The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[Dale Smith]

The fact is, the what is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Not the militia. The people.

"The people" make up the militia...or at least they did when it existed

We are the "militia"...not the military that works at the leisure of whichever CEO of USA.INC is in office at the time.

According to the Dick Act...the UNORGANIZED militia (not the Well Regulated Militia mentioned in the 2A) consists of ONLY males between 17 and 45.

Scalia knew that was not gonna work...so he abandoned that entire argument and pretended the first part of the 2A wasn't even there

Read the second amendment.....it's very clear to me. Leftards would like to abolish it because their commie agenda stands no chance with it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Read the second amendment.....it's very clear to me. Leftards would like to abolish it because their commie agenda stands no chance with it.

That is the ONLY reason.

They give ZERO fucks about public safety. They want their commie revolution to go off without a hitch.

I hope they try to start their revolution without taking our guns.

Hell, I hope they try to take our guns.



My dream of dead commies could actually come true.

 

[hadit]

As I've said before and you ignored, it says nothing about "for their State or the Union".

As I've said before and you ignored it, our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution, unto itself.

Irrelevant and doesn't address your fallacy.

You have to understand the concepts.

Show me where "for their State or the Union" appears in the second amendment and I'll leave you alone.

that is more implied, than Any form of natural rights is implied, in our Second Amendment.

Right, IT'S NOT IN THERE, while "the people" is. You've made an implication more important than actual text.

 

[hadit]

The second clause of our Second Amendment, is the common Means to achieve, State security Ends.

No one questions that the People have a right to keep and bear Arms, for defense of self and property.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed; when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

Again, not in there.

 

[danielpalos]

That is in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.

Prove it.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

[danielpalos]

As I've said before and you ignored it, our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution, unto itself.

Irrelevant and doesn't address your fallacy.

You have to understand the concepts.

Show me where "for their State or the Union" appears in the second amendment and I'll leave you alone.

that is more implied, than Any form of natural rights is implied, in our Second Amendment.

Right, IT'S NOT IN THERE, while "the people" is. You've made an implication more important than actual text.

The people are the militia when it is about the security of a free State.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That is in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.

Prove it.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And how does that prove that state constitutions take care of natural rights?

You have proved NOTHING.

Give it another try. Cite some authority while you're at it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The people are the militia when it is about the security of a free State.

But, either way, the people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

So fuck you

 

[danielpalos]

That is in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.

Prove it.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And how does that prove that state constitutions take care of natural rights?

You have proved NOTHING.

Give it another try. Cite some authority while you're at it.

Those are natural rights, recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

The people are the militia when it is about the security of a free State.

But, either way, the people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

So fuck you

only well regulated militia may not be infringed.

 

[P@triot]

The why is largely irrelevant

No...it's not. The Framers put it there for a reason

Yeah...to explain WHY they were granting every single citizen the right to keep and bear arms.

I have explained this to you dozens of times now. Are you a special kind of slow or something? Or just extra desperate to oppress people?

 

[P@triot]

The fact is, the what is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Not the militia. The people.

"The people" make up the militia...or at least they did when it existed

But being militia does not make one a person.

 

[P@triot]

According to the Dick Act...the UNORGANIZED militia (not the Well Regulated Militia mentioned in the 2A) consists of ONLY males between 17 and 45.

Scalia knew that was not gonna work...so he abandoned that entire argument and pretended the first part of the 2A wasn't even there

The “Dick Act” is not the U.S. Constitution, snowflake. Per the Supremacy Clause, the U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land - trumping any and all other law. Including your precious “Dick Act”.

 

[P@triot]

The people are the militia when it is about the security of a free State.

Why argue about who makes up the “militia” and when they are the “militia” when the 2nd Amendment doesn’t even say “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms”?

One more time (for the dumb and the desperate): “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

 

[hadit]

Irrelevant and doesn't address your fallacy.

You have to understand the concepts.

Show me where "for their State or the Union" appears in the second amendment and I'll leave you alone.

that is more implied, than Any form of natural rights is implied, in our Second Amendment.

Right, IT'S NOT IN THERE, while "the people" is. You've made an implication more important than actual text.

The people are the militia when it is about the security of a free State.

Not in there.

 

[hadit]

The why is largely irrelevant

No...it's not. The Framers put it there for a reason

Yeah...to explain WHY they were granting every single citizen the right to keep and bear arms.

I have explained this to you dozens of times now. Are you a special kind of slow or something? Or just extra desperate to oppress people?

I'm going with immune to reality.

 

[danielpalos]

The people are the militia when it is about the security of a free State.

Why argue about who makes up the “militia” and when they are the “militia” when the 2nd Amendment doesn’t even say “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms”?

One more time (for the dumb and the desperate): “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

it should be obvious to anyone who knows how to reason their way out of a paper bag.

The people are the militia; well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[danielpalos]

You have to understand the concepts.

Show me where "for their State or the Union" appears in the second amendment and I'll leave you alone.

that is more implied, than Any form of natural rights is implied, in our Second Amendment.

Right, IT'S NOT IN THERE, while "the people" is. You've made an implication more important than actual text.

The people are the militia when it is about the security of a free State.

Not in there.

The people are the militia.

 

[P@triot]

it should be obvious to anyone who knows how to reason their way out of a paper bag.

It’s even more obvious to anyone who can read. The founders were unquestionably the brightest minds in world history (Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc.). If they wanted firearms limited only to people in a militia, they would have said “militia”. But they didn’t. They explicitly stated “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

 

[P@triot]

The people are the militia.

But, snowflake, the militia are not the people.