Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[WinterBorn]

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

It is stupid and boring.

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.

So you claim that the US Supreme Court is ignorant and that you have it right? lol

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So only the states have the right to assembly peaceably?


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So the states are secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, but individuals are not?


Absolute nonsense.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

So you claim that the US Supreme Court is ignorant and that you have it right? lol

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So only the states have the right to assembly peaceably?


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So the states are secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, but individuals are not?


Absolute nonsense.

Yes, the People, not the Persons colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes. The People is a Body politic in our republic, as is the Militia of the United States. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of those legal facts.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

So you claim that the US Supreme Court is ignorant and that you have it right? lol

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So only the states have the right to assembly peaceably?


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So the states are secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, but individuals are not?


Absolute nonsense.

Yes, the People, not the Persons colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes. The People is a Body politic in our republic, as is the Militia of the United States. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of those legal facts.

Colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes would be a crime. The peaceable assembly would not.

Your claims are ridiculous. You may couch them in colorful language, to sound more intelligent, but the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd is an individual right. Unless you have something new to say, as opposed to simply repeating the same nonsense, I will leave you to your fallacies.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

So you claim that the US Supreme Court is ignorant and that you have it right? lol

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So only the states have the right to assembly peaceably?


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So the states are secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, but individuals are not?


Absolute nonsense.

Yes, the People, not the Persons colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes. The People is a Body politic in our republic, as is the Militia of the United States. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of those legal facts.

Colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes would be a crime. The peaceable assembly would not.

Your claims are ridiculous. You may couch them in colorful language, to sound more intelligent, but the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd is an individual right. Unless you have something new to say, as opposed to simply repeating the same nonsense, I will leave you to your fallacies.

The point is the Term People is not the same as the the Term Persons; if we have to quibble.

Here is our supreme law of the land:

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.

Here is what our supreme law of the land would have to look like for your version to be more true rather that less true.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of Persons to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

So you claim that the US Supreme Court is ignorant and that you have it right? lol

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So only the states have the right to assembly peaceably?


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So the states are secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, but individuals are not?


Absolute nonsense.

Yes, the People, not the Persons colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes. The People is a Body politic in our republic, as is the Militia of the United States. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of those legal facts.

Colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes would be a crime. The peaceable assembly would not.

Your claims are ridiculous. You may couch them in colorful language, to sound more intelligent, but the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd is an individual right. Unless you have something new to say, as opposed to simply repeating the same nonsense, I will leave you to your fallacies.

The point is the Term People is not the same as the the Term Persons; if we have to quibble.

Here is our supreme law of the land:

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.

Here is what our supreme law of the land would have to look like for your version to be more true rather that less true.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of Persons to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Both the 1st and 4th amendments use the term "People".

 

[danielpalos]

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.

So you claim that the US Supreme Court is ignorant and that you have it right? lol

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So only the states have the right to assembly peaceably?


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So the states are secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, but individuals are not?


Absolute nonsense.

Yes, the People, not the Persons colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes. The People is a Body politic in our republic, as is the Militia of the United States. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of those legal facts.

Colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes would be a crime. The peaceable assembly would not.

Your claims are ridiculous. You may couch them in colorful language, to sound more intelligent, but the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd is an individual right. Unless you have something new to say, as opposed to simply repeating the same nonsense, I will leave you to your fallacies.

The point is the Term People is not the same as the the Term Persons; if we have to quibble.

Here is our supreme law of the land:

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.

Here is what our supreme law of the land would have to look like for your version to be more true rather that less true.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of Persons to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Both the 1st and 4th amendments use the term "People".

It is irrelevant since the 1st and 4th are not the 2nd. Words have meaning.

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.

There is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause which enumerates the End. It is the second clause which enumerates the Means which is to be sacrificed should there be any conflict of laws or with the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

So you claim that the US Supreme Court is ignorant and that you have it right? lol

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So only the states have the right to assembly peaceably?


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So the states are secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, but individuals are not?


Absolute nonsense.

Yes, the People, not the Persons colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes. The People is a Body politic in our republic, as is the Militia of the United States. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of those legal facts.

Colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes would be a crime. The peaceable assembly would not.

Your claims are ridiculous. You may couch them in colorful language, to sound more intelligent, but the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd is an individual right. Unless you have something new to say, as opposed to simply repeating the same nonsense, I will leave you to your fallacies.

The point is the Term People is not the same as the the Term Persons; if we have to quibble.

Here is our supreme law of the land:

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.

Here is what our supreme law of the land would have to look like for your version to be more true rather that less true.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of Persons to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Both the 1st and 4th amendments use the term "People".

It is irrelevant since the 1st and 4th are not the 2nd. Words have meaning.

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.

There is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause which enumerates the End. It is the second clause which enumerates the Means which is to be sacrificed should there be any conflict of laws or with the law.

If it is not relevant, why did you try and make the point that "People" is plural and therefore not an individual?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, the People, not the Persons colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes. The People is a Body politic in our republic, as is the Militia of the United States. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of those legal facts.

Colluding and conspiring for nefarious purposes would be a crime. The peaceable assembly would not.

Your claims are ridiculous. You may couch them in colorful language, to sound more intelligent, but the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd is an individual right. Unless you have something new to say, as opposed to simply repeating the same nonsense, I will leave you to your fallacies.

