The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

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.

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses that.

 

[hadit]

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.

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses that.

Which SC decision backs that up?

 

[P@triot]

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.

You can repeat your lie as much as you want - it won’t stop it from being a lie. My family and friends are all people. None of them belong to a militia. But all are still people. Thanks for playing, snowflake. Game over.

 

[P@triot]

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

More egregious lies by the PRT (Paid Russian Troll). Our 2nd Amendment doesn’t even remotely state that. It says, plain as day, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Game over.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses that.

Which SC decision backs that up?

Our Constitution says so.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You can repeat your lie as much as you want - it won’t stop it from being a lie. My family and friends are all people. None of them belong to a militia. But all are still people. Thanks for playing, snowflake. Game over.

The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated and know it, or unorganized and clueless and Causeless.

 

[danielpalos]

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

More egregious lies by the PRT (Paid Russian Troll). Our 2nd Amendment doesn’t even remotely state that. It says, plain as day, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Game over.

(some of) the people are also, well regulated; in Any conflict of laws--The first clause is clear as day, as well.

 

[hadit]

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.

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses that.

Which SC decision backs that up?

Our Constitution says so.

Again, that's YOUR opinion of what it means. Since you are unable/unwilling to cite a decision supporting your contention, the Supreme Court obviously holds a different opinion. The only way, therefore, for you to maintain that your interpretation is correct, you have to believe that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court.

So, which is it? Will you supply a decision that agrees with you or will you maintain that your understanding of the Constitution is better than the justices' and back it up with your stellar legal career after graduating from one of the nation's elite law schools?

Or will you, in a miracle, be able to admit you're wrong? You know that you still have not dealt with your insistence that none of the amendments protect individual rights, despite exercising your first amendment rights even though you're not a member of a regulated advocacy group.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses that.

Which SC decision backs that up?

Our Constitution says so.

Again, that's YOUR opinion of what it means. Since you are unable/unwilling to cite a decision supporting your contention, the Supreme Court obviously holds a different opinion. The only way, therefore, for you to maintain that your interpretation is correct, you have to believe that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court.

So, which is it? Will you supply a decision that agrees with you or will you maintain that your understanding of the Constitution is better than the justices' and back it up with your stellar legal career after graduating from one of the nation's elite law schools?

Or will you, in a miracle, be able to admit you're wrong? You know that you still have not dealt with your insistence that none of the amendments protect individual rights, despite exercising your first amendment rights even though you're not a member of a regulated advocacy group.

What rules of construction did the Justices use?

 

[P@triot]

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.

You can repeat your lie as much as you want - it won’t stop it from being a lie. My family and friends are all people. None of them belong to a militia. But all are still people. Thanks for playing, snowflake. Game over.

The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated and know it, or unorganized and clueless and Causeless.

You can repeat your lie as much as you want - it won’t stop it from being a lie. My family and friends are all people. None of them belong to a militia. But all are still people. Thanks for playing, snowflake. Game over.

 

[P@triot]

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

More egregious lies by the PRT (Paid Russian Troll). Our 2nd Amendment doesn’t even remotely state that. It says, plain as day, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Game over.

(some of) the people are also, well regulated; in Any conflict of laws--The first clause is clear as day, as well.

There is no "conflict". The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear and it trumps any and all other gun laws per the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The first clause is the way, the second clause is the what.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You can repeat your lie as much as you want - it won’t stop it from being a lie. My family and friends are all people. None of them belong to a militia. But all are still people. Thanks for playing, snowflake. Game over.

The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated and know it, or unorganized and clueless and Causeless.

You can repeat your lie as much as you want - it won’t stop it from being a lie. My family and friends are all people. None of them belong to a militia. But all are still people. Thanks for playing, snowflake. Game over.

The People are the Militia. That means, everyone who is not well regulated, Is the unorganized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

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

More egregious lies by the PRT (Paid Russian Troll). Our 2nd Amendment doesn’t even remotely state that. It says, plain as day, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Game over.

(some of) the people are also, well regulated; in Any conflict of laws--The first clause is clear as day, as well.

There is no "conflict". The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear and it trumps any and all other gun laws per the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The first clause is the way, the second clause is the what.

Then, clearly, the People may not be infringed in the Use of Arms, for federal service.

 

[hadit]

Show me the Supreme Court decision that states that.

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses that.

Which SC decision backs that up?

Our Constitution says so.

Again, that's YOUR opinion of what it means. Since you are unable/unwilling to cite a decision supporting your contention, the Supreme Court obviously holds a different opinion. The only way, therefore, for you to maintain that your interpretation is correct, you have to believe that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court.

So, which is it? Will you supply a decision that agrees with you or will you maintain that your understanding of the Constitution is better than the justices' and back it up with your stellar legal career after graduating from one of the nation's elite law schools?

Or will you, in a miracle, be able to admit you're wrong? You know that you still have not dealt with your insistence that none of the amendments protect individual rights, despite exercising your first amendment rights even though you're not a member of a regulated advocacy group.

What rules of construction did the Justices use?

You tell me. Cite the SC decision that backs your assertion, admit you're wrong, or admit that you think that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices and supply your legal credentials.

It's really that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses that.

Which SC decision backs that up?

Our Constitution says so.

Again, that's YOUR opinion of what it means. Since you are unable/unwilling to cite a decision supporting your contention, the Supreme Court obviously holds a different opinion. The only way, therefore, for you to maintain that your interpretation is correct, you have to believe that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court.

