Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

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

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.

Setting the prefatory clause separate from the operative clause renders it meaningless, in direct violation of your very own refence... just as it did the first time you sailed this out.

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.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

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

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Is the Intent and purpose.

You have never demonstrated that, but it remains irrelevant... for even if you were right about the intent and purpose, the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

Yes, I did; you are merely too incompetent to understand, pumkin.

 

[danielpalos]

Governors are Commanders in Chief of that which is necessary to the security of a free State; and would enable me to goad the right; by simply asking blue States for volunteer select militia to help out any red States whenever they should need a bailout. And, not Only that, but, also reimburse them for it, (if the guys with the purse strings aren't too stingy for that.)

So you allow the states to create their own gun laws, independent of the federal gov't?

And what would red states need to be bailed out of that would require a militia?

They already do; I would merely hold them accountable for excess above any fixed Standard, I may convince our "Congressionals", may be necessary and proper to faithfully execute.

I believe elements of State defense forces (militia) should be tasked with supporting "first responders" to any natural disasters that may or may not cross State lines.

So you will have a militia (National Guard). But will your system allow citizens to own guns? Or will all those guns be kept in armories? And what of self defense or sporting uses?

Two separate issues; natural rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the terms, acquire and posses.

Then what you have described is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that is aimed at giving the states more rights or power. Nothing else in the Bill of Rights does anything close.

So, under your version of the US, the states can legally disarm its population? No thanks. Not what the founders intended at all.

What are you talking about? Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific terms, acquire and posses.

 

[danielpalos]

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

The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all. The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?

Read your history. The "militia" was every able bodied man (yes they were sexist back then) between the ages of 18 and 60. There are two types of militia, the organized and unorganized. All people are members of the unorganized militia. The organized militias are the various State Guards, and of course the National Guard which is a Federal construct.

One of the oldest organized militia groups in existence is the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston but it is a civilian group. Not governmental.

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law--10USC311.

 

[danielpalos]

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

The phrase does not establish a militia or even describe it at all. The intent and purpose of teh 2nd amendment is the on thing it actually does, and that is to establish and preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What ever does this clause mean to you and those of your point of view: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Does it not seem like an Intent for some Thing and some sort of Purpose for it?

It seems to be an explanation of why citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms. But the point (intent & purpose) of teh amendment is to establish and preserve the right to keep and bear arms.

Do you really really believe that?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," Only the security of a free State is of any concern, in our Second Amendment.

It is a States' sovereign right, expressly declared.

Wow you have a very poor understanding of the English language.

Wow, you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause regardless of language used.

 

[LOki]

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

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.

Setting the prefatory clause separate from the operative clause renders it meaningless, in direct violation of your very own refence... just as it did the first time you sailed this out.

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.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

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

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Is the Intent and purpose.

You have never demonstrated that, but it remains irrelevant... for even if you were right about the intent and purpose, the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

Yes, I did; you are merely too incompetent to understand, pumkin.

"... for even if you were right about the intent and purpose, the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose."​

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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.

Setting the prefatory clause separate from the operative clause renders it meaningless, in direct violation of your very own refence... just as it did the first time you sailed this out.

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.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

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

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Is the Intent and purpose.

You have never demonstrated that, but it remains irrelevant... for even if you were right about the intent and purpose, the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

Yes, I did; you are merely too incompetent to understand, pumkin.

"... for even if you were right about the intent and purpose, the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose."​

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

How can the Intent and Purpose be repugnant to itself or violate the stated intent and purpose?

 

[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.

Setting the prefatory clause separate from the operative clause renders it meaningless, in direct violation of your very own refence... just as it did the first time you sailed this out.

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.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

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

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Is the Intent and purpose.

You have never demonstrated that, but it remains irrelevant... for even if you were right about the intent and purpose, the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose.

Yes, I did; you are merely too incompetent to understand, pumkin.

"... for even if you were right about the intent and purpose, the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's stated intent and purpose."​

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

How can the Intent and Purpose be repugnant to itself or violate the stated intent and purpose?

