Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

dude, our Second Article of Amendment can Only mean
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.

The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.

 

[LOki]

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.

The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.

You cannot demonstrate your assertion with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertion to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

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

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.

You cannot demonstrate your assertion with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertion to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

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

There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law, not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience.

 

[LOki]

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.

The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.

You cannot demonstrate your assertion with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertion to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

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

There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law,...

No, there is not. And you cannot demonstrate that any such appeal has been made.

...not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience.

There has been no appeal to ignorance of the dependent, prefatory clause; you cannot demonstrate that any such appeal has been made.

You cannot demonstrate your assertions with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertions to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

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

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.

You cannot demonstrate your assertion with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertion to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

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

There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law, not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience.

I never claimed there was. And neither, as far as I know, did anyone else.

We have simply claimed that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the rights of the individuals, not of the states. And it is not about property rights, but rights to keep and bear arms.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.

You cannot demonstrate your assertion with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertion to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

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

There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law,...

No, there is not. And you cannot demonstrate that any such appeal has been made.

...not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience.

There has been no appeal to ignorance of the dependent, prefatory clause; you cannot demonstrate that any such appeal has been made.

You cannot demonstrate your assertions with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertions to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

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

Yes, there has; otherwise, you would know that the First clause with the Cause, leads the Second clause.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.

You cannot demonstrate your assertion with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertion to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

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

There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law, not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience.

I never claimed there was. And neither, as far as I know, did anyone else.

We have simply claimed that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the rights of the individuals, not of the states. And it is not about property rights, but rights to keep and bear arms.

There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law, not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience--the First clause with the Cause, leads the Second clause.

 

[LOki]

There has been no appeal to ignorance of the dependent, prefatory clause; you cannot demonstrate that any such appeal has been made.

You cannot demonstrate your assertions with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertions to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

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

"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.

The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.

You cannot demonstrate your assertion with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertion to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

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

There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law,...

No, there is not. And you cannot demonstrate that any such appeal has been made.

...not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience.

There has been no appeal to ignorance of the dependent, prefatory clause; you cannot demonstrate that any such appeal has been made.

You cannot demonstrate your assertions with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertions to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

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

Yes, there has; otherwise, you would know that the First clause with the Cause, leads the Second clause.

 

[LOki]

"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.

The Intent and Purpose of the law is in the First Clause, not the Second Clause.

You cannot demonstrate your assertion with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

You have not refuted the counter assertion to your nonsense with any valid, verifiable facts of reality.

Your notions of legal construction are wrong.

Your notions of English construction are just hysterical.

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

There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law, not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience.

I never claimed there was. And neither, as far as I know, did anyone else.

We have simply claimed that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the rights of the individuals, not of the states. And it is not about property rights, but rights to keep and bear arms.

There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law, not even the first clause merely due to political inconvenience--the First clause with the Cause, leads the Second clause.

There is no appeal to ignorance of proper sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.

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."

You arewrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.

Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.

In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the flakes you are being impugned to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.

 

[LOki]

Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.

You'll just have to excuse me if I can't be interested in your false slack.

Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.

In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the flakes you are being impugned to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.

I don't know about "gun lovers," but the disinformation campaign against those who value their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is clearly failing... for reasons made patently obvious.

Evidenced by the repeal and overturning of obnoxious gun-control laws, and the expansion of "shall issue" and "constitutional carry" initiatives nation wide.

 

[Ringel05]

Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.

You'll just have to excuse me if I can't be interested in your false slack.

Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.

In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the flakes you are being impugned to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.

I don't know about "gun lovers," but the disinformation campaign against those who value their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is clearly failing... for reasons made patently obvious.

Evidenced by the repeal and overturning of obnoxious gun-control laws, and the expansion of "shall issue" and "constitutional carry" initiatives nation wide.

Why are you arguing with a monomaniacal zealot?

 

[LOki]

Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.

You'll just have to excuse me if I can't be interested in your false slack.

Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.

In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the flakes you are being impugned to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.

