The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[Lesh]

There are sock puppets on this site but I am not one of them.

Save the personal shit moron

 

[hadit]

There are sock puppets on this site but I am not one of them.

Save the personal shit moron

I asked him a question and you answered it.

 

[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.

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?

The one where they teach how to read.

 

[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.

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?

The one where they teach how to read.

Okay, so you got your law degree from a government run elementary school?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

The one where they teach how to read.

Okay, so you got your law degree from a government run elementary school?

I am not the one resorting to Any fallacies.

 

[hadit]

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?

The one where they teach how to read.

Okay, so you got your law degree from a government run elementary school?

I am not the one resorting to Any fallacies.

Look in the mirror. If you're worried about fallacies, check what you write before clicking save.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

The one where they teach how to read.

Okay, so you got your law degree from a government run elementary school?

I am not the one resorting to Any fallacies.

Look in the mirror. If you're worried about fallacies, check what you write before clicking save.

That is a fallacy. Did you merely learn how to read and not argue?

 

[P@triot]

Well regulated militia are People too;

So are unregulated, non-militia individuals! That’s the beauty of constitutional rights. One need only be a U.S. citizen to exercise them.

 

[P@triot]

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.

It does not get any more explicit than “the right of the people”. No matter how hard you try to ignore the words in the 2nd Amendment, the rest of society sees them and accepts them.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are People too;

So are unregulated, non-militia individuals! That’s the beauty of constitutional rights. One need only be a U.S. citizen to exercise them.

Our supreme law of the land, resolves Any conflict of any laws in our Republic.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It does not get any more explicit than “the right of the people”. No matter how hard you try to ignore the words in the 2nd Amendment, the rest of society sees them and accepts them.

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or not, for Second Amendment purposes.

 

[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?

The one where they teach how to read.

Okay, so you got your law degree from a government run elementary school?

I am not the one resorting to Any fallacies.

Look in the mirror. If you're worried about fallacies, check what you write before clicking save.

That is a fallacy. Did you merely learn how to read and not argue?

You're really trying to wipe that egg off your face, aren't you? Now, back to the point. Why do you continue to think your understanding of the law is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court?

 

[danielpalos]

The one where they teach how to read.

Okay, so you got your law degree from a government run elementary school?

I am not the one resorting to Any fallacies.

Look in the mirror. If you're worried about fallacies, check what you write before clicking save.

That is a fallacy. Did you merely learn how to read and not argue?

You're really trying to wipe that egg off your face, aren't you? Now, back to the point. Why do you continue to think your understanding of the law is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court?

I resort to the superiority of our supreme law of the land.

 

[hadit]

Okay, so you got your law degree from a government run elementary school?

I am not the one resorting to Any fallacies.

Look in the mirror. If you're worried about fallacies, check what you write before clicking save.

That is a fallacy. Did you merely learn how to read and not argue?

You're really trying to wipe that egg off your face, aren't you? Now, back to the point. Why do you continue to think your understanding of the law is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court?

I resort to the superiority of our supreme law of the land.

No you don't, because that law says you don't have to be a member of a militia to exercise second amendment rights. You're either super ignorant and refuse to learn or you're lying.

 

[P@triot]

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.

It does not get any more explicit than “the right of the people”. No matter how hard you try to ignore the words in the 2nd Amendment, the rest of society sees them and accepts them.

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or not, for Second Amendment purposes.

My entire family are people. None of us are in a militia. But we are still people. Tough luck, chief.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not the one resorting to Any fallacies.

Look in the mirror. If you're worried about fallacies, check what you write before clicking save.

That is a fallacy. Did you merely learn how to read and not argue?

You're really trying to wipe that egg off your face, aren't you? Now, back to the point. Why do you continue to think your understanding of the law is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court?

I resort to the superiority of our supreme law of the land.

No you don't, because that law says you don't have to be a member of a militia to exercise second amendment rights. You're either super ignorant and refuse to learn or you're lying.

I thought you said, you know how to read; does that not include, understanding?

The People are the Militia.

Well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State or the Union.

 

[P@triot]

I resort to the superiority of our supreme law of the land.

Oh good! Because it states “the right of the people”. It does not say anything about the right belonging to the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It does not get any more explicit than “the right of the people”. No matter how hard you try to ignore the words in the 2nd Amendment, the rest of society sees them and accepts them.

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or not, for Second Amendment purposes.

My entire family are people. None of us are in a militia. But we are still people. Tough luck, chief.

the People are the Militia; you don't have to be well regulated.

 

[danielpalos]

I resort to the superiority of our supreme law of the land.

Oh good! Because it states “the right of the people”. It does not say anything about the right belonging to the militia.

It doesn't have to say it in our Second Article of Amendment simply Because, It is not a Constitution unto itself.

 

[hadit]

Look in the mirror. If you're worried about fallacies, check what you write before clicking save.

That is a fallacy. Did you merely learn how to read and not argue?

You're really trying to wipe that egg off your face, aren't you? Now, back to the point. Why do you continue to think your understanding of the law is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court?

I resort to the superiority of our supreme law of the land.

No you don't, because that law says you don't have to be a member of a militia to exercise second amendment rights. You're either super ignorant and refuse to learn or you're lying.

I thought you said, you know how to read; does that not include, understanding?

The People are the Militia.

Well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State or the Union.

Show me the Supreme Court decision that states that.