Your reference says, "...every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning...".

Your construction disallows meaning for the main, operative clause, AS WELL AS the dependent, subordinate, preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment--the "intent and purpose", as you would have it.

When you set the prefatory clause separate from the operative clause you render it meaningless, in direct violation of your very own refence... just as you did the first time you sailed this out.

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."; it 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 CANNOT alone.

The preforatory clause expresses an incomplete thought--its complete meaning is dependent upon (is 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."

Since the meaning of the prefatory clause is dependent upon the complete, and unabridged assertion of the operative clause, the prefatory clause cannot constrain the main clause without being repugnant to itself--without violating the 2nd Amendment's "intent and purpose", as you would have it.

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 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]

There is no, "main operative clause" it is an open book test; don't let our (senior) elders fool you with unsound lines of reasoning. There is an End, and the Means; any Thing more technical than that, is a diversion.

 

[LOki]

There is no, "main operative clause" it is an open book test; don't let our (senior) elders fool you with unsound lines of reasoning. There is an End, and the Means; any Thing more technical than that, is a diversion.

You're just denying the realities of sentence construction.

From the author(s) of the 2nd amendment, to every expert on written English, to every Supreme Court Justice with an opinion on the topic, to everyone with a competent grasp of the English language... all agree unanimously that the 2nd Amendment indeed contains a main operative clause, and that clause states that, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Everyone but you, Cupcake. Why do you suppose that is?

Perhaps it Its because of an appeal to "the fallacy of your Cause."

Or maybe you're just boring... and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no, "main operative clause" it is an open book test; don't let our (senior) elders fool you with unsound lines of reasoning. There is an End, and the Means; any Thing more technical than that, is a diversion.

You're just denying the realities of sentence construction.

From the author(s) of the 2nd amendment, to every expert on written English, to every Supreme Court Justice with an opinion on the topic, to everyone with a competent grasp of the English language... all agree unanimously that the 2nd Amendment indeed contains a main operative clause, and that clause states that, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Everyone but you, Cupcake. Why do you suppose that is?

Perhaps it Its because of an appeal to "the fallacy of your Cause."

Or maybe you're just boring... and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

sorry, pumkin; simply appealing to authority with only fallacy in support does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.

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

 

[LOki]

There is no, "main operative clause" it is an open book test; don't let our (senior) elders fool you with unsound lines of reasoning. There is an End, and the Means; any Thing more technical than that, is a diversion.

You're just denying the realities of sentence construction.

From the author(s) of the 2nd amendment, to every expert on written English, to every Supreme Court Justice with an opinion on the topic, to everyone with a competent grasp of the English language... all agree unanimously that the 2nd Amendment indeed contains a main operative clause, and that clause states that, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Everyone but you, Cupcake. Why do you suppose that is?

Perhaps it Its because of an appeal to "the fallacy of your Cause."

Or maybe you're just boring... and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

sorry, pumkin; simply appealing to authority with only fallacy in support does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.

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

There is no appeal to authority being made by me; no fallacies what-so-ever brought to support my argument. You have leveled such accusations before, but have never demonstrated their validity... they are baseless in fact and valid logic. As are all your arguments.

The proper construction, that I have presented and you deny, does not offer any conflict between the clauses. There is no need to sacrifice one or the other.

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing for the sole purpose of "sacrificing" "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. You own bullshit defeats you, and the reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

(Watching you punch yourself in your stupid face is hilarious!)

 

[danielpalos]

There is no, "main operative clause" it is an open book test; don't let our (senior) elders fool you with unsound lines of reasoning. There is an End, and the Means; any Thing more technical than that, is a diversion.

You're just denying the realities of sentence construction.

From the author(s) of the 2nd amendment, to every expert on written English, to every Supreme Court Justice with an opinion on the topic, to everyone with a competent grasp of the English language... all agree unanimously that the 2nd Amendment indeed contains a main operative clause, and that clause states that, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Everyone but you, Cupcake. Why do you suppose that is?

