The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

You misuse logic to attempt to mean what it doesn't. See how easy that is.

They, why don't you explain what you think "appeal to ignorance" means. (this should be fun)

And, the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US, only with the organized and well regulated Militia.

That makes absolutely no sense.

You explain it since You believe I don't know what it means. (this should be even funner)

You have absolutely no sense. See how easy that is.

 

[danielpalos]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Why didn't they just leave it at that, if that is all the 2A is?

The rules of interpretation are very much against your retarded position.

A well-regulated colon, being necessary for proper digestion, the right of the people to grow and eat high-fiber vegetables shall not be infringed.

No serious person with any command of the English language would interpret the above to mean anything but preservation of individual rights. IT IS THE SAME!!!!

If you insist on your bullshit interpretation, you will cause a war.

The point is that the security of a free State is the End not the Means.

 

[danielpalos]

Alright. Dan is back on ignore. He is clearly not an American and English is his second language.

Says an ignorant right winger who must be fresh off the boat from unitary government Europe since he has no clue as to how our federal form of Government is supposed to work

 

[hadit]

According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.

No right to free speech or religion.

Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument. Because it is bullshit.

And forget about that pesky 9A. It doesn't mean what it says. Right, Dan?

You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.

You can't misuse the term "appeal to ignorance" like you have repeatedly and be taken seriously. You don't know what it means, but I digress...

You have mistakenly read meaning into the first clause that is not there. No reasonable interpretation of the 2A creates any meaning other than a preservation of the individual right to keep weapons. The first clause is nothing more than stating a purpose for what they ACTUALL DID, which is preserve the right of the people. Any interpretation to the contrary is pure repugnance.

Don't like it???? AMEND!!!!!

You misuse logic to attempt to mean what it doesn't. See how easy that is.

And, the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US, only with the organized and well regulated Militia.

Which means the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

 

[Rigby5]

You misuse logic to attempt to mean what it doesn't. See how easy that is.

They, why don't you explain what you think "appeal to ignorance" means. (this should be fun)

And, the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US, only with the organized and well regulated Militia.

That makes absolutely no sense.

You explain it since You believe I don't know what it means. (this should be even funner)

You have absolutely no sense. See how easy that is.

But if "there is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US", there can't be any federal firearm laws because that would risk disarming a member of that universal Militia.
But there could be state or local laws, since the needs of the Militia could vary between NYC and rural Wyoming.

 

[Rigby5]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Why didn't they just leave it at that, if that is all the 2A is?

The rules of interpretation are very much against your retarded position.

A well-regulated colon, being necessary for proper digestion, the right of the people to grow and eat high-fiber vegetables shall not be infringed.

No serious person with any command of the English language would interpret the above to mean anything but preservation of individual rights. IT IS THE SAME!!!!

If you insist on your bullshit interpretation, you will cause a war.

The point is that the security of a free State is the End not the Means.

Which puts the emphasis on free states to be greater than the lesser need for national concerns.
So that increases the opinion that the 2nd amendment was a prohibition on federal firearms laws.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Why didn't they just leave it at that, if that is all the 2A is?

The rules of interpretation are very much against your retarded position.

A well-regulated colon, being necessary for proper digestion, the right of the people to grow and eat high-fiber vegetables shall not be infringed.

No serious person with any command of the English language would interpret the above to mean anything but preservation of individual rights. IT IS THE SAME!!!!

If you insist on your bullshit interpretation, you will cause a war.

The point is that the security of a free State is the End not the Means.

And the means are stated RIGHT IN THE 2A, DAN!!!! Armed people from which a militia may be assembled.

You are never going to understand because you don't know the history. You probably have never heard of the minutemen, have you?

You don't get it. That's all there is left to say.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Why didn't they just leave it at that, if that is all the 2A is?

The rules of interpretation are very much against your retarded position.

A well-regulated colon, being necessary for proper digestion, the right of the people to grow and eat high-fiber vegetables shall not be infringed.

No serious person with any command of the English language would interpret the above to mean anything but preservation of individual rights. IT IS THE SAME!!!!

If you insist on your bullshit interpretation, you will cause a war.

The point is that the security of a free State is the End not the Means.