The point is the Term People is not the same as the the Term Persons; if we have to quibble.

Here is our supreme law of the land:

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.

Here is what our supreme law of the land would have to look like for your version to be more true rather that less true.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of Persons to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Both the 1st and 4th amendments use the term "People".

It is irrelevant since the 1st and 4th are not the 2nd. Words have meaning.

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.

There is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause which enumerates the End. It is the second clause which enumerates the Means which is to be sacrificed should there be any conflict of laws or with the law.

If it is not relevant, why did you try and make the point that "People" is plural and therefore not an individual?

the terms must be relevant simply because there is no willful appeal to ignorance of the law, if we have to keep quibbling.

 

[LOki]

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.

By your very own crieria, and according to your very own reference, 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 boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[LOki]

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

It is stupid and boring.

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.

There is no such thing as a "militia" or "the People" that is not contingent upon individuals, and does not refer to the individuals that compose those respective groups. Thus, construing anything but an individual right is stupid and boring.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[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.

By your very own crieria, and according to your very own reference, 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 boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

This needs a valid argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion, which is currently indistinguishable from mere, "shillery" due to your lack of a clue and a Cause.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

There is no such thing as a "militia" or "the People" that is not contingent upon individuals, and does not refer to the individuals that compose those respective groups. Thus, construing anything but an individual right is stupid and boring.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no (willful) Appeal to Ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311. It really is that simple.

 

[LOki]

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.

By your very own crieria, and according to your very own reference, 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 boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

This needs a valid argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion, which is currently indistinguishable from mere, "shillery" due to your lack of a clue and a Cause.

It was demontrated directly and decisively by your very own crieria, and according to your very own reference, 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 boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[LOki]

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.

There is no such thing as a "militia" or "the People" that is not contingent upon individuals, and does not refer to the individuals that compose those respective groups. Thus, construing anything but an individual right is stupid and boring.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no (willful) Appeal to Ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311. It really is that simple.

No there isn't. And if there were, you have failed demonstrate it--despite your every opportunity to do so.

Nor is there such thing as a "militia" or "the People" that is not contingent upon individuals, and does not refer to the individuals that compose those respective groups. Thus, construing anything but an individual right is stupid and boring.

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 boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[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.

By your very own crieria, and according to your very own reference, 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 boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

This needs a valid argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion, which is currently indistinguishable from mere, "shillery" due to your lack of a clue and a Cause.

It was demontrated directly and decisively by your very own crieria, and according to your very own reference, 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 boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Which faulty logic is that? There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.

 

[LOki]

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

It is stupid and boring.

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.

By your very own crieria, and according to your very own reference, 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 boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

This needs a valid argument to support your unsubstantiated opinion, which is currently indistinguishable from mere, "shillery" due to your lack of a clue and a Cause.

It was demontrated directly and decisively by your very own crieria, and according to your very own reference, 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 boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Which faulty logic is that? There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.

Your faulty logic has been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.

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 boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

You seem to be missing the point. I am claiming you are full of fallacy, simply Because you don't post your alleged good argument, each and every time this issue is contested, until you give up your contention, due to a simple exhaustion of any clue and any Cause you could come up with.

Which faulty logic is that? There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.

 

[LOki]

You seem to be missing the point. I am claiming you are full of fallacy, simply Because you don't post your alleged good argument, each and every time this issue is contested, until you give up your contention, due to a simple exhaustion of any clue and any Cause you could come up with.

Which faulty logic is that? There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.

Your faulty logic has been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.

You have not once contested any argument or rebuttal with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

You simply repeat your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality as a response to every direct and decisive rebuttal of your nonsense.

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 boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

You seem to be missing the point. I am claiming you are full of fallacy, simply Because you don't post your alleged good argument, each and every time this issue is contested, until you give up your contention, due to a simple exhaustion of any clue and any Cause you could come up with.

Which faulty logic is that? There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.

Your faulty logic has been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.

You have not once contested any argument or rebuttal with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

You simply repeat your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality as a response to every direct and decisive rebuttal of your nonsense.

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 boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Dude, there is no willful appeal to ignorance of the law as codified at 10US311. You have no refutation, as your current appeals to nothing but fallacy, indicate.

 

[LOki]

You seem to be missing the point. I am claiming you are full of fallacy, simply Because you don't post your alleged good argument, each and every time this issue is contested, until you give up your contention, due to a simple exhaustion of any clue and any Cause you could come up with.

Which faulty logic is that? There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.

Your faulty logic has been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.

You have not once contested any argument or rebuttal with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

You simply repeat your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality as a response to every direct and decisive rebuttal of your nonsense.

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 boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Dude, there is no willful appeal to ignorance of the law as codified at 10US311. You have no refutation, as your current appeals to nothing but fallacy, indicate.

There has not once been any appeal to any kind of ignorance of 10 USC 311.

You have not, and cannot demonstrate any fallacy I have employed. You certainly would have done so by now if it were possible for you.

You are just wrong, for all the reasons clearly posted for you previously. AGAIN. STILL.

Your errors of fact and your faulty logic have been identified for you, described for you, and then refuted and rebutted directly and decisively several times.

You have not once contested any argument or rebuttal with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

You simply repeat your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality as a response to every direct and decisive rebuttal of your nonsense.

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 boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.