So, which is it? Will you supply a decision that agrees with you or will you maintain that your understanding of the Constitution is better than the justices' and back it up with your stellar legal career after graduating from one of the nation's elite law schools?

Or will you, in a miracle, be able to admit you're wrong? You know that you still have not dealt with your insistence that none of the amendments protect individual rights, despite exercising your first amendment rights even though you're not a member of a regulated advocacy group.

What rules of construction did the Justices use?

You tell me. Cite the SC decision that backs your assertion, admit you're wrong, or admit that you think that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices and supply your legal credentials.

It's really that simple.

It is expressed in our Constitution. I don't need to appeal to authority; because that would be a fallacy.

 

[Doc1]

Which SC decision backs that up?

Our Constitution says so.

Again, that's YOUR opinion of what it means. Since you are unable/unwilling to cite a decision supporting your contention, the Supreme Court obviously holds a different opinion. The only way, therefore, for you to maintain that your interpretation is correct, you have to believe that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court.

So, which is it? Will you supply a decision that agrees with you or will you maintain that your understanding of the Constitution is better than the justices' and back it up with your stellar legal career after graduating from one of the nation's elite law schools?

Or will you, in a miracle, be able to admit you're wrong? You know that you still have not dealt with your insistence that none of the amendments protect individual rights, despite exercising your first amendment rights even though you're not a member of a regulated advocacy group.

What rules of construction did the Justices use?

You tell me. Cite the SC decision that backs your assertion, admit you're wrong, or admit that you think that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices and supply your legal credentials.

It's really that simple.

It is expressed in our Constitution. I don't need to appeal to authority; because that would be a fallacy.

Come try and take my guns son

 

[danielpalos]

Our Constitution says so.

Again, that's YOUR opinion of what it means. Since you are unable/unwilling to cite a decision supporting your contention, the Supreme Court obviously holds a different opinion. The only way, therefore, for you to maintain that your interpretation is correct, you have to believe that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court.

So, which is it? Will you supply a decision that agrees with you or will you maintain that your understanding of the Constitution is better than the justices' and back it up with your stellar legal career after graduating from one of the nation's elite law schools?

Or will you, in a miracle, be able to admit you're wrong? You know that you still have not dealt with your insistence that none of the amendments protect individual rights, despite exercising your first amendment rights even though you're not a member of a regulated advocacy group.

What rules of construction did the Justices use?

You tell me. Cite the SC decision that backs your assertion, admit you're wrong, or admit that you think that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices and supply your legal credentials.

It's really that simple.

It is expressed in our Constitution. I don't need to appeal to authority; because that would be a fallacy.

Come try and take my guns son

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well.

 

[Doc1]

Which SC decision backs that up?

Our Constitution says so.

Again, that's YOUR opinion of what it means. Since you are unable/unwilling to cite a decision supporting your contention, the Supreme Court obviously holds a different opinion. The only way, therefore, for you to maintain that your interpretation is correct, you have to believe that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court.

So, which is it? Will you supply a decision that agrees with you or will you maintain that your understanding of the Constitution is better than the justices' and back it up with your stellar legal career after graduating from one of the nation's elite law schools?

Or will you, in a miracle, be able to admit you're wrong? You know that you still have not dealt with your insistence that none of the amendments protect individual rights, despite exercising your first amendment rights even though you're not a member of a regulated advocacy group.

What rules of construction did the Justices use?

You tell me. Cite the SC decision that backs your assertion, admit you're wrong, or admit that you think that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices and supply your legal credentials.

It's really that simple.

It is expressed in our Constitution. I don't need to appeal to authority; because that would be a fallacy.

I didn't think so.

 

[Doc1]

Again, that's YOUR opinion of what it means. Since you are unable/unwilling to cite a decision supporting your contention, the Supreme Court obviously holds a different opinion. The only way, therefore, for you to maintain that your interpretation is correct, you have to believe that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court.

So, which is it? Will you supply a decision that agrees with you or will you maintain that your understanding of the Constitution is better than the justices' and back it up with your stellar legal career after graduating from one of the nation's elite law schools?

Or will you, in a miracle, be able to admit you're wrong? You know that you still have not dealt with your insistence that none of the amendments protect individual rights, despite exercising your first amendment rights even though you're not a member of a regulated advocacy group.

What rules of construction did the Justices use?

You tell me. Cite the SC decision that backs your assertion, admit you're wrong, or admit that you think that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices and supply your legal credentials.

It's really that simple.

It is expressed in our Constitution. I don't need to appeal to authority; because that would be a fallacy.

Come try and take my guns son

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well.

Go for it son.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Constitution says so.

Again, that's YOUR opinion of what it means. Since you are unable/unwilling to cite a decision supporting your contention, the Supreme Court obviously holds a different opinion. The only way, therefore, for you to maintain that your interpretation is correct, you have to believe that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court.

So, which is it? Will you supply a decision that agrees with you or will you maintain that your understanding of the Constitution is better than the justices' and back it up with your stellar legal career after graduating from one of the nation's elite law schools?

Or will you, in a miracle, be able to admit you're wrong? You know that you still have not dealt with your insistence that none of the amendments protect individual rights, despite exercising your first amendment rights even though you're not a member of a regulated advocacy group.

What rules of construction did the Justices use?

You tell me. Cite the SC decision that backs your assertion, admit you're wrong, or admit that you think that your legal opinion is superior to that of the justices and supply your legal credentials.

It's really that simple.

It is expressed in our Constitution. I don't need to appeal to authority; because that would be a fallacy.

I didn't think so.

There are no natural rights expressed in our Second Amendment.