The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[Lesh]

and, natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Oh you poor little dimwit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Restricting firearms is not one of those powers.

You seem confused.

I never said that the Constitution "restricts" anything.

It simply only PROTECTS guns insofar as their need related to a "A Well Regulated Militia"

 

[Lesh]

They did not restrict the use of automatic weapons. They merely required a tax, which is all they were allowed to do.

That is absolutely a restriction. And Congress further BANNED them in 1986 (for machine guns manufactured after that year). That has not been challenged and it's doubtful it ever will be

 

[Skull Pilot]

and, natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Oh you poor little dimwit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Restricting firearms is not one of those powers.

You seem confused.

I never said that the Constitution "restricts" anything.

It simply only PROTECTS guns insofar as their need related to a "A Well Regulated Militia"

Wrong

The right to keep and bear belongs to the people as do all rights even those not enumerated in the Bill of Rights

The idea that rights exist within the person and are not granted by the government is the keystone of American government

 

[danielpalos]

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

Do you or do you not believe your understanding of the Constitution is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court?

I resort to the fewest fallacies. Any questions?

I just asked you one that you blundered.

Let's see where we are. You insist on a certain interpretation of the second amendment. You cannot cite an SC decision that supports your view, and in fact the SC does not support it. You will not admit that your interpretation is flawed (again no decisions supporting it), but you won't come right out and say that you believe your legal understanding is superior to that of the justices, although to maintain that you are correct you have to believe it.

Do we have that about right?

The People are the Militia. What part of that, do you not understand?

The people are the people. What part of that do you not understand?

10USC246 clarifies it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I have sense; You merely have no understanding.

Either way, our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State.

I understand perfectly. You are just wrong as FUCK.

The 2nd Amendment is about a limit to federal power. The reason is for the security of a free state, but the operation is to limit power.

You will never understand that concept or the distinction because you are a dumb fuck.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia. What part of that, do you not understand?

And you go around the circle yet again. Where did you go to law school and how long have you been arguing cases before the SC?

red herrings are considered fallacies.

Let's start with the common law understanding, for the common defense:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

You're avoiding and deflecting, again. Your quote even establishes that everyone is covered under the second amendment. Think about that.

Now, please deal with your belief that you understand the Constitution better than the justices.

The People are the Militia; well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. The whole People, are the militia.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It’s a right. It belongs to the people. And like all rights, it requires absolutely nothing but citizenship to be afforded it and to exercise it. Constitutional rights do not require one to join a group, take some action, etc.

It could not possibly be more crystal clear.

A right wing a purpose.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

and, natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Oh you poor little dimwit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Restricting firearms is not one of those powers.

lol. only, appealers to ignorance, claim that. I have nothing but the Truth; unlike the whole and entire, right wing.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

and, natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Oh you poor little dimwit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Restricting firearms is not one of those powers.

which is actually evidenced by the 1934 firearms act. They did not restrict the use of automatic weapons. They merely required a tax, which is all they were allowed to do.

Since that time, neither the Supreme Court, nor Congress and the Senate has given a rat fuck about the constitution and the limit of powers placed on them in terms of firearms.

We need a fucking shooting and killing war to restore our rights.

any local, State, and federal gun control laws, At All, means the right wing is simply, Clueless and Causeless, and frivolous, as a result.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Do you or do you not believe your understanding of the Constitution is superior to that of the justices on the Supreme Court?

I resort to the fewest fallacies. Any questions?

I just asked you one that you blundered.

Let's see where we are. You insist on a certain interpretation of the second amendment. You cannot cite an SC decision that supports your view, and in fact the SC does not support it. You will not admit that your interpretation is flawed (again no decisions supporting it), but you won't come right out and say that you believe your legal understanding is superior to that of the justices, although to maintain that you are correct you have to believe it.

Do we have that about right?

The People are the Militia. What part of that, do you not understand?

The people are the people. What part of that do you not understand?

10USC246 clarifies it.

It does no such thing.

You don't even understand what 10 USC 246 does. It has nothing to do with state militias. It also has nothing to do with whether or not a militia is "well-regulated."

Nowhere in 10 USC 246 is a "well-regulated" militia defined. Nowhere in 10 USC 246 does it place a limit on the "unorganized" militia.

You are conflating and making up shit to fit your narrative.

You are no lawyer. Neither is any dumb fuck who is telling you this shit.

