The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[Cecilie1200]

This whole thing is full of misinformation, slight of hands, outright lies and cyberbullying by the ultra gunnutz. Sprinkle enough facts and truths over the top to appear that it's correct and there you have it. But post and keep posting. Wear every one down.

The facts remain that we are having mass shootings and are having them at a higher rate than before. Before, we were having Terrorist Shootings until We, the PUblic, would no longer tolerate that. Now, we are are having domestic mass shootings and we are sick of it. And we are making changes to make it harder to do those mass shootings. What is sad is that the NRA and these "Characters" and "Bad Actors" keep trying to make it harder to prevent these murderous mass shootings from happening because of some sick idea that it might get in the way of their "Rights". Meanwhile, it stomps all over some elses rights of life and that "Right" trumps all other rights.

This is the last I will post in this line. Let the fruitcakes go on but know this, MOST states agree with me by passing at least Common Sense Laws.

The facts remain that none of your changes are "common sense", or will save any lives. They're designed to do nothing more than make you leftists feel warm and fuzzy in your "moral superiority", while allowing even more deaths to rack up which you can then use for your NEXT push for a total gun ban.

 

[P@triot]

So there are NO rules.

Nor should there be. The U.S. Constitution could not be more clear: shall not be infringed.

 

[P@triot]

Let me see if I have your slobbering gibberish straight. "I can obtain guns in Florida without an age limit . . . as long as I'm at least 18." That, oh brainless moron, would be AN AGE LIMIT.

 

[P@triot]

They should be too busy doing the lockdown instead of playing Rambo.

Busy doing what?!?

They sure as shit aren’t teaching during a “lockdown”. They aren’t grading papers. They aren’t having a meeting. And they aren’t having lunch.

Do you even hear yourself before you post?

 

[P@triot]

I suggest you read the sign before you enter. It may be of enterest to you.

I suggest people who aren’t familiar with firearms not enter into debates about firearms.

 

[iceberg]

This whole thing is full of misinformation, slight of hands, outright lies and cyberbullying by the ultra gunnutz. Sprinkle enough facts and truths over the top to appear that it's correct and there you have it. But post and keep posting. Wear every one down.

The facts remain that we are having mass shootings and are having them at a higher rate than before. Before, we were having Terrorist Shootings until We, the PUblic, would no longer tolerate that. Now, we are are having domestic mass shootings and we are sick of it. And we are making changes to make it harder to do those mass shootings. What is sad is that the NRA and these "Characters" and "Bad Actors" keep trying to make it harder to prevent these murderous mass shootings from happening because of some sick idea that it might get in the way of their "Rights". Meanwhile, it stomps all over some elses rights of life and that "Right" trumps all other rights.

This is the last I will post in this line. Let the fruitcakes go on but know this, MOST states agree with me by passing at least Common Sense Laws.

Outright lies?

Like no rules to buy guns now?
You can buy them without a background check from Wal mart?

These kinda lies?

These lies of yours is what shows you have no idea what a common sense law is.

Or any other.

 

[danielpalos]

So there are NO rules.

Nor should there be. The U.S. Constitution could not be more clear: shall not be infringed.

that Only applies to what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

Don't like it? Get well regulated.

 

[P@triot]

So there are NO rules.

Nor should there be. The U.S. Constitution could not be more clear: shall not be infringed.

that Only applies to what is Necessary to the security of a free State. Don't like it? Get well regulated.

Uh....no it doesn’t. The 2nd Amendment is extremely clear: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The right doesn’t belong to a “well regulated militia”.

Don’t like it? Get bent.

 

[danielpalos]

So there are NO rules.

Nor should there be. The U.S. Constitution could not be more clear: shall not be infringed.

that Only applies to what is Necessary to the security of a free State. Don't like it? Get well regulated.

Uh....no it doesn’t. The 2nd Amendment is extremely clear: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The right doesn’t belong to a “well regulated militia”.

Don’t like it? Get bent.

Why is the right wing allowed to spam with pure legal fiction?

The people are the militia. It really is that simple, except to the right wing. Why is that?

 

[jwoodie]

The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.

P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.

Personal safety is not only the justification for the 2nd Amendment. An individual's right to own a gun is also to hold in check a tyrannical government.

Personal safety is not ANY justification for the 2nd Amendment; it merely guarantees STATES the right to defend themselves.

The Declaration of Independence recognizes that INDIVIDUALS have an inalienable right to defend themselves.

 

[jwoodie]

The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.

P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.

P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.

