The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[P@triot]

This thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the far left wants to do away with the 2nd amendment.

This thread proves the right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

Says the left-winger who has been unequivocally proven wrong.

 

[P@triot]

You simply appeal to ignorance

I can’t help it if you find me appealing...

 

[P@triot]

You are either, well regulated and Necessary, or unorganized and unnecessary.

The answer is....C! A United States citizen with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms (just as the founders intended - per their own words).

No matter how desperately you try to twist it, you’ll never be successful. It’s written in black and white and indisputable. Nobody cares that you don’t like it.

 

[danielpalos]

The security needs of a free State, seems more important than any natural rights.

Said Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, and Joseph Stalin...

strike one. a fallacy is not an argument.

The end justifies the means. The security of a free State is the End, my friend. The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, is the means.

 

[danielpalos]

This thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the far left wants to do away with the 2nd amendment.

This thread proves the right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

Says the left-winger who has been unequivocally proven wrong.

only in right wing fantasy, not real world, argumentation reality.

 

[danielpalos]

You simply appeal to ignorance

I can’t help it if you find me appealing...

lol. the right wing has nothing but fallacy and want to be taken more seriously than women.

 

[danielpalos]

You are either, well regulated and Necessary, or unorganized and unnecessary.

The answer is....C! A United States citizen with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms (just as the founders intended - per their own words).

No matter how desperately you try to twist it, you’ll never be successful. It’s written in black and white and indisputable. Nobody cares that you don’t like it.

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

 

[Flopper]

Firearm ownership is none the of the federal governments business, Just like other people’s firearm ownership is none of your business

Amen. Just like abortion is none of your business. Right?

Abortion is a states issue...

Interesting... should gun control be a States issue as well then?

No.
I think we are proving everyday that state gun control laws are very limited in there ineffectiveness. Individuals and businesses buy guns in one state and sell them in another either in individual sales or in gun shows. Gun control should be at the federal level. At the state level, local and state law enforcement rarely enforces state gun laws accept in an arrest for a different crime and they are not obligated to enforce federal gun laws.

 

[Rustic]

Firearm ownership is none the of the federal governments business, Just like other people’s firearm ownership is none of your business

Amen. Just like abortion is none of your business. Right?

Abortion is a states issue...

Interesting... should gun control be a States issue as well then?

No.
I think we are proving everyday that state gun control laws are very limited in there ineffectiveness. Individuals and business buy guns in one state and sell them in another either in individual sales or in gun shows. Gun control should be at the federal level. At the state level, local and state law enforcement rarely enforces state gun laws accept in an arrest for a different crime and they are not obligated to enforce federal gun laws.

 

[P@triot]

Gun control should be at the federal level.

Thank goodness the government has no author to control me or my firearms.

 

[P@triot]

This thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the far left wants to do away with the 2nd amendment.

This thread proves the right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

Says the left-winger who has been unequivocally proven wrong.

only in right wing fantasy, not real world, argumentation reality.

The quotes from the founders are there, snowflake. You can’t rewrite history no matter how hard you try.

 

[danielpalos]

This thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the far left wants to do away with the 2nd amendment.

This thread proves the right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

Says the left-winger who has been unequivocally proven wrong.

only in right wing fantasy, not real world, argumentation reality.

The quotes from the founders are there, snowflake. You can’t rewrite history no matter how hard you try.

Projecting much, right winger? quotes from our Founding Fathers, were not enumerated as our supreme law of the land; it makes All of the difference in the entire world. You have nothing but hearsay, not legal fact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Sorry, but at the point where the 2nd Amendment says, "the right of the PEOPLE", it becomes about individuals. There is no point anywhere in the Founders' writings that they use the word "people" to indicate anything but individuals.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Sorry, but at the point where the 2nd Amendment says, "the right of the PEOPLE", it becomes about individuals. There is no point anywhere in the Founders' writings that they use the word "people" to indicate anything but individuals.

Indeed. Individuals have rights. Government entities have power.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Sorry, but at the point where the 2nd Amendment says, "the right of the PEOPLE", it becomes about individuals. There is no point anywhere in the Founders' writings that they use the word "people" to indicate anything but individuals.

lol. only in right wing fantasy. The People is plural, not singular.

so is the Term, militia; coincidence or conspiracy?

 

[boedicca]

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.

Sorry, but at the point where the 2nd Amendment says, "the right of the PEOPLE", it becomes about individuals. There is no point anywhere in the Founders' writings that they use the word "people" to indicate anything but individuals.

lol. only in right wing fantasy. The People is plural, not singular.

so is the Term, militia; coincidence or conspiracy?

You are beyond ignorant.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Sorry, but at the point where the 2nd Amendment says, "the right of the PEOPLE", it becomes about individuals. There is no point anywhere in the Founders' writings that they use the word "people" to indicate anything but individuals.

lol. only in right wing fantasy. The People is plural, not singular.

so is the Term, militia; coincidence or conspiracy?

You are beyond ignorant.

lol. did you know, simply stating your unsubstantiated opinion without any argument to substantiate it, is a fallacy?

 

[P@triot]

quotes from our Founding Fathers, were not enumerated as our supreme law of the land

Um...actually...they were. Those are the people who wrote and ratified the U.S. Constitution. They know exactly what was intended and they were clarifying because of assholes like you who attempt to lie about what is written for your own sick agenda.

 

[P@triot]

lol. did you know, simply stating your unsubstantiated opinion without any argument to substantiate it, is a fallacy?

I just “substantiated” this entire thread with quotes from people who created, ratified, and amended then U.S. Constitution. And you ran from it like the disingenuous partisan hack that you are.

 

[P@triot]

The People is plural, not singular.

Yes it is...because the U.S. Constitution applies to all people who are citizens of the United States. Not just “militia”.

You may go now, junior.