Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

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.

 

[2aguy]

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

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....let me fix that for you.....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

there you go............

 

[PredFan]

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

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.

Yeah it's itrelevant to this thread dumbass.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

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....let me fix that for you.....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

there you go............

What part of there is no Appeal to Ignorance of any part of our federal supreme law of the land, are you too incompetent to comprehend?

 

[LOki]

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

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....let me fix that for you.....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

there you go............

What part of there is no Appeal to Ignorance of any part of our federal supreme law of the land, are you too incompetent to comprehend?

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

 

[usfan]

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

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.

Are we going by your personal opinion, the democratic platform, or the supreme court rulings, as to what the 2nd amendment means?

Or maybe you'd prefer Bubba's view, living in rural Kentucky?

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

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.

Are we going by your personal opinion, the democratic platform, or the supreme court rulings, as to what the 2nd amendment means?

Or maybe you'd prefer Bubba's view, living in rural Kentucky?

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" it must mean something and it cannot be irrelevant to the topic of our Second Amendment.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

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.

Are we going by your personal opinion, the democratic platform, or the supreme court rulings, as to what the 2nd amendment means?

Or maybe you'd prefer Bubba's view, living in rural Kentucky?

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" it must mean something and it cannot be irrelevant to the topic of our Second Amendment.

It is not irrelevant. But it is only a modifier to the actual subject of the sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

Also, given the fact that our founding fathers relied on an armed population that could be formed into a militia in short order, the supposition that the 2nd preserves a state's right is ridiculous.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

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.

Are we going by your personal opinion, the democratic platform, or the supreme court rulings, as to what the 2nd amendment means?

Or maybe you'd prefer Bubba's view, living in rural Kentucky?

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" it must mean something and it cannot be irrelevant to the topic of our Second Amendment.

It is not irrelevant. But it is only a modifier to the actual subject of the sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

Also, given the fact that our founding fathers relied on an armed population that could be formed into a militia in short order, the supposition that the 2nd preserves a state's right is ridiculous.

It is the Intend and Purpose for the Clause that Follows.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

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.

Are we going by your personal opinion, the democratic platform, or the supreme court rulings, as to what the 2nd amendment means?

Or maybe you'd prefer Bubba's view, living in rural Kentucky?

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" it must mean something and it cannot be irrelevant to the topic of our Second Amendment.

It is not irrelevant. But it is only a modifier to the actual subject of the sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

Also, given the fact that our founding fathers relied on an armed population that could be formed into a militia in short order, the supposition that the 2nd preserves a state's right is ridiculous.

It is the Intend and Purpose for the Clause that Follows.

I have not argued that. Where we differ is on whether or not the 2nd protects the state's right to have a militia, or whether it protects the individual's right to bear arms and be ready to become the militia when needed.

 

[danielpalos]

dude, our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

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.

Are we going by your personal opinion, the democratic platform, or the supreme court rulings, as to what the 2nd amendment means?

Or maybe you'd prefer Bubba's view, living in rural Kentucky?

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" it must mean something and it cannot be irrelevant to the topic of our Second Amendment.

It is not irrelevant. But it is only a modifier to the actual subject of the sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

Also, given the fact that our founding fathers relied on an armed population that could be formed into a militia in short order, the supposition that the 2nd preserves a state's right is ridiculous.

It is the Intend and Purpose for the Clause that Follows.

I have not argued that. Where we differ is on whether or not the 2nd protects the state's right to have a militia, or whether it protects the individual's right to bear arms and be ready to become the militia when needed.

our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean one thing when you don't appeal to ignorance of the lead Clause and its Cause.

 

[WinterBorn]

dude, our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean

Are we going by your personal opinion, the democratic platform, or the supreme court rulings, as to what the 2nd amendment means?

Or maybe you'd prefer Bubba's view, living in rural Kentucky?

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" it must mean something and it cannot be irrelevant to the topic of our Second Amendment.

It is not irrelevant. But it is only a modifier to the actual subject of the sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

Also, given the fact that our founding fathers relied on an armed population that could be formed into a militia in short order, the supposition that the 2nd preserves a state's right is ridiculous.

It is the Intend and Purpose for the Clause that Follows.