I don't know about "gun lovers," but the disinformation campaign against those who value their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is clearly failing... for reasons made patently obvious.

Evidenced by the repeal and overturning of obnoxious gun-control laws, and the expansion of "shall issue" and "constitutional carry" initiatives nation wide.

Why are you arguing with a monomaniacal zealot?

Arguing?

 

[Ringel05]

Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.

You'll just have to excuse me if I can't be interested in your false slack.

Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.

In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the flakes you are being impugned to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.

I don't know about "gun lovers," but the disinformation campaign against those who value their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is clearly failing... for reasons made patently obvious.

Evidenced by the repeal and overturning of obnoxious gun-control laws, and the expansion of "shall issue" and "constitutional carry" initiatives nation wide.

Why are you arguing with a monomaniacal zealot?

Arguing?

Discussing? Conversing? Relaying? Communing? Call it what you will, no skin off of my nose.........

 

[LOki]

Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.

You'll just have to excuse me if I can't be interested in your false slack.

Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.

In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the flakes you are being impugned to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.

I don't know about "gun lovers," but the disinformation campaign against those who value their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is clearly failing... for reasons made patently obvious.

Evidenced by the repeal and overturning of obnoxious gun-control laws, and the expansion of "shall issue" and "constitutional carry" initiatives nation wide.

Why are you arguing with a monomaniacal zealot?

Arguing?

Discussing? Conversing? Relaying? Communing? Call it what you will, no skin off of my nose.........

It wasn't meant to be.

I'm just wondering why you gave him so much credit?

 

[Ringel05]

Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.

You'll just have to excuse me if I can't be interested in your false slack.

Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.

In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the flakes you are being impugned to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.

I don't know about "gun lovers," but the disinformation campaign against those who value their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is clearly failing... for reasons made patently obvious.

Evidenced by the repeal and overturning of obnoxious gun-control laws, and the expansion of "shall issue" and "constitutional carry" initiatives nation wide.

Why are you arguing with a monomaniacal zealot?

Arguing?

Discussing? Conversing? Relaying? Communing? Call it what you will, no skin off of my nose.........

It wasn't meant to be.

I'm just wondering why you gave him so much credit?

Arguing - used in the negative, (yell at a brick wall) as opposed to the generic or positive, (engage in a reasoned argument) sense.

 

[danielpalos]

Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.

You'll just have to excuse me if I can't be interested in your false slack.

Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.

In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the flakes you are being impugned to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.

I don't know about "gun lovers," but the disinformation campaign against those who value their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is clearly failing... for reasons made patently obvious.

Evidenced by the repeal and overturning of obnoxious gun-control laws, and the expansion of "shall issue" and "constitutional carry" initiatives nation wide.

in other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the flakes you are being impugned to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing but diversion from those of the opposing view; i got it.

 

[PredFan]

Poor poor liberal gun grabber got bitch slapped again. The restrictions on concealed carry in DC were ruled unconstitutional AGAIN.

(Can't get the link to copy, Google it if you don't trust me)

 

[turtledude]

Ok; you don't have discovery of sublime Truth (value) as a moral obligation merely to be Faithful to your own State motto; i get it.

You'll just have to excuse me if I can't be interested in your false slack.

Why not convince me and the People why we should believe gun lovers over their very own elected representatives who have made laws for the safety of the State and the People, not the Person.

In other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the flakes you are being impugned to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.

I don't know about "gun lovers," but the disinformation campaign against those who value their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is clearly failing... for reasons made patently obvious.

Evidenced by the repeal and overturning of obnoxious gun-control laws, and the expansion of "shall issue" and "constitutional carry" initiatives nation wide.

in other words, why don't gun lovers convince their own representatives to government you are not the flakes you are being impugned to be, by citizens in the several States exercising an office of public Trust that You elected them to; then come back and convince the left.

another forum this braindead bot has infected. He has infected Debate Politics, Political Forum and now this one

he's a disgusting Piece of shit turd who spews stilted english and disrupts conversations with his needy trolling