The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[P@triot]

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

Then why was the 2nd Amendment added to the Bill of Rights?!?

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Article of Amendment, is not a Constitution Unto itself.

This also has no meaning unless you are arguing that the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is ambiguous and in conflict with some other part of the Constitution.

Is that what you are arguing?

lol. no dear. it means, You have no reading comprehension.

 

[P@triot]

the first clause is Express, not Implied.

The prefatory clause is the why. It is not the what. Uh buh-bye!

The why is the security of a free State, the what is the militia of the people. Only well regulated militia of the People are Necessary.

No ignoramus. The what is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Then why was the 2nd Amendment added to the Bill of Rights?!?

States have sovereign rights, and a Tenth Amendment.

 

[P@triot]

lol. no dear. it means, You have no reading comprehension.

That’s why every educated American agrees with him and is laughing at you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

where does it say that? not in the first clause.

So, if it's not where you want it, we can ignore it?

You make no sense whatsoever. You are nonsense personified.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

ol.

Dear Persons on the right wing,

the first clause is Express, not Implied.

Dear dumbass trolls. The second clause is also EXPRESS.

 

[P@triot]

States have sovereign rights, and a Tenth Amendment.

Oh you poor little nitwit. The 10th Amendment doesn’t grant the states “sovereignty”. It ensures that anything not explicitly granted as a power to the federal government remains “to the States respectively, or to the people”.

Once again we see that pesky little “people” term get in the way of your idiotic false narrative.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. no dear. it means, You have no reading comprehension.

That’s why every educated American agrees with him and is laughing at you.

Only in right wing fantasy. In the ordinary world, you can't find anyone with a superior argument and, y'all have to resort to fallacy, to prove it, every time we argue our positions.

 

[danielpalos]

where does it say that? not in the first clause.

So, if it's not where you want it, we can ignore it?

You make no sense whatsoever. You are nonsense personified.

having nothing but fallacy really is inferior.

 

[danielpalos]

ol.

Dear Persons on the right wing,

the first clause is Express, not Implied.

Dear dumbass trolls. The second clause is also EXPRESS.

yes dears, the People not the Persons.

 

[danielpalos]

States have sovereign rights, and a Tenth Amendment.

Oh you poor little nitwit. The 10th Amendment doesn’t grant the states “sovereignty”. It ensures that anything not explicitly granted as a power to the federal government remains “to the States respectively, or to the people”.

Once again we see that pesky little “people” term get in the way of your idiotic false narrative.

The first clause expresses what the second clause is about in our Second Amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The why is the security of a free State, the what is the militia of the people. Only well regulated militia of the People are Necessary.

So, by that logic:

Big boobies, being necessary for the erotic nature of a titty bar, the right of the people to get implants shall not be infringed.

The why is the boner value of titty bars.

The what is big boobies.

So, only big boobies are necessary.

So, what does the the above amendment do? We have a why and a what, but no effect....unless we look at the second part about implants!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The first clause expresses what the second clause is about in our Second Amendment.

Right, and what does the second clause EXPRESSLY do?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

yes dears, the People not the Persons.

As I said before, collective rights CANNOT logically exist without the same right existing individually.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This collective argument is typical of commies and the source of commie power. You have rights, but you don't. You own property, but you don't.

The people have the right to food, but the individual can fuck off and starve.

The people own this house and have the right to live in it, but not you.

 

[danielpalos]

The why is the security of a free State, the what is the militia of the people. Only well regulated militia of the People are Necessary.

So, by that logic:

Big boobies, being necessary for the erotic nature of a titty bar, the right of the people to get implants shall not be infringed.

The why is the boner value of titty bars.

The what is big boobies.

So, only big boobies are necessary.

So, what does the the above amendment do? We have a why and a what, but no effect....unless we look at the second part about implants!

right wing special pleading?

the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the People are Necessary to the security of a free State.

The unorganized militia of the People are nowhere declared necessary to even the concept of natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

The first clause expresses what the second clause is about in our Second Amendment.

Right, and what does the second clause EXPRESSLY do?

follow the intent and purpose of the first clause.

 

[danielpalos]

yes dears, the People not the Persons.

As I said before, collective rights CANNOT logically exist without the same right existing individually.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not individual liberty.

The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People, are necessary to the security of a free State.

The right of the People to be Armed, by the State if necessary, is the Only "natural" right established by our Second Amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The right of the People to be Armed

Does that include the right of a person to be armed?

by the State if necessary

It doesn't say that.

is the Only "natural" right established by our Second Amendment

No right is established by the 2nd Amendment. It's not a grant of rights. It is a preservation of pre-existing rights and a limitation on power.