I have not argued that. Where we differ is on whether or not the 2nd protects the state's right to have a militia, or whether it protects the individual's right to bear arms and be ready to become the militia when needed.

our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean one thing when you don't appeal to ignorance of the lead Clause and its Cause.

I agree with you again. It can only mean that the individual's right to own guns is protected.

There are several reasons I says this.

#1 - The Bill of Rights was written solely to protect the rights of the individuals, not any gov't entity.
#2 - The founding fathers believed in an armed civilian population that could be called up to form a militia if needed.
#3 - The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" speaks very clearly.
#4 - Some of the greatest constitutional scholars in our nation's history (including the SCOTUS) agree with me.

 

[danielpalos]

dude, our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws; therefore, it cannot be irrelevant.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" it must mean something and it cannot be irrelevant to the topic of our Second Amendment.

It is not irrelevant. But it is only a modifier to the actual subject of the sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

Also, given the fact that our founding fathers relied on an armed population that could be formed into a militia in short order, the supposition that the 2nd preserves a state's right is ridiculous.

It is the Intend and Purpose for the Clause that Follows.

I have not argued that. Where we differ is on whether or not the 2nd protects the state's right to have a militia, or whether it protects the individual's right to bear arms and be ready to become the militia when needed.

our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean one thing when you don't appeal to ignorance of the lead Clause and its Cause.

I agree with you again. It can only mean that the individual's right to own guns is protected.

There are several reasons I says this.

#1 - The Bill of Rights was written solely to protect the rights of the individuals, not any gov't entity.
#2 - The founding fathers believed in an armed civilian population that could be called up to form a militia if needed.
#3 - The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" speaks very clearly.
#4 - Some of the greatest constitutional scholars in our nation's history (including the SCOTUS) agree with me.

Why would it say that, if what is supposed to be protected by the People of that State, is the security of that free State not rights in private property.

This is what our Second Amendment secures:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.

 

[WinterBorn]

dude, our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean

It is not irrelevant. But it is only a modifier to the actual subject of the sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

Also, given the fact that our founding fathers relied on an armed population that could be formed into a militia in short order, the supposition that the 2nd preserves a state's right is ridiculous.

It is the Intend and Purpose for the Clause that Follows.

I have not argued that. Where we differ is on whether or not the 2nd protects the state's right to have a militia, or whether it protects the individual's right to bear arms and be ready to become the militia when needed.

our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean one thing when you don't appeal to ignorance of the lead Clause and its Cause.

I agree with you again. It can only mean that the individual's right to own guns is protected.

There are several reasons I says this.

#1 - The Bill of Rights was written solely to protect the rights of the individuals, not any gov't entity.
#2 - The founding fathers believed in an armed civilian population that could be called up to form a militia if needed.
#3 - The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" speaks very clearly.
#4 - Some of the greatest constitutional scholars in our nation's history (including the SCOTUS) agree with me.

Why would it say that, if what is supposed to be protected by the People of that State, is the security of that free State not rights in private property.

This is what our Second Amendment secures:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.

The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the individual from being usurped by the state. That is it. Nothing more and nothing less.

You have tried to maintain this "The 2nd amendment is about the rights of the state" nonsense for page after page after page. The constitutional scholars disagree and the SCOTUS disagrees. Who is in a better position to say it?

 

[PredFan]

Poor liberal gun grabbers. They are so beaten that they have lost their minds.

 

[WinterBorn]

Poor liberal gun grabbers. They are so beaten that they have lost their minds.

Yeah, I'll let him keep repeating his claim. The SCOTUS has ruled.

 

[PredFan]

Poor liberal gun grabbers. They are so beaten that they have lost their minds.

Yeah, I'll let him keep repeating his claim. The SCOTUS has ruled.

That's all he does is repeat the same thing over and over.

 

[LOki]

dude, our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean

It is not irrelevant. But it is only a modifier to the actual subject of the sentence "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

Also, given the fact that our founding fathers relied on an armed population that could be formed into a militia in short order, the supposition that the 2nd preserves a state's right is ridiculous.

It is the Intend and Purpose for the Clause that Follows.

I have not argued that. Where we differ is on whether or not the 2nd protects the state's right to have a militia, or whether it protects the individual's right to bear arms and be ready to become the militia when needed.

our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean one thing when you don't appeal to ignorance of the lead Clause and its Cause.