Perhaps it Its because of an appeal to "the fallacy of your Cause."

Or maybe you're just boring... and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

sorry, pumkin; simply appealing to authority with only fallacy in support does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.

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

There is no appeal to authority being made by me; no fallacies what-so-ever brought to support my argument. You have leveled such accusations before, but have never demonstrated their validity... they are baseless in fact and valid logic. As are all your arguments.

The proper construction, that I have presented and you deny, does not offer any conflict between the clauses. There is no need to sacrifice one or the other.

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing for the sole purpose of "sacrificing" "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. You own bullshit defeats you, and the reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

(Watching you punch yourself in your stupid face is hilarious!)

Dude, you can't get any better explanation of the rules of construction than the federalist one, in The Federalist Number Forty.

 

[LOki]

There is no, "main operative clause" it is an open book test; don't let our (senior) elders fool you with unsound lines of reasoning. There is an End, and the Means; any Thing more technical than that, is a diversion.

You're just denying the realities of sentence construction.

From the author(s) of the 2nd amendment, to every expert on written English, to every Supreme Court Justice with an opinion on the topic, to everyone with a competent grasp of the English language... all agree unanimously that the 2nd Amendment indeed contains a main operative clause, and that clause states that, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Everyone but you, Cupcake. Why do you suppose that is?

Perhaps it Its because of an appeal to "the fallacy of your Cause."

Or maybe you're just boring... and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

sorry, pumkin; simply appealing to authority with only fallacy in support does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.

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

There is no appeal to authority being made by me; no fallacies what-so-ever brought to support my argument. You have leveled such accusations before, but have never demonstrated their validity... they are baseless in fact and valid logic. As are all your arguments.

The proper construction, that I have presented and you deny, does not offer any conflict between the clauses. There is no need to sacrifice one or the other.

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing for the sole purpose of "sacrificing" "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. You own bullshit defeats you, and the reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

(Watching you punch yourself in your stupid face is hilarious!)

Dude, you can't get any better explanation of the rules of construction than the federalist one, in The Federalist Number Forty.

That's right; and as clearly demonstrated, according to those rules of construction that you cited in support of your retarded notions, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

(Watching you punch yourself in your stupid face again is hilarious!)

 

[danielpalos]

There is no, "main operative clause" it is an open book test; don't let our (senior) elders fool you with unsound lines of reasoning. There is an End, and the Means; any Thing more technical than that, is a diversion.

You're just denying the realities of sentence construction.

From the author(s) of the 2nd amendment, to every expert on written English, to every Supreme Court Justice with an opinion on the topic, to everyone with a competent grasp of the English language... all agree unanimously that the 2nd Amendment indeed contains a main operative clause, and that clause states that, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Everyone but you, Cupcake. Why do you suppose that is?

Perhaps it Its because of an appeal to "the fallacy of your Cause."

Or maybe you're just boring... and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

sorry, pumkin; simply appealing to authority with only fallacy in support does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.

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

There is no appeal to authority being made by me; no fallacies what-so-ever brought to support my argument. You have leveled such accusations before, but have never demonstrated their validity... they are baseless in fact and valid logic. As are all your arguments.

The proper construction, that I have presented and you deny, does not offer any conflict between the clauses. There is no need to sacrifice one or the other.

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing for the sole purpose of "sacrificing" "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. You own bullshit defeats you, and the reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

(Watching you punch yourself in your stupid face is hilarious!)

Dude, you can't get any better explanation of the rules of construction than the federalist one, in The Federalist Number Forty.

That's right, and as clearly demonstrated, according to those rules of construction that you cited in support of your retarded notions, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

the only Thing unsound, is your line of reasoning, grasshopper.

 

[LOki]

You're just denying the realities of sentence construction.

From the author(s) of the 2nd amendment, to every expert on written English, to every Supreme Court Justice with an opinion on the topic, to everyone with a competent grasp of the English language... all agree unanimously that the 2nd Amendment indeed contains a main operative clause, and that clause states that, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Everyone but you, Cupcake. Why do you suppose that is?

