The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

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?

The People are the Militia under the common law.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

.

Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

the People is plural and collective.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

in Right Wing fantasy, the right wing is Always right.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is classic leftist word parsing:

militia = the people

but

the people =/= militia


The same does not mean the same.


It fails logically.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is classic leftist word parsing:
militia = the people
but
the people =/= militia
The same does not mean the same.
It fails logically.
.

It does not matter how many times you explain to them that the militia is a subset of the people -- they choose to not understand.

 

[Auld Phart]

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?

anybody can say anything.

I go by what was not only written, but inserted into the Bill of Rights.

you can't accept that

 

[Lesh]

This is classic leftist word parsing:
militia = the people
but
the people =/= militia
The same does not mean the same.
It fails logically.
.

It does not matter how many times you explain to them that the militia is a subset of the people -- they choose to not understand.

The "militia" IS a "subset of the people" ...that no longer exists

 

[Lesh]

I go by what was not only written, but inserted into the Bill of Rights.

You mean the "Well Regulated Militia" clause.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is classic leftist word parsing:
militia = the people
but
the people =/= militia
The same does not mean the same.
It fails logically.
.

It does not matter how many times you explain to them that the militia is a subset of the people -- they choose to not understand.

The "militia" IS a "subset of the people" ...that no longer exists

Your statement, above, is a lie.
Either that or you are hopelessly ignorant of the fact that the militia,. as defined by state and federal law, very much does exist.
So... are you ignorant, or dishonest?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I go by what was not only written, but inserted into the Bill of Rights.

You mean the "Well Regulated Militia" clause.

Which, as you know, has no bearing on who has the right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd.

 

[Auld Phart]

I go by what was not only written, but inserted into the Bill of Rights.

You mean the "Well Regulated Militia" clause.

no, the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." part.

There was no need to belong to a militia when it was written, there is no need to belong to a militia now to own a firearm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There was no need to belong to a militia when it was written, there is no need to belong to a militia now to own a firearm.

Everyone knows this.
They choose, however, to lie to you about it.

 

[hadit]

This is classic leftist word parsing:

militia = the people

but

the people =/= militia


The same does not mean the same.


It fails logically.

.

Leftists =/= logical.

 

[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.

the People is plural and collective.

It means all the people, which means all the people can bear arms, which means it can't apply only to the militia because the militia is not all the people. How much plainer can it be made for you to understand? I know you're impervious to fact and reason, but come on, you carry dogmatic to an extreme.

 

[Lesh]

You're inserting words that are not there. I am going by the words that are IN the 2A

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're inserting words that are not there. I am going by the words that are IN the 2A

AND... you're lying.

 

[Auld Phart]

You're inserting words that are not there. I am going by the words that are IN the 2A

link?

 

[hadit]

You're inserting words that are not there. I am going by the words that are IN the 2A

Do you then say women can be barred from gun ownership? I maintain that the people is more then the militia.

 

[hadit]

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.

Except that it says Congress can't pass laws infringing on the rights of the people, not of the militia.