The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[Doc1]

You said it. You said none of the amendments protect individual rights. Now explain how the first only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group.

stop with your spam. we are discussing our Second Amendment, not Your diversions.

Does the SC agree with you?

Judicial activism? We have a Ninth Amendment. Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State; This I know, because it says so, in the First clause not the Second clause.

You didn't answer the question.

Does the SC agree with you.

No, through judicial activism, not the law.

any more questions?

That's a cop out, we both know it. The answer is no, they don't. They disagree with you and that's that. No further discussion needed.

 

[danielpalos]

stop with your spam. we are discussing our Second Amendment, not Your diversions.

Does the SC agree with you?

Judicial activism? We have a Ninth Amendment. Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State; This I know, because it says so, in the First clause not the Second clause.

You didn't answer the question.

Does the SC agree with you.

No, through judicial activism, not the law.

any more questions?

That's a cop out, we both know it. The answer is no, they don't. They disagree with you and that's that. No further discussion needed.

we have a Ninth Amendment; all I need is a petty cash fund, for that purpose.

 

[hadit]

Yes, repeatedly. You also said none of the amendments protected individual liberties and I'm holding you to that.

I am claiming our Second Article of Amendment is about the security of a free State.

I know you don't want to talk about the other amendments because you know that once you admit they protect individual rights your pet position will be significantly weakened, but you need to. Be an adult and address what you said.

Tell us how the first amendment only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group. Don't meander off again to the second, and don't give in to your desire to belittle women.

can you cite where in our Constitution, it claims that.

You said it. You said none of the amendments protect individual rights. Now explain how the first only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group.

stop with your spam. we are discussing our Second Amendment, not Your diversions.

You're wrong about the second amendment, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. You are wrong about women, and you are wrong about all the other amendments.

Did you think you were going to dodge your history on this subject just because you did exactly what I predicted you would do?

 

[danielpalos]

I am claiming our Second Article of Amendment is about the security of a free State.

I know you don't want to talk about the other amendments because you know that once you admit they protect individual rights your pet position will be significantly weakened, but you need to. Be an adult and address what you said.

Tell us how the first amendment only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group. Don't meander off again to the second, and don't give in to your desire to belittle women.

can you cite where in our Constitution, it claims that.

You said it. You said none of the amendments protect individual rights. Now explain how the first only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group.

stop with your spam. we are discussing our Second Amendment, not Your diversions.

You're wrong about the second amendment, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. You are wrong about women, and you are wrong about all the other amendments.

Did you think you were going to dodge your history on this subject just because you did exactly what I predicted you would do?

you only have fallacy when you say that; and, anybody can gossip.

why not come up with actual arguments, right wingers.

 

[hadit]

I know you don't want to talk about the other amendments because you know that once you admit they protect individual rights your pet position will be significantly weakened, but you need to. Be an adult and address what you said.

Tell us how the first amendment only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group. Don't meander off again to the second, and don't give in to your desire to belittle women.

can you cite where in our Constitution, it claims that.

You said it. You said none of the amendments protect individual rights. Now explain how the first only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group.

stop with your spam. we are discussing our Second Amendment, not Your diversions.

You're wrong about the second amendment, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. You are wrong about women, and you are wrong about all the other amendments.

Did you think you were going to dodge your history on this subject just because you did exactly what I predicted you would do?

you only have fallacy when you say that; and, anybody can gossip.

why not come up with actual arguments, right wingers.

We have, many times. You failed to deal with them, choosing instead to continually recite your handful of meaningless phrases.

 

[danielpalos]

you should have it down pat, right wingers. haven't learned, "cut and paste", yet?

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

 

[hadit]

you should have it down pat, right wingers. haven't learned, "cut and paste", yet?

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

And you're doing it again. The second amendment, as well as the first, protect our individual rights to speak freely, exercise our individual religious freedoms, and to bear firearms.

