The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

I am saying, our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not the concept of natural rights of individuals.

You've been schooled on this many, many times. You never learn, you keep popping up saying the same things over and over again. You completely ignore what's presented to you and present no original thought. You exemplify perfectly an automated bot.

You have only fallacy not a valid argument; how, really really serious is that, my good man.

That's another of your failed phrases that you repost over and over again. It was meaningless the first 15 times you said it and it's meaningless now.

Just because You say it, my good man?

Because I've seen it happen with you many times. I've schooled you, others have schooled you and when you paint yourself into a corner, you mutter some nonsense and disappear for a while, then pop back up and start all over again with the exact same phrases.

Only in right wing fantasy, does it happen that way. I keep repeating myself, Only Because, it seems, the right wing, never gets it.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[hadit]

You've been schooled on this many, many times. You never learn, you keep popping up saying the same things over and over again. You completely ignore what's presented to you and present no original thought. You exemplify perfectly an automated bot.

You have only fallacy not a valid argument; how, really really serious is that, my good man.

That's another of your failed phrases that you repost over and over again. It was meaningless the first 15 times you said it and it's meaningless now.

Just because You say it, my good man?

Because I've seen it happen with you many times. I've schooled you, others have schooled you and when you paint yourself into a corner, you mutter some nonsense and disappear for a while, then pop back up and start all over again with the exact same phrases.

Only in right wing fantasy, does it happen that way. I keep repeating myself, Only Because, it seems, the right wing, never gets it.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

You keep repeating yourself because you have nothing else to say. Even these responses are all canned, predictable, and robotic.

The only new thing I got you to admit was your contempt for women.

 

[danielpalos]

You have only fallacy not a valid argument; how, really really serious is that, my good man.

That's another of your failed phrases that you repost over and over again. It was meaningless the first 15 times you said it and it's meaningless now.

Just because You say it, my good man?

Because I've seen it happen with you many times. I've schooled you, others have schooled you and when you paint yourself into a corner, you mutter some nonsense and disappear for a while, then pop back up and start all over again with the exact same phrases.

Only in right wing fantasy, does it happen that way. I keep repeating myself, Only Because, it seems, the right wing, never gets it.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

You keep repeating yourself because you have nothing else to say. Even these responses are all canned, predictable, and robotic.

The only new thing I got you to admit was your contempt for women.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[hadit]

That's another of your failed phrases that you repost over and over again. It was meaningless the first 15 times you said it and it's meaningless now.

Just because You say it, my good man?

Because I've seen it happen with you many times. I've schooled you, others have schooled you and when you paint yourself into a corner, you mutter some nonsense and disappear for a while, then pop back up and start all over again with the exact same phrases.

Only in right wing fantasy, does it happen that way. I keep repeating myself, Only Because, it seems, the right wing, never gets it.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

You keep repeating yourself because you have nothing else to say. Even these responses are all canned, predictable, and robotic.

The only new thing I got you to admit was your contempt for women.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

That's right. The second amendment protects individuals' right to own firearms, or not. We should have no security problems in the free states. We start having problems when people want to prevent otherwise completely safe and sane individuals from exercising that right.

Now, pull out your phrase book and give me something about none of the Amendments protecting individual rights. You know you want to, and you know you don't have anything else to say.

 

[danielpalos]

Just because You say it, my good man?

Because I've seen it happen with you many times. I've schooled you, others have schooled you and when you paint yourself into a corner, you mutter some nonsense and disappear for a while, then pop back up and start all over again with the exact same phrases.

Only in right wing fantasy, does it happen that way. I keep repeating myself, Only Because, it seems, the right wing, never gets it.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

You keep repeating yourself because you have nothing else to say. Even these responses are all canned, predictable, and robotic.

The only new thing I got you to admit was your contempt for women.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

That's right. The second amendment protects individuals' right to own firearms, or not. We should have no security problems in the free states. We start having problems when people want to prevent otherwise completely safe and sane individuals from exercising that right.

Now, pull out your phrase book and give me something about none of the Amendments protecting individual rights. You know you want to, and you know you don't have anything else to say.

No, it doesn't. Only those who are declared Necessary may not be Infringed.

We should have no security problems. What is your right wing solution, right winger.

 

[P@triot]

I am saying, our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not the concept of natural rights of individuals.

So basically you're saying you are illiterate? Because the 2nd Amendment couldn't possibly be more clear that it is about the rights of individual citizens.

 

[P@triot]

No, it doesn't. Only those who are declared Necessary may not be Infringed.

It doesn't "declare" anyone to be "necessary", idiot. What the prefatory clause states is that a well regulated militia is "necessary to the security of a free State". That is the why.

But the what (the operative clause) is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It could not be more clear. Even a nitwit such as yourself understands it. Sadly, you're just too disingenuous to accept it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, it doesn't. Only those who are declared Necessary may not be Infringed.

We should have no security problems. What is your right wing solution, right winger.

Not this moronic nonsense again.

