The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[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?

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

Yes; minorities and women cannot be debarred the use of Arms by Congress; for uniformed federal service.

 

[Lesh]

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

Did it list any others?

No?

Oh

 

[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.

Yes; minorities and women cannot be debarred the use of Arms by Congress; for uniformed federal service.

No one is saying otherwise. Straw man.

 

[hadit]

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

Did it list any others?

No?

Oh

Doesn't have to.

 

[Lesh]

Your contention is that even though the 2A specifies WHY there was a need for "gun rights" they had other reasons for it...but chose not to enunciate those reasons?

Sorry but that's not how it works. Especially if you're going to try to claim to be a strict constructionist

 

[hadit]

Your contention is that even though the 2A specifies WHY there was a need for "gun rights" they had other reasons for it...but chose not to enunciate those reasons?

Sorry but that's not how it works. Especially if you're going to try to claim to be a strict constructionist

My contention is that the explanation doesn't restrict the rest of the amendment. And I don't recall claiming to be a constructionist.

 

[Lesh]

My contention is that the explanation doesn't restrict the rest of the amendment. And I don't recall claiming to be a constructionist

You can contend anything you want but there's no evidence in that document to support that contention.

And obviously you are not a constructionist...and neither are those who claim to be and spout the kind of nonsense you spout

 

[hadit]

My contention is that the explanation doesn't restrict the rest of the amendment. And I don't recall claiming to be a constructionist

You can contend anything you want but there's no evidence in that document to support that contention.

And obviously you are not a constructionist...and neither are those who claim to be and spout the kind of nonsense you spout

So why DID YOU say I claimed to be one? Getting confused?

 

[Lesh]

My contention is that the explanation doesn't restrict the rest of the amendment. And I don't recall claiming to be a constructionist

You can contend anything you want but there's no evidence in that document to support that contention.

And obviously you are not a constructionist...and neither are those who claim to be and spout the kind of nonsense you spout

So why DID YOU say I claimed to be one? Getting confused?

Get over yourself

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes; minorities and women cannot be debarred the use of Arms by Congress; for uniformed federal service.

No one is saying otherwise. Straw man.

yet, minorities and women have been debarred the use of Arms in uniformed federal service.

 

[danielpalos]

Your contention is that even though the 2A specifies WHY there was a need for "gun rights" they had other reasons for it...but chose not to enunciate those reasons?

Sorry but that's not how it works. Especially if you're going to try to claim to be a strict constructionist

My contention is that the explanation doesn't restrict the rest of the amendment. And I don't recall claiming to be a constructionist.

The concept of natural rights is excluded, by the first clause.

 

[hadit]

My contention is that the explanation doesn't restrict the rest of the amendment. And I don't recall claiming to be a constructionist

You can contend anything you want but there's no evidence in that document to support that contention.

And obviously you are not a constructionist...and neither are those who claim to be and spout the kind of nonsense you spout

So why DID YOU say I claimed to be one? Getting confused?

Get over yourself

You're not clarifying your position very well. First you say I claim to be a constructionist, then you say I'm not a constructionist. Interesting, for a little bit.

 

[hadit]

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.

Yes; minorities and women cannot be debarred the use of Arms by Congress; for uniformed federal service.

No one is saying otherwise. Straw man.

yet, minorities and women have been debarred the use of Arms in uniformed federal service.

Again, straw man. No one here is advocating that women and minorities be denied access to firearms.

 

[hadit]

Your contention is that even though the 2A specifies WHY there was a need for "gun rights" they had other reasons for it...but chose not to enunciate those reasons?

Sorry but that's not how it works. Especially if you're going to try to claim to be a strict constructionist

My contention is that the explanation doesn't restrict the rest of the amendment. And I don't recall claiming to be a constructionist.

The concept of natural rights is excluded, by the first clause.

No, it is not. You've been bleating that for a very long time now, and have never managed to convince anyone that you are correct. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

 

[Lesh]

Your contention is that even though the 2A specifies WHY there was a need for "gun rights" they had other reasons for it...but chose not to enunciate those reasons?

Sorry but that's not how it works. Especially if you're going to try to claim to be a strict constructionist

My contention is that the explanation doesn't restrict the rest of the amendment. And I don't recall claiming to be a constructionist.

The concept of natural rights is excluded, by the first clause.

No, it is not. You've been bleating that for a very long time now, and have never managed to convince anyone that you are correct. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Wrong. I disagree with Scalia...who's "opinion" is about as stilted as Bush V Gore.

No basis in law and entirely political

ANd whether or not YOU are a constructionist matters little. Most of your gun hugger friends claim to be...

 

[hadit]

Your contention is that even though the 2A specifies WHY there was a need for "gun rights" they had other reasons for it...but chose not to enunciate those reasons?

Sorry but that's not how it works. Especially if you're going to try to claim to be a strict constructionist

My contention is that the explanation doesn't restrict the rest of the amendment. And I don't recall claiming to be a constructionist.

The concept of natural rights is excluded, by the first clause.

No, it is not. You've been bleating that for a very long time now, and have never managed to convince anyone that you are correct. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Wrong. I disagree with Scalia...who's "opinion" is about as stilted as Bush V Gore.

No basis in law and entirely political[\quote]

Whether you disagree with him or not is immaterial. His knowledge of the law remains superior to yours and his legal opinion actually mattered.

ANd whether or not YOU are a constructionist matters little. Most of your gun hugger friends claim to be...

I don't speak for them and they don't speak for me.

 

[danielpalos]

Your contention is that even though the 2A specifies WHY there was a need for "gun rights" they had other reasons for it...but chose not to enunciate those reasons?

Sorry but that's not how it works. Especially if you're going to try to claim to be a strict constructionist

My contention is that the explanation doesn't restrict the rest of the amendment. And I don't recall claiming to be a constructionist.

The concept of natural rights is excluded, by the first clause.

No, it is not. You've been bleating that for a very long time now, and have never managed to convince anyone that you are correct. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Yes, it is. The first clause clearly expresses the purpose for the second clause.

 

[hadit]

Your contention is that even though the 2A specifies WHY there was a need for "gun rights" they had other reasons for it...but chose not to enunciate those reasons?

Sorry but that's not how it works. Especially if you're going to try to claim to be a strict constructionist

My contention is that the explanation doesn't restrict the rest of the amendment. And I don't recall claiming to be a constructionist.

The concept of natural rights is excluded, by the first clause.

No, it is not. You've been bleating that for a very long time now, and have never managed to convince anyone that you are correct. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Yes, it is. The first clause clearly expresses the purpose for the second clause.

You obviously believe your understanding of the Constitution is superior to that of the justices in the SC. Tell me again, which law school did you graduate from?

 

[Lesh]

You obviously believe your understanding of the Constitution is superior to that of the justices in the SC. Tell me again, which law school did you graduate from?

I base my argument not on my "knowledge of the law" but rather on the dissenting opinion by SCOTUS Justices that make a hell of a lot more sense than what Scalia claimed...ya know...because it was based on what the 2A actually said

 

[hadit]

You obviously believe your understanding of the Constitution is superior to that of the justices in the SC. Tell me again, which law school did you graduate from?

I base my argument not on my "knowledge of the law" but rather on the dissenting opinion by SCOTUS Justices that make a hell of a lot more sense than what Scalia claimed...ya know...because it was based on what the 2A actually said

Are you Daniel's sock puppet?