Perhaps it Its because of an appeal to "the fallacy of your Cause."

Or maybe you're just boring... and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

sorry, pumkin; simply appealing to authority with only fallacy in support does not inspire confidence in your sincerity.

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

There is no appeal to authority being made by me; no fallacies what-so-ever brought to support my argument. You have leveled such accusations before, but have never demonstrated their validity... they are baseless in fact and valid logic. As are all your arguments.

The proper construction, that I have presented and you deny, does not offer any conflict between the clauses. There is no need to sacrifice one or the other.

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing for the sole purpose of "sacrificing" "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. You own bullshit defeats you, and the reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

(Watching you punch yourself in your stupid face is hilarious!)

Dude, you can't get any better explanation of the rules of construction than the federalist one, in The Federalist Number Forty.

That's right, and as clearly demonstrated, according to those rules of construction that you cited in support of your retarded notions, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

the only Thing unsound, is your line of reasoning, grasshopper.

You're just as wrong, stupid, and boring as you were from the start. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

i can't be wrong, pumkin; you are the who only has fallacy for your Cause.

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.

Can you cite any mention of any "main operative clause"?

 

[LOki]

i can't be wrong, pumkin; you are the who only has fallacy for your Cause.

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.

Can you cite any mention of any "main operative clause"?

The existence of a main operative clause, and its relationship to subordinate, dependent clauses is not mentioned, because they are understood by every competent user of the English language. The reason for this is that, every complete sentence ever spoken or written in the English language, in the entire history of the English language, is its own main operative clause, or contains a main operative clause. There are no exceptions. NONE.

It is a fact of reality that ONLY YOU are in denial of.

Without a main operative clause, a sentence is incomplete at the least and meaningless at the most. The authors of the Federalist papers understood this; the authors of the 2nd Amendment understood this; the SCOTUS understands this; I understand this, as does every competent user of the English language.

The only person who does not understand this basic fact of communicating in English is YOU.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

i can't be wrong, pumkin; you are the who only has fallacy for your Cause.

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.

Can you cite any mention of any "main operative clause"?

The existence of a main operative clause, and its relationship to subordinate, dependent clauses is not mentioned, because they are understood by every competent user of the English language. The reason for this is that, every complete sentence ever spoken or written in the English language, in the entire history of the English language, is its own main operative clause, or contains a main operative clause. There are no exceptions. NONE.

It is a fact of reality that ONLY YOU are in denial of.

Without a main operative clause, a sentence is incomplete at the least and meaningless at the most. The authors of the Federalist papers understood this; the authors of the 2nd Amendment understood this; the SCOTUS understands this; I understand this, as does every competent user of the English language.

The only person who does not understand this basic fact of communicating in English is YOU.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

sorry, pumkin; that is a fallacy. You have to show the End and Means; not any silly "main operative clause".

 

[LOki]

i can't be wrong, pumkin; you are the who only has fallacy for your Cause.

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.

Can you cite any mention of any "main operative clause"?

The existence of a main operative clause, and its relationship to subordinate, dependent clauses is not mentioned, because they are understood by every competent user of the English language. The reason for this is that, every complete sentence ever spoken or written in the English language, in the entire history of the English language, is its own main operative clause, or contains a main operative clause. There are no exceptions. NONE.

It is a fact of reality that ONLY YOU are in denial of.

Without a main operative clause, a sentence is incomplete at the least and meaningless at the most. The authors of the Federalist papers understood this; the authors of the 2nd Amendment understood this; the SCOTUS understands this; I understand this, as does every competent user of the English language.

The only person who does not understand this basic fact of communicating in English is YOU.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

sorry, pumkin; that is a fallacy. You have to show the End and Means; not any silly "main operative clause".

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

Since there's no reason for anyone to expect that you'll identify, explain, or demonstrate this " fallacy" you're accusing me of applying, we'll just move on to identifying the reason no such exposition will be forthcoming.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.

The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.

If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.