Second amendment more important?

[Si modo]

I "grasp" the entire amendment..in plain text.

It assures the right of the "people" (not person) as in collective, to bear arms, to insure the security of the state in a militia.

It does not protect the right to hunt.
It does not protect the right to conceal carry.
It does not protect the right to use arms for home protection.
It does not protect the right to "stand your ground".

That comes from case law.

No. You clearly do not "grasp" the meaning of the Second Amendment very well at all.

The right of the People is not intended to convey some collectivist tripe. You have the right as a person. I have the right as a person. Together, we have it as people. But the plural doesn't erase the singular.

That is a strained and irrational interpretation you offer. It makes NO sense. And I will now prove it:

The FIRST Amendment (among other things) guarantees the right of the "people" to petition the Government for the redress of grievances. Are YOU suggesting that we can petition the gubmint but only if we do it in groups of two or more?

It's not even that esoteric.

Both "speech" and "arms" maintain the position in the sentence structure know as "object".

Neither "speech" nor "arms" can act independently...They require humans to use or misuse them.

Shallow's completely spurious and specious deflection to case law fails the basic rules of 3rd-grade English composition.

Yet, somehow or another, we never hear howling from the leftbats for more speech control, every time that Al Sharpton shoots off his big fat bigoted mouth or Doris Kearns Goodwin gets caught plagiarizing.

Oh, the moonbats sure as hell want control on speech. "Fairness" Doctrine.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?
There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.
Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

Libel and slander are limited becasuse they cause harm to others.
Yelling fire in a theater is limited because it places others in a condition of clear and present danger.

Simple ownership/posession of a firearm harms no one and places no one in a condition of clear and present danger.

Hopefully that answers your question.

 

[Sallow]

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

I "grasp" the entire amendment..in plain text.

It assures the right of the "people" (not person) as in collective, to bear arms, to insure the security of the state in a militia.

It does not protect the right to hunt.
It does not protect the right to conceal carry.
It does not protect the right to use arms for home protection.
It does not protect the right to "stand your ground".

That comes from case law.

No. You clearly do not "grasp" the meaning of the Second Amendment very well at all.

The right of the People is not intended to convey some collectivist tripe. You have the right as a person. I have the right as a person. Together, we have it as people. But the plural doesn't erase the singular.

That is a strained and irrational interpretation you offer. It makes NO sense. And I will now prove it:

The FIRST Amendment (among other things) guarantees the right of the "people" to petition the Government for the redress of grievances. Are YOU suggesting that we can petition the gubmint but only if we do it in groups of two or more?

I got it fine.

Additionally..the second amendment includes the words "militia" and "security of the state".

Words that don't seem to make it into many interpretations of the amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

I "grasp" the entire amendment..in plain text.

It assures the right of the "people" (not person) as in collective, to bear arms, to insure the security of the state in a militia.

No matter how many times you post this lie, it is still a lie.

 

[salem.hills]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

The founding fathers wrote why in numerous quotes. I would of thought you learned in middle school history that arms kept by the people stop the threat of government tyranny.

 

[The T]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

There are already reasonable restrictions on guns. You have reasonable restrictions on speech as well.

These "reasonable" restrictions on guns have loopholes up the kazoo! Just the way the Colorado shooter amassed his arsenal proves that.

The LOOPHOLE was the nefarious use with intent to kill willingly and rob people of thier lives and liberty to make a statement.

That makes him a terrorist in my mind.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

There are already reasonable restrictions on guns. You have reasonable restrictions on speech as well.

These "reasonable" restrictions on guns have loopholes up the kazoo! Just the way the Colorado shooter amassed his arsenal proves that.

There was no loophole - the shooter obeyed every state and federal gun law that applied.
No "reasonable" gun law(s) would have stopped him.

 

[Si modo]

Are there really this many folks ignorant of Heller?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The militias went home at certain time of the year as there were no standing army. This gave them the right to take their weapons home.

The fact that they brought the weapons in the first place 'gave' them the right to take them back to their home.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Absolutely true but way too much for rw's to "grasp".

As to the question, is the second amendment more important?

Yes, it is.

Its certainly more important than the lives of the 24-25 people who are killed with guns every single day.

Would it make you feel better if they were thrown off of tall buildings?

Gloria: Do you know that sixty percent of all deaths in America are caused by guns?
Archie: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?

 

[Si modo]

The militia of each state includes "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are or have [made] a declaration of intent to become citizens."

Title 10, section 31 of the U.S. Code

 

[M14 Shooter]

The word "militia" is in the 2nd amendment. Somehow it has translated into anyone who wants to buy a gun can do so but only on the condition that they have enough money and never consider joining the required militia.

The text of the amendment doesn't protect the right of the state, or the right of the militia, but the right of the people.

If we banned automatic weapons--not mentioned in the constitution--more Americans would be alive today.

Really?
How many people have been killed in the last 10 years with legally-owned automatic weapons?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are there really this many folks ignorant of Heller?

The text of Heller explains why Sallow is wrong.
That's why Sallow ignores Heller.

 

[The T]

Are there really this many folks ignorant of Heller?

Yep.

 

[Sallow]

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

I "grasp" the entire amendment..in plain text.

It assures the right of the "people" (not person) as in collective, to bear arms, to insure the security of the state in a militia.

No matter how many times you post this lie, it is still a lie.

A "lie" would imply an "untruth".

There's the Amendment:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

Clear text and in English.

 

[Sallow]

Are there really this many folks ignorant of Heller?

The text of Heller explains why Sallow is wrong.
That's why Sallow ignores Heller.

Case law.

As I pointed out.

 

[kwc57]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

You are free to say anything you want.

You are free to own a gun.

How you use them can have consequences.

So you are saying that restrictions are necessary? Or not?

Not.

You are FREE to say ANYTHING you want.

You are FREE to OWN a gun.

How you USE them can have consequences.

You should not be restricted in your speech or gun ownership. However, if you use them in an illegal manner, their are laws and consequences to how you used them. The restriction is in the USE, not the right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I "grasp" the entire amendment..in plain text.

It assures the right of the "people" (not person) as in collective, to bear arms, to insure the security of the state in a militia.

No matter how many times you post this lie, it is still a lie.

A "lie" would imply an "untruth".

More than that - a lie is a false statement, knowingly made.
You know you statement is false, and thus, you lie.

Liberals are known for not letting the truth get in the way of their partisan bigotry.

 

[Sallow]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

The founding fathers wrote why in numerous quotes. I would of thought you learned in middle school history that arms kept by the people stop the threat of government tyranny.

And..that's not supported by the Constitution.

 

[Si modo]

I "grasp" the entire amendment..in plain text.

It assures the right of the "people" (not person) as in collective, to bear arms, to insure the security of the state in a militia.

No matter how many times you post this lie, it is still a lie.

A "lie" would imply an "untruth".

There's the Amendment:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

Clear text and in English.

Read Heller, you ignorant buffoon.