 

[danielpalos]

and, natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Oh you poor little dimwit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Restricting firearms is not one of those powers.

You seem confused.

I never said that the Constitution "restricts" anything.

It simply only PROTECTS guns insofar as their need related to a "A Well Regulated Militia"

Wrong

The right to keep and bear belongs to the people as do all rights even those not enumerated in the Bill of Rights

The idea that rights exist within the person and are not granted by the government is the keystone of American government

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

[Abatis]

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

Since the right is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment, the right to arms in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence. That is what a strict constructionist believes -- and that has been what SCOTUS has said for going on 140 years.

 

[danielpalos]

I resort to the fewest fallacies. Any questions?

I just asked you one that you blundered.

Let's see where we are. You insist on a certain interpretation of the second amendment. You cannot cite an SC decision that supports your view, and in fact the SC does not support it. You will not admit that your interpretation is flawed (again no decisions supporting it), but you won't come right out and say that you believe your legal understanding is superior to that of the justices, although to maintain that you are correct you have to believe it.

Do we have that about right?

The People are the Militia. What part of that, do you not understand?

The people are the people. What part of that do you not understand?

10USC246 clarifies it.

It does no such thing.

You don't even understand what 10 USC 246 does. It has nothing to do with state militias. It also has nothing to do with whether or not a militia is "well-regulated."

Nowhere in 10 USC 246 is a "well-regulated" militia defined. Nowhere in 10 USC 246 does it place a limit on the "unorganized" militia.

You are conflating and making up shit to fit your narrative.

You are no lawyer. Neither is any dumb fuck who is telling you this shit.

yes, it does. it provides the composition of the militia. it also declares, who the federal militia are.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

any local, State, and federal gun control laws, At All, means the right wing is simply, Clueless and Causeless, and frivolous, as a result.

What the fuck does that shit mean?

Do you know how to speak English?

 

[danielpalos]

any local, State, and federal gun control laws, At All, means the right wing is simply, Clueless and Causeless, and frivolous, as a result.

What the fuck does that shit mean?

Do you know how to speak English?

it means you don't have any understanding of legal concepts.

Any federal gun control laws at all; means your right wing, Second Amendment propaganda, is Bogus.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

yes, it does. it provides the composition of the militia. it also declares, who the federal militia are.

Like I said. It has nothing to do with state militia or the people.

Please quote the text where 10 USC 246 defines a "well-regulated" militia.

If you can't, your entire argument crashes and burns in a mushroom-cloud of communist failure.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it does. it provides the composition of the militia. it also declares, who the federal militia are.

Like I said. It has nothing to do with state militia or the people.

Please quote the text where 10 USC 246 defines a "well-regulated" militia.

If you can't, your entire argument crashes and burns in a mushroom-cloud of communist failure.

The Militia of the United States, is what we are referring to.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

it means you don't have any understanding of legal concepts.

Well, you certainly have done a BANG UP job explaining, dumbass.

Do you ever explain ANY of your idiotic positions?

Any federal gun control laws at all; means your right wing, Second Amendment propaganda, is Bogus.

OR, any federal gun control law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

The 1934 Firearms Act itself proves my position. It does not ban any weapon. It levies a tax on certain weapons. That's all congress can do.

See. I can explain my position.

All you can do is repeat shit over and over and throw out platitudes.

You are stupid.

Go back to Mexico, dumbass.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Militia of the United States, is what we are referring to.

Yes, but the 2nd Amendment is referring to state militia.

 

[danielpalos]

it means you don't have any understanding of legal concepts.

Well, you certainly have done a BANG UP job explaining, dumbass.

Do you ever explain ANY of your idiotic positions?

Any federal gun control laws at all; means your right wing, Second Amendment propaganda, is Bogus.

OR, any federal gun control law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

The 1934 Firearms Act itself proves my position. It does not ban any weapon. It levies a tax on certain weapons. That's all congress can do.

See. I can explain my position.

All you can do is repeat shit over and over and throw out platitudes.

You are stupid.

Go back to Mexico, dumbass.

managed to stow away in the bilge, to avoid the intelligence fee?

Any federal gun laws prove Your right wing propaganda, just rhetoric.

 

[danielpalos]

The Militia of the United States, is what we are referring to.

Yes, but the 2nd Amendment is referring to state militia.

It secures that States' sovereign right to Arm the State militia.