The same guys who gave us the 2nd amd, gave the judiciary the authority to interpret it's meaning to their respective eras.

Wrong. The individual state legislatures "gave us" the 2nd Amendment as a condition for their ratification of the Constitution. Furthermore, it was a restriction on federal, not state powers. The "guys" who gave the judiciary the authority to interpret its meaning were individual judges (e.g., John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison) who took it upon themselves to modify the Constitution as they saw fit. "Interpreting its meaning to their respective eras" is simply an excuse to ignore the plain meaning of the words written in the Constitution and replace them with their personal political leanings.

 

[danielpalos]

Nowhere is the unorganized militia declared necessary, in our Second Amendment.

 

[P@triot]

Why is the right wing allowed to spam with pure legal fiction?

Why is the left allowed to comment on the U.S. Constitution when they have literally never read it?

The people are the militia. It really is that simple, except to the right wing. Why is that?

So we agree that the right unequivocally belongs to the people and that the right cannot be infringed on under any circumstance!

 

[P@triot]

Nowhere is the unorganized militia declared necessary, in our Second Amendment.

The predatory clause is largely irrelevant. It is the why. But the what is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Don’t like it? Get bent.

 

[danielpalos]

Why is the right wing allowed to spam with pure legal fiction?

Why is the left allowed to comment on the U.S. Constitution when they have literally never read it?

The people are the militia. It really is that simple, except to the right wing. Why is that?

So we agree that the right unequivocally belongs to the people and that the right cannot be infringed on under any circumstance!

I agree that you are merely spamming with legal fiction.

The People are the Militia; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when due to the security needs of our free States.

 

[danielpalos]

Nowhere is the unorganized militia declared necessary, in our Second Amendment.

The predatory clause is largely irrelevant. It is the why. But the what is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Don’t like it? Get bent.

The first clause provides the context for the second clause.

The first clause uses the term well regulated militia which is plural and collective and fixes that context for the second clause which contains the term, the People, which is also collective and plural, not Only on its own, but also due to the Context of the first clause.

 

[P@triot]

Nowhere is the unorganized militia declared necessary, in our Second Amendment.

The predatory clause is largely irrelevant. It is the why. But the what is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Don’t like it? Get bent.

The first clause provides the context for the second clause.

The first clause uses the term well regulated militia which is plural and collective and fixes that context for the second clause which contains the term, the People, which is also collective and plural, not Only on its own, but also due to the Context of the first clause.

It doesn’t provide “context” (desperate as you may be for that to be the case). It provides the why. The founders were merely explaining their reasoning behind giving people the right to keep and bear arms.

You don’t even understand the Bill of Rights. You have no idea why it exists or what it really means. You need to understand the broader level basics before you can attempt to drill down and discuss nuance.

 

[P@triot]

The People are the Militia; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when due to the security needs of our free States.

That simply isn’t true. As usual, you are lying. Here is indisputable proof - from none other than people who wrote, signed, and contributed to the U.S. constitution and subsequent amendments.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright (June 5, 1824)

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

Note that Samuel Adams did not say “the militia”. He clearly stated the people and followed that up with citizens (again - not militia).

Thanks for playing, Daniel. As always, you are dead wrong and you know it. These are the words of the people behind our laws and they are very clear.

 

[danielpalos]

Nowhere is the unorganized militia declared necessary, in our Second Amendment.

The predatory clause is largely irrelevant. It is the why. But the what is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Don’t like it? Get bent.

The first clause provides the context for the second clause.

The first clause uses the term well regulated militia which is plural and collective and fixes that context for the second clause which contains the term, the People, which is also collective and plural, not Only on its own, but also due to the Context of the first clause.

It doesn’t provide “context” (desperate as you may be for that to be the case). It provides the why. The founders were merely explaining their reasoning behind giving people the right to keep and bear arms.

You don’t even understand the Bill of Rights. You have no idea why it exists or what it really means. You need to understand the broader level basics before you can attempt to drill down and discuss nuance.

Yes, it does. Why do you believe it is even in our Second Amendment?

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when due to the security needs of our free States.

That simply isn’t true. As usual, you are lying. Here is indisputable proof - from none other than people who wrote, signed, and contributed to the U.S. constitution and subsequent amendments.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright (June 5, 1824)

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

Note that Samuel Adams did not say “the militia”. He clearly stated the people and followed that up with citizens (again - not militia).

Thanks for playing, Daniel. As always, you are dead wrong and you know it. These are the words of the people behind our laws and they are very clear.

Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land, not any diversion or wishful thinking.