The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[hadit]

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.

Bingo. Just what I predicted. You have only failed phrases.

The solution is the intention of the second, which is the uninfringed right of individuals to own firearms. That way attackers, foreign or domestic, don't know for sure that the home is armed or not.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

But, that part is only a declaration without effect. What about "the right of the people shall not be infringed?"

Declaration:
Big boobs are necessary.


Effect:
No infringing on implant surgery.

You are so desperate to confiscate guns that you will argue nonsense to make it so.

 

[hadit]

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.

The text of the amendment disagrees with you. The posters on this board disagree with you. The Supreme Court disagrees with you, but you cannot allow yourself to even acknowledge their points. You just keep robotically repeating the same phrases over and over. You don't even bother to reword them.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The Means must be sacrificed to the End. The first clause, is the End, my friend.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Bingo. Just what I predicted. You have only failed phrases.

The solution is the intention of the second, which is the uninfringed right of individuals to own firearms. That way attackers, foreign or domestic, don't know for sure that the home is armed or not.

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

This is a States' right, secured by our Second Amendment:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[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.

The text of the amendment disagrees with you. The posters on this board disagree with you. The Supreme Court disagrees with you, but you cannot allow yourself to even acknowledge their points. You just keep robotically repeating the same phrases over and over. You don't even bother to reword them.

No, it doesn't. Only the "fake news", right wing disagrees with me.

Well regulated militia of the People are expressly declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the People.

 

[hadit]

yes dears, the People not the Persons.

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

He might as well argue that he has no free speech protections unless he belongs to an advocacy group.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Means must be sacrificed to the End. The first clause, is the End, my friend.

Another meaningless platitude with no relevance to the discussion at hand.

But, let me try and understand what you have failed to communicate.

The end is the first clause?

Thus, the security of a free state is the end, correct?

The means is multifaceted. The founders preserved the right of individuals to keep and bear arms so that they could be called upon to form a militia.

But, no. You will spin it a different way. You want the means to be a militia only. You want to ignore the part about preserving the right of the people. You want to change the language to fit your commie desire.

 

[hadit]

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.

Then you have no free speech rights unless you belong to an officially recognized, licensed and related advocacy group.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well regulated militia of the People are expressly declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the People.

So, why did they bother to use the word "people" in the amendment? Why not just say this:

"To maintain the security of a free state, the right of a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Had they phrased it that way, you would be correct. But, they didn't. You can't ignore the effect.

 

[danielpalos]

The Means must be sacrificed to the End. The first clause, is the End, my friend.

Another meaningless platitude with no relevance to the discussion at hand.

But, let me try and understand what you have failed to communicate.

The end is the first clause?

Thus, the security of a free state is the end, correct?

The means is multifaceted. The founders preserved the right of individuals to keep and bear arms so that they could be called upon to form a militia.

But, no. You will spin it a different way. You want the means to be a militia only. You want to ignore the part about preserving the right of the people. You want to change the language to fit your commie desire.

just your meaningless, lack of attributing comprehension to your reading.

 

[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.

Then you have no free speech rights unless you belong to an officially recognized, licensed and related advocacy group.

only police can yell fire in a crowed theatre, and get away with it.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The entire left-wing narrative about firearms is a lie. It’s all built on a political agenda rather than on data.

The report states that investigators posing online as gun buyers who were not legally able to purchase a firearm were completely unsuccessful when attempting to purchase firearms from private sellers. In fact, the report states that investigators tried 72 times — and each time they failed.

That’s right - 0% of the ATF investigators were able to make an illegal purchase. Not even one.

Investigators test how well gun laws work online — and find shocking results that undermine liberals

I guess the illegal alien gang bangers in the sanctuary cities don’t buy and sell online. Who knew?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Then you have no free speech rights unless you belong to an officially recognized, licensed and related advocacy group.

It's part of his commie brainwashing. He can't help it.

The alleged collective right is a communist scam to defraud and deny rights to the masses.

If "the People" own all the property, who gets to use it?

If "the People" own all the food, who gets to eat it?

What is the point of society if not to benefit the individual?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

only police can yell fire in a crowed theatre, and get away with it

Wait, who gets away with it? Police, the collective, or a policeman, the individual?

The collective can get away with everything. Only individuals have consequences.

 

[danielpalos]

The entire left-wing narrative about firearms is a lie. It’s all built on a political agenda rather than on data.

The report states that investigators posing online as gun buyers who were not legally able to purchase a firearm were completely unsuccessful when attempting to purchase firearms from private sellers. In fact, the report states that investigators tried 72 times — and each time they failed.

That’s right - 0% of the ATF investigators were able to make an illegal purchase. Not even one.

Investigators test how well gun laws work online — and find shocking results that undermine liberals

I guess the illegal alien gang bangers in the sanctuary cities don’t buy and sell online. Who knew?

they just "stand their ground" in "gun lover country". Their Turf.

 

[danielpalos]

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

so everyone can afford to Invest in;

Junk Bonds, not Junk Laws!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Oh, I see. You get to pick whom can enter this discussion. Well, Adolf, you lose again. Now, let's hear your views go on again. I will enjoy reading them. But you don't mind (of course you do) if I look at them from legal point of view, do you and respond in kind?

 

[OODA_Loop]

just your meaningless, lack of attributing comprehension to your reading.

Your failure to recognize SCOTUS affirmation of the individual right absent an militia connection and your instance on droning the same point over and over is old.

 

[danielpalos]

just your meaningless, lack of attributing comprehension to your reading.

Your failure to recognize SCOTUS affirmation of the individual right absent an militia connection and your instance on droning the same point over and over is old.

Absent what militia connection?

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The People are the Militia for Second Amendment common defense and common law purposes; You are Either, Well Regulated or unorganized.