The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

yes, that is clearly implied, in what is expressed.

That’s not how the law works, chief. If it doesn’t say it explicitly in black and white, then it doesn’t exist. You don’t get to declare you believe something to be “implied”.

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...

It’s a right. It belongs to the people. It cannot be disputed. Time to move on, sparky.

there are no natural rights, implied.

the context is in the first clause.

 

[danielpalos]

Reason #4,021 why the right to keep and bear arms is so critical. She would be alive and well today had she exercised her 2nd Amendment rights.

Cougar apparently killed Oregon woman missing for nearly 2 weeks, investigators say

a quarter staff could work as well.

 

[P@triot]

Words mean things, and what you say it means is not in there.

They do. And you keep trying t ignore these words

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

It doesn’t say the militia has a righ to keep and bear arms. It says the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Nobody is “ignoring” the prefatory clause. We just simply recognize that it is a prefatory clause and not the operative clause.

 

[P@triot]

yes, that is clearly implied, in what is expressed.

That’s not how the law works, chief. If it doesn’t say it explicitly in black and white, then it doesn’t exist. You don’t get to declare you believe something to be “implied”.

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...

It’s a right. It belongs to the people. It cannot be disputed. Time to move on, sparky.

there are no natural rights, implied.

You’re right - there are none implied. They are explicitly stated.

 

[P@triot]

Reason #4,021 why the right to keep and bear arms is so critical. She would be alive and well today had she exercised her 2nd Amendment rights.

Cougar apparently killed Oregon woman missing for nearly 2 weeks, investigators say

a quarter staff could work as well.

Key word: “could”. I’m not risking my life to “could”. You know what does work? A firearm. And since I live in a nation where the government is explicitly forbidden from interfering with my right to keep and bear arms, I choose a firearm.

 

[P@triot]

Yes, they clearly do; the first clause is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

Thank God our founders didn’t stop with the first clause, and instead continued with the second clause, uh snowflake?

You can whine all you want - we have firearms and we’re not surrendering them.

 

[hadit]

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, may not be Infringed when being Necessary to the security of our free States or the Union.

That's not what it says.

yes, that is clearly implied, in what is expressed.

Words mean things, and what you say it means is not in there.

Yes, they clearly do; the first clause is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The first clause doesn't restrict the second.

 

[hadit]

Words mean things, and what you say it means is not in there.

They do. And you keep trying t ignore these words

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

I'm not ignoring them. I'm also keeping them in the appropriate context, which is not restrictive on the second clause.

The first clause is the Context.

Which doesn't restrict the second clause.

 

[hadit]

Reason #4,021 why the right to keep and bear arms is so critical. She would be alive and well today had she exercised her 2nd Amendment rights.

Cougar apparently killed Oregon woman missing for nearly 2 weeks, investigators say

a quarter staff could work as well.

Let us know how effective a stick is against a cougar the next time you're attacked.

 

[hadit]

yes, that is clearly implied, in what is expressed.

That’s not how the law works, chief. If it doesn’t say it explicitly in black and white, then it doesn’t exist. You don’t get to declare you believe something to be “implied”.

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...

It’s a right. It belongs to the people. It cannot be disputed. Time to move on, sparky.

there are no natural rights, implied.

the context is in the first clause.

Doesn't have to be implied. Shall not be infringed is clear.

 

[P@triot]

Yes, they clearly do; the first clause is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

And the second clause “is about” the right of the people to keep and bear arms. So crystal clear, only a Dumbocrat could be confused by it.

 

[danielpalos]

Words mean things, and what you say it means is not in there.

They do. And you keep trying t ignore these words

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

It doesn’t say the militia has a righ to keep and bear arms. It says the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Nobody is “ignoring” the prefatory clause. We just simply recognize that it is a prefatory clause and not the operative clause.

Well regulated militia are People too; who, may not be Infringed when it is about the security of a free State or the Union?

 

[danielpalos]

yes, that is clearly implied, in what is expressed.

That’s not how the law works, chief. If it doesn’t say it explicitly in black and white, then it doesn’t exist. You don’t get to declare you believe something to be “implied”.

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...

It’s a right. It belongs to the people. It cannot be disputed. Time to move on, sparky.

there are no natural rights, implied.

You’re right - there are none implied. They are explicitly stated.

no, they are not. there are no natural rights expressly stated or implied in the second clause of our Second Amendment.

 

[Lesh]

The first clause doesn't restrict the second.

It explains why the second clause is there

 

[Cecilie1200]

The first clause doesn't restrict the second.

It explains why the second clause is there

Explaining why they recognized THE PEOPLE'S right in no way limits or restricts that right. Sorry. Thanks for playing

 

[Lesh]

Explaining why they recognized THE PEOPLE'S right in no way limits or restricts that right. Sorry. Thanks for playing

Of course it's "the people". Would it be "the orangutans"?

Of course it doesn't limit anything.

It simply ONLY protects those rights in the context of the militia

 

[danielpalos]

The first clause doesn't restrict the second.

It explains why the second clause is there

Explaining why they recognized THE PEOPLE'S right in no way limits or restricts that right. Sorry. Thanks for playing

it explains which Persons of the People may not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Explaining why they recognized THE PEOPLE'S right in no way limits or restricts that right. Sorry. Thanks for playing

Of course it's "the people". Would it be "the orangutans"?

Of course it doesn't limit anything.

It simply ONLY protects those rights in the context of the militia

Oh, exactly . . . if you're illiterate and have no clue how sentence structure works.

Buy a grammar book, dumbass. I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm very much over going 'round and 'round with someone who flunked high school English and wants to just blankly declare over and over, "No, REALLY, all the rules of grammar are wrong! It means THIS! I don't care what every effing expert since forever has said, I think it means this, so it DOES! It DOES mean this! No, it DOES mean this!" You're ignorant, and you're always going to be ignorant, because education might force you to realize the world doesn't give a shit about what you want, and isn't going to change itself for you.

 

[hadit]

Words mean things, and what you say it means is not in there.

They do. And you keep trying t ignore these words

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

It doesn’t say the militia has a righ to keep and bear arms. It says the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Nobody is “ignoring” the prefatory clause. We just simply recognize that it is a prefatory clause and not the operative clause.

Well regulated militia are People too; who, may not be Infringed when it is about the security of a free State or the Union?

They are a subset of the people, the people whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress.

 

[hadit]

The first clause doesn't restrict the second.

It explains why the second clause is there

Explaining why they recognized THE PEOPLE'S right in no way limits or restricts that right. Sorry. Thanks for playing

it explains which Persons of the People may not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

No, it explains one reason why the people's right shall not be infringed, not which peoples.