I agree with you again. It can only mean that the individual's right to own guns is protected.

There are several reasons I says this.

#1 - The Bill of Rights was written solely to protect the rights of the individuals, not any gov't entity.
#2 - The founding fathers believed in an armed civilian population that could be called up to form a militia if needed.
#3 - The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" speaks very clearly.
#4 - Some of the greatest constitutional scholars in our nation's history (including the SCOTUS) agree with me.

Why would it say that, if what is supposed to be protected by the People of that State, is the security of that free State not rights in private property.

This is what our Second Amendment secures:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.

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]

dude, our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean

It is the Intend and Purpose for the Clause that Follows.

I have not argued that. Where we differ is on whether or not the 2nd protects the state's right to have a militia, or whether it protects the individual's right to bear arms and be ready to become the militia when needed.

our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean one thing when you don't appeal to ignorance of the lead Clause and its Cause.

I agree with you again. It can only mean that the individual's right to own guns is protected.

There are several reasons I says this.

#1 - The Bill of Rights was written solely to protect the rights of the individuals, not any gov't entity.
#2 - The founding fathers believed in an armed civilian population that could be called up to form a militia if needed.
#3 - The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" speaks very clearly.
#4 - Some of the greatest constitutional scholars in our nation's history (including the SCOTUS) agree with me.

Why would it say that, if what is supposed to be protected by the People of that State, is the security of that free State not rights in private property.

This is what our Second Amendment secures:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.

The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the individual from being usurped by the state. That is it. Nothing more and nothing less.

You have tried to maintain this "The 2nd amendment is about the rights of the state" nonsense for page after page after page. The constitutional scholars disagree and the SCOTUS disagrees. Who is in a better position to say it?

No it doesn't; Each amendment has to be read in their severalty--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-One

Why would our Second Amendment say that, if what is supposed to be protected by the People of that State, is the security of that free State not rights in private property--"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

This is what our Second Amendment secures:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.

Those of the opposing view are welcome to argue their point here.

 

[LOki]

dude, our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean

I have not argued that. Where we differ is on whether or not the 2nd protects the state's right to have a militia, or whether it protects the individual's right to bear arms and be ready to become the militia when needed.

our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean one thing when you don't appeal to ignorance of the lead Clause and its Cause.

I agree with you again. It can only mean that the individual's right to own guns is protected.

There are several reasons I says this.

#1 - The Bill of Rights was written solely to protect the rights of the individuals, not any gov't entity.
#2 - The founding fathers believed in an armed civilian population that could be called up to form a militia if needed.
#3 - The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" speaks very clearly.
#4 - Some of the greatest constitutional scholars in our nation's history (including the SCOTUS) agree with me.

Why would it say that, if what is supposed to be protected by the People of that State, is the security of that free State not rights in private property.

This is what our Second Amendment secures:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.

The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the individual from being usurped by the state. That is it. Nothing more and nothing less.

You have tried to maintain this "The 2nd amendment is about the rights of the state" nonsense for page after page after page. The constitutional scholars disagree and the SCOTUS disagrees. Who is in a better position to say it?

No it doesn't; Each amendment has to be read in their severalty--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-One

Why would our Second Amendment say that, if what is supposed to be protected by the People of that State, is the security of that free State not rights in private property--"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

This is what our Second Amendment secures:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Rights in private property are usually a civil or criminal matter.

Those of the opposing view are welcome to argue their point here.

"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."​

It is NOT possible for the subordinate clause of the 2nd Amendment to have meaning without the main, operative clause--any meaning that the subordinate clause has is DEPENDENT UPON the main clause.

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 "common end" is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights: "... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

"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."​

Since the parts of the 2nd Amendment DO coincide to conspire to a common end, your insistence that any part of the 2nd Amendment be sacrificed is entirely misapplied.

Furthermore, the "end" conspired to is explicitly identified in the preamble to the Bill Of Rights: "... to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal Government's] powers,..."

Yet even in your misapplication of what the "end" is, you fail to assert proper emphasis; it is not the security of any kind of state that that we're interested in, but rather the security of a FREE state-- a nation free of despotism.

Your construction runs precisely counter to the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights, it sacrifices legitimate means to the interests of illegitimate ends, and is self-destructive in making your entire construction meaningless to itself.

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