. At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights. The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership."

 

[danielpalos]

Are you claiming you make no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 regarding a description of what Part of the Militia of the United States is Necessary to the security of a free State?

Correct. I have specifically addressed your meaningless point regarding 10 USC 311 directly, decisively, and numerous times.

I have made no appeal to ignorance of 10 USC 311.

I defy you to demonstrate (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) that I have made any "Appeal to Ignorance."

There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311? Can you explain your line of reasoning? It must not have been very clear or very concise, the first time.

Not all of the Militia of the United States is organized and well regulated; only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, is expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

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.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.

In the case District of Columbia vs Heller, the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment is, in fact, and individual right. Since the SCOTUS is the highest authority we have as far as interpreting the US Constitution, your claims that the US Code overrides the US Constitution, is obviously wrong.

from: The Right to Bear Arms
"In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court considered the following question: Do D.C. Code Section 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns; Section 22-4504(a), which bars carrying a pistol without a license; and Section 7-2507.02, which requires that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
The Court concluded that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting. The Court concluded that the D.C. gun ban could not stand. At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights. The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership."

Yes, it was a blatant Appeal to Ignorance of the law and an open book test for the Electorate of the United States.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; should it be necessary to quibble in legal venues.

We have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

 

[WinterBorn]

Are you claiming you make no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 regarding a description of what Part of the Militia of the United States is Necessary to the security of a free State?

Correct. I have specifically addressed your meaningless point regarding 10 USC 311 directly, decisively, and numerous times.

I have made no appeal to ignorance of 10 USC 311.

I defy you to demonstrate (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) that I have made any "Appeal to Ignorance."

There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311? Can you explain your line of reasoning? It must not have been very clear or very concise, the first time.

Not all of the Militia of the United States is organized and well regulated; only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, is expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

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.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.

In the case District of Columbia vs Heller, the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment is, in fact, and individual right. Since the SCOTUS is the highest authority we have as far as interpreting the US Constitution, your claims that the US Code overrides the US Constitution, is obviously wrong.

from: The Right to Bear Arms
"In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court considered the following question: Do D.C. Code Section 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns; Section 22-4504(a), which bars carrying a pistol without a license; and Section 7-2507.02, which requires that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
The Court concluded that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting. The Court concluded that the D.C. gun ban could not stand. At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights. The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership."

Yes, it was a blatant Appeal to Ignorance of the law and an open book test for the Electorate of the United States.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; should it be necessary to quibble in legal venues.

We have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

yada yada yada

The simple fact of the matter is that most constitutional scholars believe, and our Supreme Court has ruled, that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, even if the individual is not affiliated with any state regulated militia.

 

[LOki]

Are you claiming you make no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 regarding a description of what Part of the Militia of the United States is Necessary to the security of a free State?

Correct. I have specifically addressed your meaningless point regarding 10 USC 311 directly, decisively, and numerous times.

I have made no appeal to ignorance of 10 USC 311.

I defy you to demonstrate (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) that I have made any "Appeal to Ignorance."

There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311? Can you explain your line of reasoning? It must not have been very clear or very concise, the first time.

Not all of the Militia of the United States is organized and well regulated; only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, is expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

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.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.

I have specifically addressed your meaningless point regarding 10 USC 311 directly, decisively, and numerous times.

I have made no appeal to ignorance of 10 USC 311.

I defy you to demonstrate (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) that I have made any "Appeal to Ignorance."

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendaciousdenials of reality have lead you predictably, once more, to your place of shame.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

And for all the reasons previously cited, you are stupid and boring. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[LOki]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.

The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..."

One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:

"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."​

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.

The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."

• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".

• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.

"Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.

"Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.

"Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.

Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you claiming you make no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311 regarding a description of what Part of the Militia of the United States is Necessary to the security of a free State?

Correct. I have specifically addressed your meaningless point regarding 10 USC 311 directly, decisively, and numerous times.

I have made no appeal to ignorance of 10 USC 311.

I defy you to demonstrate (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) that I have made any "Appeal to Ignorance."

There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311? Can you explain your line of reasoning? It must not have been very clear or very concise, the first time.

Not all of the Militia of the United States is organized and well regulated; only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, is expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

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.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.

In the case District of Columbia vs Heller, the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment is, in fact, and individual right. Since the SCOTUS is the highest authority we have as far as interpreting the US Constitution, your claims that the US Code overrides the US Constitution, is obviously wrong.

from: The Right to Bear Arms
"In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court considered the following question: Do D.C. Code Section 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns; Section 22-4504(a), which bars carrying a pistol without a license; and Section 7-2507.02, which requires that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
The Court concluded that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting. The Court concluded that the D.C. gun ban could not stand. At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights. The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership."

Yes, it was a blatant Appeal to Ignorance of the law and an open book test for the Electorate of the United States.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; should it be necessary to quibble in legal venues.

We have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

yada yada yada

The simple fact of the matter is that most constitutional scholars believe, and our Supreme Court has ruled, that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, even if the individual is not affiliated with any state regulated militia.

So what. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws. Those of the opposing view are merely, full of fallacy.

I already know the supreme court only has an Inferior argument.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.

The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..."

One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:

"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."​

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.

The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."

• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".

• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.

"Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.

"Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.

"Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.

Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

Nothing but diversion; I got it.

Here are the rules of construction:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

The Federalist Number 40.


The first clause is the End, my friend.

It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End

 

[LOki]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.

The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..."

One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:

"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."​

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.

The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."

• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".

• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.

"Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.

"Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.

"Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.

Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

Nothing but diversion; I got it.

Here are the rules of construction:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

The Federalist Number 40.


The first clause is the End, my friend.

It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.

The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..."

One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:

"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."​

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.

The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."

• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".

• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.

"Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.

"Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.

"Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.

Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

Nothing but diversion; I got it.

Here are the rules of construction:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

The Federalist Number 40.


The first clause is the End, my friend.

It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

The first clause is the End, my friend.
It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End

It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?

 

[LOki]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.

The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..."

One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:

"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."​

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.

The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."

• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".

• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.

"Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.

"Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.

"Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.

Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

Nothing but diversion; I got it.

Here are the rules of construction:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

The Federalist Number 40.


The first clause is the End, my friend.

It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

The first clause is the End, my friend.
It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End

Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.

It is stupid and boring.

It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?

For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.

The "end" unabiguously stated is,"... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:

"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."​

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.

The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.

By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose and End of any law as there is to the means.

The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..."

One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:

"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."​

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.

The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."

• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".

• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.

"Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.

"Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.

"Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.

Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

Nothing but diversion; I got it.

Here are the rules of construction:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

The Federalist Number 40.


The first clause is the End, my friend.

It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

The first clause is the End, my friend.
It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End

Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.

It is stupid and boring.

It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?

For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.

The "end" unabiguously stated is,"... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:

"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."​

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.

The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.

By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

The intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights is, "... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

To effect that stated purpose and intent, Congress asserted, "...that further declaratory and restrictive [upon the Federal Government's powers] clauses should be added..."

One of those declaratory and restrictive clauses ratified was the 2nd Amendment:

"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."​

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning only that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.

The subject of the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "the right"; the right referenced is "to keep and bear Arms"; that right belongs to "the people"; and, that right "shall not be infringed."

• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to form or belong to a militia of any description.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any State right.
• In the main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is is a dependent (or subordinant) clause meaning, that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".

• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any right to a free State.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any States' right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any militia's right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any organized militia.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any restriction of any right.
• In the preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, there is no mention of any qualification for the exercise of any right.

"Well regulated" means, maintained in proper function.

"Militia" means, at minimum, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already part of the standing national military. The militia, as defined by the USC, includes both the organized and unorganized militias without regard to their state of readyness or function.

"Free State" is synomymous with free country; it means, a nation free of despotism.

Yet just by itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

The main and opertative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmitavely to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

Nothing but diversion; I got it.

Here are the rules of construction:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

The Federalist Number 40.


The first clause is the End, my friend.

It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

The first clause is the End, my friend.
It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End

Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.

It is stupid and boring.

It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?

For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.

The "end" unabiguously stated is,"... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:

"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."​

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.

The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.

By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.

Claiming that any part of the Bill of Rights was written to protect the state's rights is the fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing but diversion; I got it.

Here are the rules of construction:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

The Federalist Number 40.


The first clause is the End, my friend.

It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

The first clause is the End, my friend.
It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End

Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.

It is stupid and boring.

It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?

For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.

The "end" unabiguously stated is,"... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:

"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."​

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.

The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.

By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.

Claiming that any part of the Bill of Rights was written to protect the state's rights is the fallacy.

It is not a fallacy to claim that our Second Amendment secures what is necessary to the security of a free State and not merely some allusion to some conspiracy and some collusion.

 

[WinterBorn]

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring.

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own. The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The preforatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

The first clause is the End, my friend.
It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End

Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.

It is stupid and boring.

It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?

For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.

The "end" unabiguously stated is,"... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:

"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."​

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.

The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.

By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.

Claiming that any part of the Bill of Rights was written to protect the state's rights is the fallacy.

It is not a fallacy to claim that our Second Amendment secures what is necessary to the security of a free State and not merely some allusion to some conspiracy and some collusion.

It is a fallacy to claim that the US Code overrides the US Constitution. And the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right, whether one is affiliated with a state militia or not.

 

[danielpalos]

The first clause is the End, my friend.
It is the second clause, the Means, which must to be sacrificed to the End

Meaningless. Having had your ass handed to you, you have fabricated this nonsense out of nothing.

It is stupid and boring.

It really is that simple; or, should we ask the Court what rules of construction were used, and which Clause is the End and which Clause is the Means?

For one moment I will entertain your desperate notion.

The "end" unabiguously stated is,"... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

The "means" is, the whole 2nd Amendment:

"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."​

By itself, the preforatory clause is incomplete--it's complete meaning is dependent upon (subordinate to) the complete, unabridged meaning of the main clause, which stands on it's own.

The complete meaning of the preforatory clause requires that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The preforatory clause CANNOT constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

Even if the preforatory clause was the "end" as you so fatuously declare, one CANNOT "sacrifice" the main and operative clause upon which the "end" is dependent without "sacrificing" that "end" as well.

By your own crieria, according to your very own reference, you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

The Only thing meaningless, is any willful appeal to ignorance of the law.

Claiming that any part of the Bill of Rights was written to protect the state's rights is the fallacy.

It is not a fallacy to claim that our Second Amendment secures what is necessary to the security of a free State and not merely some allusion to some conspiracy and some collusion.

It is a fallacy to claim that the US Code overrides the US Constitution. And the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right, whether one is affiliated with a state militia or not.

I am only "over-riding" an appeal to ignorance of the law.

The terms, militia and the People, are collective and plural not Individual; thus, construing any Individual rights is an appeal to ignorance of our own written law. That opinion was merely a waste of the Peoples' tax monies.