True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

[Humorme]

STATE CONSTITUTIONS DO NOT CREATE NOR GRANT RIGHTS

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

No they are not and they told you so.

Yes, they are, every Constitution tells me so.

You must be confusing your documents. Are you a North Korean?

Should we insist on bearing True Witness to our own Constitutions, before we give foreign States, "heck" for not being as Faithful?

Are you sober? Reread that and try again.

 

[Humorme]

You are wrong.

lol. why should Anyone take the right wing seriously about even morals and even for the greater glory of our immortal souls.

any dictionary proves me right.

Every one of those dictionaries I've quoted have proven you wrong. And I'm citing the most authoritative ones available.

dude; you have nothing but fallacy. that is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

I cited Merriam-Webster.

Nobody takes you seriously because anything you don't like is right wing fallacy. It is fallacy for anyone to believe you are even wanting a serious discussion.

Face it. you're bored and just need babysitting OR you are suffering from a delusion that if you keep people responding to absolute nonsense, they won't take the time to write their congrescritters.

Socialism, the militia, the people; all plural.

Are you now claiming to be socialist?

 

[Humorme]

You are wrong.

lol. why should Anyone take the right wing seriously about even morals and even for the greater glory of our immortal souls.

any dictionary proves me right.

Why should anyone take you seriously?

You haven't come close to making a point

A dictionary proves me right; and it proves the whole and entire, right wing, Wrong.

Yeah, daniella, you are right and the whole world is wrong (sarcasm intended)

Your cryptic posts and strawman arguments make you a legend in your own mind.

In reality the United States Supreme Court has ruled 180 degrees opposite of what you post... except for the strawman stuff you seem to pull out of your ass when you really get the beat down. Maybe if you make those nonsensical posts, you think it detracts from the posts where you get proven wrong.

For example:

Tell us about your experiences inside a civilian militia.... You sure got than one wrong, didn't you?

Nah, even when you're proven wrong, you come back to remind us of your infallibility. You're a legend in your own mind.

plural - x does not equal singular, in this equation.

What does that have to do with anything? The Supreme Court says you have an individual Right. If you don't like that, why don't you tell them instead of keep repeating the same errors over and over?

I don't give a shit one way or another. I have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms... and if that fails, I rely on the Word of God... You?

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

No they are not and they told you so.

Yes, they are, every Constitution tells me so.

You must be confusing your documents. Are you a North Korean?

Should we insist on bearing True Witness to our own Constitutions, before we give foreign States, "heck" for not being as Faithful?

Are you sober? Reread that and try again.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously, whenever they don't have to.

Hey pot, kettle, checking in.

I wanted to start, "harassing the red States" for being so, Repugnant to their own Constitutions.

 

[Humorme]

No they are not and they told you so.

Yes, they are, every Constitution tells me so.

You must be confusing your documents. Are you a North Korean?

Should we insist on bearing True Witness to our own Constitutions, before we give foreign States, "heck" for not being as Faithful?

Are you sober? Reread that and try again.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously, whenever they don't have to.

Hey pot, kettle, checking in.

I wanted to start, "harassing the red States" for being so, Repugnant to their own Constitutions.

So you primary thing is to call people you disagree with right wing and you are here to harass people. Nice to know.

So, are you going to tell me about your experience in the militia or you going to throw the towel in and admit you were wrong? A non response is a forfeiture and you will have admitted that you don't know squat about the militia. Then we can move on.

 

[Auld Phart]

yes, it is....


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms"

The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.

The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.

Neither is the first clause.


despite your claims the entire amendment is about the militia

The first clause declares which portion of the militia of the People, is Necessary.

and the second clause defines who the Right is for

Well regulated militia of the Whole and Entire People; Only the right wing, never gets it.

you fail, as usual, to understand that a large part of the people were not allowed to belong to a militia.

 

[Humorme]

STATE CONSTITUTIONS DO NOT CREATE NOR GRANT RIGHTS

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

Since state constitutions are secondary to the US Constitution, this insistence that "natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions" has no bearing on the topic.

there are no natural rights in our federal Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is a guarantee of your natural rights.

What happened to Dred Scott and what is happening to transgender, potential "army group personnel"?

Are you transgender?

 

[Humorme]

Do you have a point?

It means, our Second Amendment must be about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

And, according to the 2nd amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

no, it isn't. Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.

Wrong yet again daniella. Do you specialize in being wrong?

I am not a damsel in distress; the Person with the most fallacies, loses, "the bet".

You would owe money than you are going to make in this lifetime.

Have you ever read the Preamble to the Constitution?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, they are, every Constitution tells me so.

You must be confusing your documents. Are you a North Korean?

Should we insist on bearing True Witness to our own Constitutions, before we give foreign States, "heck" for not being as Faithful?