Which puts the emphasis on free states to be greater than the lesser need for national concerns.
So that increases the opinion that the 2nd amendment was a prohibition on federal firearms laws.

He will never see how he walked right into that, or he does see it. He just doesn't care. He wants one result, and will hear nothing contrary to that outcome.

 

[Rigby5]

Alright. Dan is back on ignore. He is clearly not an American and English is his second language.

Says an ignorant right winger who must be fresh off the boat from unitary government Europe since he has no clue as to how our federal form of Government is supposed to work

But in our form of federation, the central federal government is deliberately constrained and prevented from becoming too powerful or abusive. Since safety is a concern within states and can not be done properly at a federal level, it should clear that the point of the 2nd amendment was to prevent any federal weapons jurisdiction.
Not only were there no police back then, but most people lived on rural frontiers where they had to fend for themselves.
Which clearly does not allow for any federal weapons legislation.

 

[Rigby5]

According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.

No right to free speech or religion.

Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument. Because it is bullshit.

And forget about that pesky 9A. It doesn't mean what it says. Right, Dan?

You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.

You can't misuse the term "appeal to ignorance" like you have repeatedly and be taken seriously. You don't know what it means, but I digress...

You have mistakenly read meaning into the first clause that is not there. No reasonable interpretation of the 2A creates any meaning other than a preservation of the individual right to keep weapons. The first clause is nothing more than stating a purpose for what they ACTUALL DID, which is preserve the right of the people. Any interpretation to the contrary is pure repugnance.

Don't like it???? AMEND!!!!!

You misuse logic to attempt to mean what it doesn't. See how easy that is.

And, the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US, only with the organized and well regulated Militia.

Which means the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

But if he wants to make the "people" mean the same as the "militia", then it does not matter.
He is still admitting that the feds can't make any weapons laws.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875),"[The Second Amendment] has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government...”

Was the Cruikshank wrong?

 

[danielpalos]

According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.

No right to free speech or religion.

Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument. Because it is bullshit.

And forget about that pesky 9A. It doesn't mean what it says. Right, Dan?

You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.

You can't misuse the term "appeal to ignorance" like you have repeatedly and be taken seriously. You don't know what it means, but I digress...

You have mistakenly read meaning into the first clause that is not there. No reasonable interpretation of the 2A creates any meaning other than a preservation of the individual right to keep weapons. The first clause is nothing more than stating a purpose for what they ACTUALL DID, which is preserve the right of the people. Any interpretation to the contrary is pure repugnance.

Don't like it???? AMEND!!!!!

You misuse logic to attempt to mean what it doesn't. See how easy that is.

And, the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US, only with the organized and well regulated Militia.

Which means the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

But if he wants to make the "people" mean the same as the "militia", then it does not matter.
He is still admitting that the feds can't make any weapons laws.

Not at all. You simply don't understand our form of federal Government. Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself as it must Be, for your point of view to be valid.

 

[Rigby5]

According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.

No right to free speech or religion.

Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument. Because it is bullshit.

And forget about that pesky 9A. It doesn't mean what it says. Right, Dan?

You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.

You can't misuse the term "appeal to ignorance" like you have repeatedly and be taken seriously. You don't know what it means, but I digress...

You have mistakenly read meaning into the first clause that is not there. No reasonable interpretation of the 2A creates any meaning other than a preservation of the individual right to keep weapons. The first clause is nothing more than stating a purpose for what they ACTUALL DID, which is preserve the right of the people. Any interpretation to the contrary is pure repugnance.

Don't like it???? AMEND!!!!!

You misuse logic to attempt to mean what it doesn't. See how easy that is.

And, the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US, only with the organized and well regulated Militia.

Which means the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

But if he wants to make the "people" mean the same as the "militia", then it does not matter.
He is still admitting that the feds can't make any weapons laws.

Not at all. You simply don't understand our form of federal Government. Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself as it must Be, for your point of view to be valid.

An amendment in the Bill of Rights does not have to be a constitution unto itself in order to define jurisdiction.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to clarify the limits of the federal government, so that states would give up their apprehensions and join.
Most of what the constitution does is authorize specific powers to the federal government.
Then the Bill of Rights adds more specific restrictions, such as the 9th and 10th amendments which say the feds can ONLY do what they are specifically authorized to do in the Constitution, but anything not specifically given jurisdiction, automatically falls under local and state jurisdiction.

