Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
See, that’s your problem. You think words order other words to do something. The constitution orders the federal government, not the words ordering words. Words don’t do anything but convey a message. Words can’t tell other words what to do.Yes, it does.So, the first clause orders the second clause?Our Second Amendment has Always been about what the First Clause orders the Second Clause, to do.
Yes, for the security of a free State, not natural rights. Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of natural rights, for the unorganized militia.Even if that were true (and it’s not), what is “necessary to achieve that end” is for people to be armed.Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, and what is necessary to achieve that End.
That is astounding ignorance (even by your normal standard of remarkable ignorance). The Bill of Rights doesn’t “follow” anything, you imbecile. It is an amendment. Thus it is legally (and literally) part of the entire constitution.It must be so, simply Because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself; it merely follows our federal Constitution
Wrong. As usual. It clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. It doesn’t say the right of the ‘well regulated militia’ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
So, for the security of a free state, the federal government will not infringe upon the natural rights of the people. Is that right?Yes, for the security of a free State, not natural rights. Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of natural rights, for the unorganized militia.
The Bill of Rights is entirely about “natural rights”. My right to speech. My right to religion. My right to firearms. My right to privacy.Yes, for the security of a free State, not natural rights.
But that clause does nothing. That clause does nothing more than state a need. It directs no one to do anything.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
That clause is Express, not Implied.
We have to quible since not all persons of the People are well regulated militia. We have well regulated militia, the unorganized militia, and right wing slackers who are mostly all talk and mostly no action.So, for the security of a free state, the federal government will not infringe upon the natural rights of the people. Is that right?Yes, for the security of a free State, not natural rights. Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of natural rights, for the unorganized militia.
Why not cite the actual rules of construction, instead of right wing fantasy.The first clause has no operative ettedlct without the second closet. However, the second clause could stand on its own, without the first clause.
So ask yourself again, what is the operative clause?
First class – states a need.
Second clause – orders government to not infringe on natural rights.
Please explain to me how I am wrong, Puta.
You never answer that question and you never explain yourself because you’re a fucking cocksucker and a commie bastard. As usual, he will not do it here because you’re a pussy and a puta.
Bullshit, motherfucker. You said the people are the militia.We have to quible since not all persons of the People are well regulated militia. We have well regulated militia, the unorganized militia, and right wing slackers who are mostly all talk and mostly no action.So, for the security of a free state, the federal government will not infringe upon the natural rights of the people. Is that right?Yes, for the security of a free State, not natural rights. Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of natural rights, for the unorganized militia.
but.....but....but....“express - not implied”...and....“no natural rights”....and...“the people are the militia”.The first clause has no operate in fact without the second closet. However, the second clause could stand on its own, without the first clause.
So ask yourself again, what is the operative clause?
First class – states a need.
Second clause – orders government to not infringe on natural rights.
Please explain to me how I am wrong, Puta.
You never answer that question and you never explain yourself because you’re a fucking cocksucker and a commie bastard. As usual, he will not do it here because you’re a pussy and a puta.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Uh...that’s what he just did.Why not cite the actual rules of construction, instead of right wing fantasy.The first clause has no operative ettedlct without the second closet. However, the second clause could stand on its own, without the first clause.
So ask yourself again, what is the operative clause?
First class – states a need.
Second clause – orders government to not infringe on natural rights.
Please explain to me how I am wrong, Puta.
You never answer that question and you never explain yourself because you’re a fucking cocksucker and a commie bastard. As usual, he will not do it here because you’re a pussy and a puta.