The Right To Bear Arms

[M14 Shooter]

Yet you use the word "lie" in every other post you make...go figure.

Petulant children are like that -- the rules they set for others do not apply to them.

 

[hadit]

Not when the Second was written and passed.

I gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

can you translate that?

Why do you believe the People were not the Militia upon the ratification of our federal Constitution? Our federal Civil Rights are expressly declared.

Do you have any idea of what a militia consisted of in those days?

Males, aged 16-45, (57 in some states).

no women

no males under the age of 16.

no males over the age of 45, (57 in some states).

militia member had to be able bodied.

Which is why the Founding Fathers gave the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE.

So WOMEN could defend themselves.

So males younger than 16 or older than 45 could provide fresh meat for the family.

They couldn't join the militia, but they had need of firearms.

I understand our Second Amendment is express not implied; the People may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, for their State or the Union.

That's not what it says.

 

[hadit]

Do you have any idea of what a militia consisted of in those days?

Males, aged 16-45, (57 in some states).

no women

no males under the age of 16.

no males over the age of 45, (57 in some states).

militia member had to be able bodied.

Which is why the Founding Fathers gave the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE.

So WOMEN could defend themselves.

So males younger than 16 or older than 45 could provide fresh meat for the family.

They couldn't join the militia, but they had need of firearms.

I understand our Second Amendment is express not implied; the People may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, for their State or the Union.

When are you going to realize that makes absolutely no sense?

anybody can say that. you make no sense. see how Easy that is. only floozies should do it that way.

Bud, you might as well state "The Lord is My Shepard" instead of that.

neither have squat to do with the 2nd.

neither do you.

Our Constitution is Express not Implied.

Where are you getting your Individual natural rights from?

If the Constitution is express, not implied, why do you continue to say the second is implied, not express?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Apparently, language analogies are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[danielpalos]

anybody can say that. you make no sense. see how Easy that is. only floozies should do it that way.

Bud, you might as well state "The Lord is My Shepard" instead of that.

neither have squat to do with the 2nd.

neither do you.

Our Constitution is Express not Implied.

Where are you getting your Individual natural rights from?

Our Constitution is Express not Implied.

You post that, but I see "The Lord is my Shepard".

Is there a chance of you coming back to Earth eventually?

you need a valid argument not a diversion; floozy.

you need a valid argument not a diversion

you need to find a mirror for that, whore.

it must require morals to resort to the fewest fallacies, floozy.

 

[Auld Phart]

Bud, you might as well state "The Lord is My Shepard" instead of that.

neither have squat to do with the 2nd.

neither do you.

Our Constitution is Express not Implied.

Where are you getting your Individual natural rights from?

Our Constitution is Express not Implied.

You post that, but I see "The Lord is my Shepard".

Is there a chance of you coming back to Earth eventually?

you need a valid argument not a diversion; floozy.

you need a valid argument not a diversion

you need to find a mirror for that, whore.

it must require morals to resort to the fewest fallacies, floozy.

Guess that makes me more moral than you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You can tell which fools never had any logic or math classes in school.

X being necessary for Y, the right of the people to Z shall not be infringed.

According to Dan and Lesh)

X = the people

but

X's right to Z shall not be infringed.

NOT

the people's right shall not be infringed.

Am I saying that right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can tell which fools never had any logic or math classes in school.
X being necessary for Y, the right of the people to Z shall not be infringed.
According to Dan and Lesh)
X = the people
but
X's right to Z shall not be infringed.
NOT
the people's right shall not be infringed.
Am I saying that right?

They choose to be wrong.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Or is it this:

X being necessary for Y, the right of the people to Z shall not be infringed.

Thus (according to Dan and Lesh)

the people have the right to Z, but no person has the right to Z.

Only X can exercise the right to Z. Persons cannot.

Somebody want to explain this in logical terms?

Lesh?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Constitution is Express not implied


.


Except when it says "the people."


Then, it is implied that "the people" means a collective group, but NOT individuals.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A well-balanced breakfast = X

being necessary for good health = Y

the right of the people to keep and eat food = Z

 

[hadit]

The Constitution is Express not implied


.


Except when it says "the people."


Then, it is implied that "the people" means a collective group, but NOT individuals.

Except on Tuesdays and during the full moon.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Constitution is Express not implied


.


Except when it says "the people."


Then, it is implied that "the people" means a collective group, but NOT individuals.

Except on Tuesdays and during the full moon.

I wonder if that works for other rights?

The right of the press? Does that only apply to CNN? Do I not have the right to make publications as an individual? Only big news collectives have the right?


.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Or is it this:

X being necessary for Y, the right of the people to Z shall not be infringed.

Thus (according to Dan and Lesh)

the people have the right to Z, but no person has the right to Z.

Only X can exercise the right to Z. Persons cannot.

Somebody want to explain this in logical terms?

Lesh?

.

/—-/ It’s called the Leftest Two Step

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
/—-/ It’s called the Leftest Two Step

The only way they can keep their agenda alive is to lie.
Says it all, right there.

 

[danielpalos]

neither do you.

Our Constitution is Express not Implied.

Where are you getting your Individual natural rights from?

Our Constitution is Express not Implied.

You post that, but I see "The Lord is my Shepard".

Is there a chance of you coming back to Earth eventually?

you need a valid argument not a diversion; floozy.

you need a valid argument not a diversion

you need to find a mirror for that, whore.

it must require morals to resort to the fewest fallacies, floozy.

Guess that makes me more moral than you.

anybody can say anything.

Why should I believe Any Implied interpretation over Any Express declaration?

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel has become a troll.

Whatever

i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

 

[danielpalos]

I gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

can you translate that?

Why do you believe the People were not the Militia upon the ratification of our federal Constitution? Our federal Civil Rights are expressly declared.

Do you have any idea of what a militia consisted of in those days?

Males, aged 16-45, (57 in some states).

no women

no males under the age of 16.

no males over the age of 45, (57 in some states).

militia member had to be able bodied.

Which is why the Founding Fathers gave the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE.

So WOMEN could defend themselves.

So males younger than 16 or older than 45 could provide fresh meat for the family.

They couldn't join the militia, but they had need of firearms.

I understand our Second Amendment is express not implied; the People may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, for their State or the Union.

That's not what it says.

Yes, it is Implied in every word.

 

[danielpalos]

I understand our Second Amendment is express not implied; the People may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, for their State or the Union.

When are you going to realize that makes absolutely no sense?

anybody can say that. you make no sense. see how Easy that is. only floozies should do it that way.

Bud, you might as well state "The Lord is My Shepard" instead of that.

neither have squat to do with the 2nd.

neither do you.

Our Constitution is Express not Implied.

Where are you getting your Individual natural rights from?

If the Constitution is express, not implied, why do you continue to say the second is implied, not express?

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights; it says so in the first clause.

 

[danielpalos]

Apparently, language analogies are irrelevant to this discussion.

false analogies are worthless.