Having just come out of a bad situation with an over bearing and abusive central authority they had to rebel from with force of arms, it is not at all hard to understand that the founder were very unwilling to ever allow any new central authority to become abusive or to make rebellion any harder when it becomes necessary. Because it should be obvious to anyone who studies history, that rebellion always becomes necessary. All central governments always decay into corruption.

 

[hadit]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Why didn't they just leave it at that, if that is all the 2A is?

The rules of interpretation are very much against your retarded position.

A well-regulated colon, being necessary for proper digestion, the right of the people to grow and eat high-fiber vegetables shall not be infringed.

No serious person with any command of the English language would interpret the above to mean anything but preservation of individual rights. IT IS THE SAME!!!!

If you insist on your bullshit interpretation, you will cause a war.

The point is that the security of a free State is the End not the Means.

Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[hadit]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Why didn't they just leave it at that, if that is all the 2A is?

The rules of interpretation are very much against your retarded position.

A well-regulated colon, being necessary for proper digestion, the right of the people to grow and eat high-fiber vegetables shall not be infringed.

No serious person with any command of the English language would interpret the above to mean anything but preservation of individual rights. IT IS THE SAME!!!!

If you insist on your bullshit interpretation, you will cause a war.

The point is that the security of a free State is the End not the Means.

Which puts the emphasis on free states to be greater than the lesser need for national concerns.
So that increases the opinion that the 2nd amendment was a prohibition on federal firearms laws.

He will never see how he walked right into that, or he does see it. He just doesn't care. He wants one result, and will hear nothing contrary to that outcome.

He never realizes how he undermines his own arguments.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Let's follow Dan's reasoning here:

The end the founders contemplated when drafting the 2A was the security of a free state. States protected themselves with a militia made up of ordinary citizens who were armed and ready to respond do the call to arms. This is indisputable historical fact. This discussion cannot continue until DAN ADMITS THAT MOTHERFUCKING FACT!!!

So, according to Dan, the 2A was written and ratified to protect the collective right of the militia (even though it actually says "the right of the people"). But, only well-regulated militia of all the people of the United States, as a collective group, are protected, even though Dan admits that the stated end is the security of a free state.

What did I miss, Dan?

 

[justinacolmena]

Deadly weapons must be regulated to some extent as part of the police power of any State.

Attention dumbass. You need to be be extorted and tortured out of your liberal political opinions, if you think "the State" be allowed to steal our weapons. You'll be begging for a bullet to end it all.

REVELATION 9:5 KJV And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months:...

Revelation 9:5 KJV: And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

 

[Rigby5]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Why didn't they just leave it at that, if that is all the 2A is?

The rules of interpretation are very much against your retarded position.

A well-regulated colon, being necessary for proper digestion, the right of the people to grow and eat high-fiber vegetables shall not be infringed.

No serious person with any command of the English language would interpret the above to mean anything but preservation of individual rights. IT IS THE SAME!!!!

If you insist on your bullshit interpretation, you will cause a war.

The point is that the security of a free State is the End not the Means.

Of course.
The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.

 

[Rigby5]

You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.

>>> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

= Seeing as how the regular armed forces, national guard, and homeland security and all that are necessary and all, NEVERTHELESS,​

>>> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

= The universal human right to possess and carry firearms and other weapons, shall not be violated or questioned in any way or subjected to registration or government regulation or any other infringements.​

That is not what our Second Amendment clearly expresses, just your fantastical, right wing view. If what you allege is true, then all police State regulation is justified for those not associated with, "all that are necessary". Deadly weapons must be regulated to some extent as part of the police power of any State.

Sure. States have to have some reasonable regulations in weapons.
For example, we don't want children running around with them, for them to be carried into courtrooms or banks, etc.
But the point is that is supposed to be all up to the states and not the federal government.
Police powers does not imply any federal powers.
Police means state or local.
And even police power over weapons is over shadowed by the 4th and 5th amendment individual right to life and protection of possessions.

 

[justinacolmena]

Sure. States have to have some reasonable regulations in weapons.

NO.
They don't have business "regulating" away our rights they are not supposed to be infringing in the first place.