Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.

The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed. The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this. In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.

Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which all of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.

And when would those adults be arriving? Your arguments are simply ridiculous points hidden in vague language and intentionally verbose nonsense.

Big words are nice. But since language is about communication, being more to the point would be far more helpful than showing off your access to a thesaurus,

It is simple, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; that includes the Intent and Purpose.

 

[Wildman]

in the first ten amendments there are the words, "THE PEOPLE"..,

the people in the second amendment are the same people mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th, therefore, the people in the 2nd have the same right e.g., "The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"

got it now you stupid fucking liberscum ???

 

[danielpalos]

in the first ten amendments there are the words, "THE PEOPLE"..,

the people in the second amendment are the same people mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th, therefore, the people in the 2nd have the same right e.g., "The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"

got it now you stupid fucking liberscum ???

so what; only our Second Amendment declares what is necessary to the security of a free State; appealer to ignorance of the law and fuller of fallacy

 

[WinterBorn]

Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.

The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed. The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this. In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.

Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which all of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.

And when would those adults be arriving? Your arguments are simply ridiculous points hidden in vague language and intentionally verbose nonsense.

Big words are nice. But since language is about communication, being more to the point would be far more helpful than showing off your access to a thesaurus,

It is simple, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; that includes the Intent and Purpose.

You keep repeating that. Given that the SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd amendment is, in fact, an individual right, and that the right is not contingent on membership in a gov't run militia, where are they appealing to ignorance of the law?

Or better yet, to what law are they appealing to ignorance of?

As for Intent & Purpose, the founding fathers made their intent quite clear in numerous other writings.

 

[WinterBorn]

in the first ten amendments there are the words, "THE PEOPLE"..,

the people in the second amendment are the same people mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th, therefore, the people in the 2nd have the same right e.g., "The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"

got it now you stupid fucking liberscum ???

so what; only our Second Amendment declares what is necessary to the security of a free State.

And what the founding fathers saw as necessary is armed citizens. The SCOTUS has already ruled that the first clause does not alter or limit the statement "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".

To try and suggest that "the people" in the 2nd amendment refers to the state, while the exact same phrase in the other amendments refers to citizens is simply laughable.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which all of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.

And when would those adults be arriving? Your arguments are simply ridiculous points hidden in vague language and intentionally verbose nonsense.

Big words are nice. But since language is about communication, being more to the point would be far more helpful than showing off your access to a thesaurus,

It is simple, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; that includes the Intent and Purpose.

You keep repeating that. Given that the SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd amendment is, in fact, an individual right, and that the right is not contingent on membership in a gov't run militia, where are they appealing to ignorance of the law?

Or better yet, to what law are they appealing to ignorance of?

As for Intent & Purpose, the founding fathers made their intent quite clear in numerous other writings.

It was how they arrived at any Individual rights in private property secured by our Second Article of Amendment; it would require an appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose.

And, our supreme law of the land is not reducible to mere fractions.

It is not the fault of the left, that the right may not be competent enough to understand those simple, but adult concepts.

 

[WinterBorn]

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.

And when would those adults be arriving? Your arguments are simply ridiculous points hidden in vague language and intentionally verbose nonsense.

Big words are nice. But since language is about communication, being more to the point would be far more helpful than showing off your access to a thesaurus,

It is simple, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; that includes the Intent and Purpose.

You keep repeating that. Given that the SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd amendment is, in fact, an individual right, and that the right is not contingent on membership in a gov't run militia, where are they appealing to ignorance of the law?

Or better yet, to what law are they appealing to ignorance of?

As for Intent & Purpose, the founding fathers made their intent quite clear in numerous other writings.

It was how they arrived at any Individual rights in private property secured by our Second Article of Amendment; it would require an appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose.

And, our supreme law of the land is not reducible to mere fractions.

It is not the fault of the left, that the right may not be competent enough to understand those simple, but adult concepts.

You are simply being obtuse. There is no reasoning in your arguments. You can imply that those who disagree are not intelligent enough to understand your argument. But you are absolutely wrong. I am intelligent enough to see that you have no argument. Intelligent enough to see that you have tried over and over to bend the 2nd amendment to the US Code, which is ridiculous. Intelligent enough to see that you think repeating " there is no appeal to ignorance of the law" actually means something in this context (I kinda doubt the justices of teh US Supreme Court are ignorant of the law). And I am intelligent enough to see that you want "the People" to mean one thing in the 2nd amendment and to have a totally different meaning in all the other amendments of the Bill of Rights. That is called hypocrisy.

If you have an actual argument, I will happily discuss it. If you are going to continue this verbose and vague nonsense, I will add you to the very short list of people I ignore.

 

[LOki]

Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.

The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed. The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this. In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.

Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which all of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

where is your more intelligent argument?

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]

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 Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.

 

[LOki]

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 Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.

Unsubstantiated. Discredited. Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

"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.""​

 

[WinterBorn]

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 Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.

The intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to preserve the right for citizens to keep and bear arms. That was certainly the intent. And they wrote the amendment for that purpose. Forming militia is NOT the intent nor the purpose.

 

[WinterBorn]

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 Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.

Daniel, what is your education background and your career history? Just a general idea, if you don't mind?

 

[danielpalos]

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 Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.

The intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to preserve the right for citizens to keep and bear arms. That was certainly the intent. And they wrote the amendment for that purpose. Forming militia is NOT the intent nor the purpose.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.

 

[danielpalos]

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 Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.

Daniel, what is your education background and your career history? Just a general idea, if you don't mind?

reading comprehension.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe our (senior) elders should be ashamed of themselves for corrupting their juniors instead of teaching more sound lines of reasoning.

 

[LOki]

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 Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.

The intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to preserve the right for citizens to keep and bear arms. That was certainly the intent. And they wrote the amendment for that purpose. Forming militia is NOT the intent nor the purpose.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.

Your repeated, meaningless, and unsubstantiated claim.

Boring. Stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[WinterBorn]

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 Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.

The intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to preserve the right for citizens to keep and bear arms. That was certainly the intent. And they wrote the amendment for that purpose. Forming militia is NOT the intent nor the purpose.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.

No, it is not. It is a subordinate clause for the actual purpose of the amendment, which is to secure and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The 2nd amendment does not create or preserve militias, other than guaranteeing armed citizens. The intent and purpose is to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[WinterBorn]

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 Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.

Daniel, what is your education background and your career history? Just a general idea, if you don't mind?

reading comprehension.

And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?

Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise. And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof.

 

[WinterBorn]

I believe our (senior) elders should be ashamed of themselves for corrupting their juniors instead of teaching more sound lines of reasoning.

I believe that those who seek to twist the truth to limit the rights of our citizens should be ashamed.


But let me ask you, (and hope you will actually answer for a change) what would you have our gun laws be?

 

[danielpalos]

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 Intent and Purpose is the End, it is the Means that is subordinate.

Daniel, what is your education background and your career history? Just a general idea, if you don't mind?

reading comprehension.

And your gift at reading comprehension is so much better than the justices of the US Supreme Court?

Funny, but your claims that "the people" in the 2nd amendment means something different than the exact same phrase in other amendments would lead me to believe otherwise. And your contention that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is additional proof.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"--is the Intent and Purpose.

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 Forty