Right wingers learned a long time ago that cut and paste isn't a compelling way to make an argument.

 

[danielpalos]

you should have it down pat, right wingers. haven't learned, "cut and paste", yet?

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

And you're doing it again. The second amendment, as well as the first, protect our individual rights to speak freely, exercise our individual religious freedoms, and to bear firearms.

Right wingers learned a long time ago that cut and paste isn't a compelling way to make an argument.

no, dears. Our Second Amendment is Unique. The words in the amendment are Express, not implied.

 

[hadit]

you should have it down pat, right wingers. haven't learned, "cut and paste", yet?

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

And you're doing it again. The second amendment, as well as the first, protect our individual rights to speak freely, exercise our individual religious freedoms, and to bear firearms.

Right wingers learned a long time ago that cut and paste isn't a compelling way to make an argument.

no, dears. Our Second Amendment is Unique. The words in the amendment are Express, not implied.

Are you saying then that your earlier insistence is wrong?

 

[danielpalos]

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

 

[P@triot]

I said our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State.

Yes, but you’re an idiot and that has been proven. So it really doesn’t matter what you say. The founders were crystal clear over and over: the 2nd Amendment is a right and it was designed to protect the people from an oppressive government.

 

[P@triot]

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

And we wouldn’t if you progressives would stop pissing on said 2nd Amendment.

 

[P@triot]

That is until there are just too many of them and the streets are saturated.

The only thing that the streets are “saturated” with are ignorant citizens (such as yourself). Citizens who never read the U.S. Constitution or the Federalist Papers.

 

[Doc1]

I said our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State.

Yes, but you’re an idiot and that has been proven. So it really doesn’t matter what you say. The founders were crystal clear over and over: the 2nd Amendment is a right and it was designed to protect the people from an oppressive government.

No, no....he is smarter than the Justices that sit on the SC, just ask him.

 

[P@triot]

Firearm ownership as none of the federal governments business… End of story

Unless it becomes a public safety issue.

The 2nd Amendment makes no such stipulation. It does not say “unless”, anywhere. Quite the contrary, it explicitly states “shall not be infringed”.

 

[P@triot]

Firearm ownership as none of the federal governments business… End of story

Unless it becomes a public safety issue. And then it falls under the 1st amendment.

Firearms do not fall under the 1st Amendment under any circumstance, dumb ass.

 

[P@triot]

I don't worry about firearms. I do worry about fruitcakes that spread hate using firearms as the vessel. You are the enemy.

Well I worry about fruitcakes (such as yourself) spewing hate using the internet, tv, radio, the press, cell phones, and more as the vessel. And you are the enemy. Therefore, by your astounding idiotic “logic”, I am empowered to revoke your 1st Amendment rights. So shut down your computer, sit down, and permanently shut the fuck up.

 

[P@triot]

The United States is armed just fine.. Not one single other country can even successfully overthrow the United States. And that would be even if we didn't use even one single Federal Troop inside the Borders. There is no doubt to that statement.

You’re an idiot. Russia and China both have tanks. What good are firearms against tanks? If we were properly afforded our 2nd Amendment rights, we would have RPG’s which would destroy the tanks.

But that’s not why the 2nd Amendment exists, nitwit. It isn’t to protect us from other governments. It is to protect us from assholes like you in our own government. And it’s clearly still working since you are crying that you can’t disarm me.

 

[danielpalos]

I said our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State.

Yes, but you’re an idiot and that has been proven. So it really doesn’t matter what you say. The founders were crystal clear over and over: the 2nd Amendment is a right and it was designed to protect the people from an oppressive government.

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously.

where does it say that, in the first clause?

 

[P@triot]

If the guns are denying the rights under the 1st amendment then there must be changes made. And not to the first amendment rights.

There is no conflict of rights, you fuck’n Drama Queen. And if there were, oh well. You’ll just have to “make changes” to the 1st Amendment to accommodate our existing 2nd Amendment.