Nothing in the 2A creates a requirement of a declaration of who is and who is not necessary. Even if it did, nothing in the 2A states who has the power/authority to make such a declaration. On top of that, regardless of whether we have security problems or not, and regardless of whether some government body has the authority declare what is necessary, NO ONE can ignore the unequivocally clear language that THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, it doesn't. Only those who are declared Necessary may not be Infringed.

It doesn't "declare" anyone to be "necessary", idiot. What the prefatory clause states is that a well regulated militia is "necessary to the security of a free State". That is the why.

But the what (the operative clause) is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It could not be more clear. Even a nitwit such as yourself understands it. Sadly, you're just too disingenuous to accept it.

Contraception, being necessary to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy, the right of the people to have sex with condoms shall not be in infringed.

According to Dan, the above statement means that only the right of contraception deemed necessary shall not be infringed.

In other words, according to Dan, necessary contraception has the right to have sex with condoms.

He will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever,

ever,

ever,

explain that shit. He will just repeat it over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, again.

This will get nowhere.

Dan makes no arguments....ever.....ever!!!

 

[danielpalos]

I am saying, our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not the concept of natural rights of individuals.

So basically you're saying you are illiterate? Because the 2nd Amendment couldn't possibly be more clear that it is about the rights of individual citizens.

Where? The People, the Militia, and the concept of the security of a free State are all, plural and require collective action.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. Only those who are declared Necessary may not be Infringed.

It doesn't "declare" anyone to be "necessary", idiot. What the prefatory clause states is that a well regulated militia is "necessary to the security of a free State". That is the why.

But the what (the operative clause) is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It could not be more clear. Even a nitwit such as yourself understands it. Sadly, you're just too disingenuous to accept it.

Yes, it does. It says, well regulated militia of the People, are necessary, not the unorganized whiners.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. Only those who are declared Necessary may not be Infringed.

We should have no security problems. What is your right wing solution, right winger.

Not this moronic nonsense again.

Nothing in the 2A creates a requirement of a declaration of who is and who is not necessary. Even if it did, nothing in the 2A states who has the power/authority to make such a declaration. On top of that, regardless of whether we have security problems or not, and regardless of whether some government body has the authority declare what is necessary, NO ONE can ignore the unequivocally clear language that THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!

Yes, it does; it says so in the first clause.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No, it doesn't. Only those who are declared Necessary may not be Infringed.

It doesn't "declare" anyone to be "necessary", idiot. What the prefatory clause states is that a well regulated militia is "necessary to the security of a free State". That is the why.

But the what (the operative clause) is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It could not be more clear. Even a nitwit such as yourself understands it. Sadly, you're just too disingenuous to accept it.

Here we go again. Do you really want me to weigh in on this one or are you going to stop with the insults and actually discuss things. Or do you want your ass handed to you once again. I don't mind open discussion but when outright bullying starts by either side, I take offense.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, it does. It says, well regulated militia of the People, are necessary, not the unorganized whiners.

It LITERALLY does NOT say that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here we go again. Do you really want me to weigh in on this one or are you going to stop with the insults and actually discuss things. Or do you want your ass handed to you once again. I don't mind open discussion but when outright bullying starts by either side, I take offense.

Here we go AGAIN? You have NEVER made a convincing argument about the language and interpretation of the 2A.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A big penis, being necessary to porn film casting, the right of the people to get enlargement surgeries shall not be infringed.

So, the big penis has the right to the enlargement surgery, correct? Not the people?

Only the right of necessary big dongs shall not be infringed?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here we go again. Do you really want me to weigh in on this one or are you going to stop with the insults and actually discuss things. Or do you want your ass handed to you once again. I don't mind open discussion but when outright bullying starts by either side, I take offense.

Here we go AGAIN? You have NEVER made a convincing argument about the language and interpretation of the 2A.

I discussed the laws as they are written and as they are ruled on. I don't express any personal opinion. But that seems to get in both fringe groups way. Just because you disagree with the law and the rulings doesn't make you right. It's just means that you are not right. Maybe not wrong but certainly not right. You want things changed to suit yourself then do it at the ballot box. I actually like the way the laws and the rulings are done today. And I don't see any changes as long as the Higher Courts continue to rule on the whole of the Constitution of the United States instead of some small part like you want them to. And that is their job.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does. It says, well regulated militia of the People, are necessary, not the unorganized whiners.

It LITERALLY does NOT say that.

it also, Literally, does not say Anything about the whole and entire concept of natural rights.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

it also, Literally, does not say Anything about the whole and entire concept of natural rights.

It does, LITERALLY state the following:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

That statement necessarily PRESUMES that the right exists. Otherwise, it would say something different.

 

[P@triot]

I don't mind open discussion but when outright bullying starts by either side, I take offense.

Snowflake, nobody gives a fuck what you do or don’t mind or what you do or don’t take offense to. Walking into this thread like you matter and like you think we care about your views is as arrogant as it is ignorant.