The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[P@triot]

They openly admit “if we give them even an inch, they will take a mile”. Zero compromise with these radicals. Zero compromise on our constitutional rights.

 

[P@triot]

we should not have security problems in our free States.

The U.S. Constitution never guaranteed you security. It guaranteed you liberty. You are responsible for your own security (hence the 2nd Amendment). If you’re too lazy or too much of a pussy for that responsibility, then you need to find a new nation.

Buh-bye!

lol. We have a Second Amendment.

We do...and you should try reading it sometime!

I have

No, snowflake, you haven’t. It’s painfully obvious. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The PEOPLE. Not some “militia”. You lose, fascist. The American people are armed and will remained arm. Period.

 

[P@triot]

Nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about Any Thing, serious.

Now that is true. And it is becuase the left is uninformed, ignorant, and brainwashed.

 

[danielpalos]

we should not have security problems in our free States.

The U.S. Constitution never guaranteed you security. It guaranteed you liberty. You are responsible for your own security (hence the 2nd Amendment). If you’re too lazy or too much of a pussy for that responsibility, then you need to find a new nation.

Buh-bye!

lol. We have a Second Amendment.

We do...and you should try reading it sometime!

I have

No, snowflake, you haven’t. It’s painfully obvious. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The PEOPLE. Not some “militia”. You lose, fascist. The American people are armed and will remained arm. Period.

In that Case, you must be referring to natural and individual rights as recognized and secured in State Constitutions, and available via Due Process.

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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

 

[P@triot]

In that Case, you must be referring to natural and individual rights as recognized and secured in State Constitutions, and available via Due Process.

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.

As recognized in the U.S. Constitution. All rights are individual rights and require nothing on the part of the U.S. citizen to be afforded them.

 

[P@triot]

The people protesting our 2nd Amendment literally have no idea what they are even protesting...

#MarchForOurLives Protesters: "Ban Assault Weapons!" Can't Define 'Assault Weapon'

 

[P@triot]

The people protesting our 2nd Amendment literally have no idea what they are even protesting...

WATCH: These Anti-Gun Marchers Can't Answer Basic Firearm Questions. It's Hilarious!

 

[danielpalos]

In that Case, you must be referring to natural and individual rights as recognized and secured in State Constitutions, and available via Due Process.

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.

As recognized in the U.S. Constitution. All rights are individual rights and require nothing on the part of the U.S. citizen to be afforded them.

No, they are not. The terms are clearly plural, not individual. And, if the general welfare doesn't affect Individuals, then neither can anything else in our Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

As recognized in the U.S. Constitution. All rights are individual rights and require nothing on the part of the U.S. citizen to be afforded them.

No, they are not. The terms are clearly plural, not individual. And, if the general welfare doesn't affect Individuals, then neither can anything else in our Constitution.

Yes, they are, stupid. There is no such thing as “collective rights”. All rights are indisputably individual rights. In addition, the “General Welfare” doesn’t affect anyone’s (individual or collective) because it doesn’t exist. It is not an enumerated power.

 

[P@triot]

Boom! Knockout blow to idiot progressivism delivered...

 

[danielpalos]

As recognized in the U.S. Constitution. All rights are individual rights and require nothing on the part of the U.S. citizen to be afforded them.

No, they are not. The terms are clearly plural, not individual. And, if the general welfare doesn't affect Individuals, then neither can anything else in our Constitution.

Yes, they are, stupid. There is no such thing as “collective rights”. All rights are indisputably individual rights. In addition, the “General Welfare” doesn’t affect anyone’s (individual or collective) because it doesn’t exist. It is not an enumerated power.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, while alleging they are for the "gospel Truth" of any given Thing, even if it is not Sunday.

We Are Quibbling. The Terms are Plural, not Individual; for just this disingenuous, right wing fallacy, Every time it comes up.

And, the general welfare must be a general power, not a common power.

 

[P@triot]

And, the general welfare must be a general power, not a common power.

By desperately trying to sound “smart”, you’re making yourself sound really dumb. There is no such thing as a “common power” nor is there a such thing as a “general power”. There are, however, the enumerated powers. To which the federal government is explicitly restricted. And the “general welfare” is not one of those powers.

If it were, that would mean the federal government has unlimited power (up to and including execution without due process). We’ve been over this. You ran from it like a coward because it proved you wrong. Now you’re trying to come back with the same failed claim.o

 

[P@triot]

We Are Quibbling. The Terms are Plural, not Individual

Yeah...becuase there is more than one citizen...you dumb ass.

Holy shit - you actually believed that the (s) on the end of the terms means that rights are collective?!?

 

[danielpalos]

And, the general welfare must be a general power, not a common power.

By desperately trying to sound “smart”, you’re making yourself sound really dumb. There is no such thing as a “common power” nor is there a such thing as a “general power”. There are, however, the enumerated powers. To which the federal government is explicitly restricted. And the “general welfare” is not one of those powers.

If it were, that would mean the federal government has unlimited power (up to and including execution without due process). We’ve been over this. You ran from it like a coward because it proved you wrong. Now you’re trying to come back with the same failed claim.o

if the general welfare is not a general power, then how can the common defense, be Any more general?

 

[danielpalos]

We Are Quibbling. The Terms are Plural, not Individual

Yeah...becuase there is more than one citizen...you dumb ass.

Holy shit - you actually believed that the (s) on the end of the terms means that rights are collective?!?

View attachment 186919

Civil rights are distinct from the concept of natural and individual rights. That is the point we are quibbling.

Thanks.

 

[P@triot]

if the general welfare is not a general power, then how can the common defense, be Any more general?

Uh...the “common defense” is not a “general power”. It is an enumerated power.

 

[P@triot]

Civil rights are distinct from the concept of natural and individual rights. That is the point we are quibbling. Thanks.

Not really. Rights are right. One can certainly break them down into specific subcategories for organizational purposes if they want, but at the end of the day, they are still rights. One does not differ from the other in terms of the ramifications.

A “Civil Right” is an individual right just as a “Natural Right” is an individual right. There is simply no such thing as “collective” rights.

 

[hadit]

And, the general welfare must be a general power, not a common power.

By desperately trying to sound “smart”, you’re making yourself sound really dumb. There is no such thing as a “common power” nor is there a such thing as a “general power”. There are, however, the enumerated powers. To which the federal government is explicitly restricted. And the “general welfare” is not one of those powers.

If it were, that would mean the federal government has unlimited power (up to and including execution without due process). We’ve been over this. You ran from it like a coward because it proved you wrong. Now you’re trying to come back with the same failed claim.o

And the cycle starts all over again.

 

[danielpalos]

if the general welfare is not a general power, then how can the common defense, be Any more general?

Uh...the “common defense” is not a “general power”. It is an enumerated power.

thank you for admitting, the common Defense is not the common Offense or general warfare.