Are you sober? Reread that and try again.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously, whenever they don't have to.

Hey pot, kettle, checking in.

I wanted to start, "harassing the red States" for being so, Repugnant to their own Constitutions.

So you primary thing is to call people you disagree with right wing and you are here to harass people. Nice to know.

So, are you going to tell me about your experience in the militia or you going to throw the towel in and admit you were wrong? A non response is a forfeiture and you will have admitted that you don't know squat about the militia. Then we can move on.

We have laws. The people are the militia, well regulated or unorganized. That is the experience I have, with the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.

The Second Clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto Itself.

Neither is the first clause.


despite your claims the entire amendment is about the militia

The first clause declares which portion of the militia of the People, is Necessary.

and the second clause defines who the Right is for

Well regulated militia of the Whole and Entire People; Only the right wing, never gets it.

you fail, as usual, to understand that a large part of the people were not allowed to belong to a militia.

socialism requires social morals for free, not expensive and capital, civil wars.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

Since state constitutions are secondary to the US Constitution, this insistence that "natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions" has no bearing on the topic.

there are no natural rights in our federal Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is a guarantee of your natural rights.

What happened to Dred Scott and what is happening to transgender, potential "army group personnel"?

Are you transgender?

nope; for truth in advertising purposes.

the right wing has nothing but fallacy; why should we take right wing foreign policy seriously, with their regime of Tax Cut Economics and "starve the beast" mentality?

 

[danielpalos]

It means, our Second Amendment must be about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

And, according to the 2nd amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

no, it isn't. Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.

Wrong yet again daniella. Do you specialize in being wrong?

I am not a damsel in distress; the Person with the most fallacies, loses, "the bet".

You would owe money than you are going to make in this lifetime.

Have you ever read the Preamble to the Constitution?

The preamble is our "mission statement" in life, for the militia of the United States.

 

[Humorme]

You must be confusing your documents. Are you a North Korean?

Should we insist on bearing True Witness to our own Constitutions, before we give foreign States, "heck" for not being as Faithful?

Are you sober? Reread that and try again.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously, whenever they don't have to.

Hey pot, kettle, checking in.

I wanted to start, "harassing the red States" for being so, Repugnant to their own Constitutions.

So you primary thing is to call people you disagree with right wing and you are here to harass people. Nice to know.

So, are you going to tell me about your experience in the militia or you going to throw the towel in and admit you were wrong? A non response is a forfeiture and you will have admitted that you don't know squat about the militia. Then we can move on.

We have laws. The people are the militia, well regulated or unorganized. That is the experience I have, with the militia.

In other words, you've never been IN a militia. I know two former U.S. Navy SEALs and have watched SEAL Team on tv. I won't pretend to understand what they think or exactly how the laws regulate them.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cecilie1200, post: 19589172

And where, exactly, do you find that AR-15s are not protected under the 2nd Amendment?

If I tell you will you accept it? If it comes from Supreme Court Justice Scalia will you accept it? SA rights protections are limited. Do you agree with that?


Cecilie1200, post: 19589172

Except that they're no more similar to "weapons of war" than any other gun is.

That is false. Rapid fire and high velacity are necessary in combat when an enemy is trying to kill you.

Deer don't usually shoot back, in fact probably never.

 

[Auld Phart]

Cecilie1200, post: 19589172

And where, exactly, do you find that AR-15s are not protected under the 2nd Amendment?

If I tell you will you accept it? If it comes from Supreme Court Justice Scalia will you accept it? SA rights protections are limited. Do you agree with that?


Cecilie1200, post: 19589172

Except that they're no more similar to "weapons of war" than any other gun is.

That is false. Rapid fire and high velacity are necessary in combat when an enemy is trying to kill you.

Deer don't usually shoot back, in fact probably never.

Rapid fire and high velacity are necessary in combat when an enemy is trying to kill you.

like most Berretas, Glocks, and other handguns?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Second says you're full of it

The Supreme Court says not all firearms are protected by the Second Anendnent.

AR15s are not protected.

They can be and should be banned as similar to weapons of war.

Except that they're no more similar to "weapons of war" than any other gun is. And where, exactly, do you find that AR-15s are not protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Maryland banned the AR15

"The 4th Circuit held that Maryland’s ban on military-style assault rifles is constitutional regardless of the standard of scrutiny because the Second Amendment does not give civilians a right to own such weapons."

Second Amendment does not apply to assault weapons: en banc 4th...


"The majority focused instead on Justice Scalia’s concession that governments may prohibit “weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like.” The semi-automatic weapons banned under Maryland’s law were adapted from M-16s and other automatic rifles developed for military use, according to the 4th Circuit. That fact, the court said, put them within the category of weapons the Heller opinion excepted from Second Amendment protection."

 

[NotfooledbyW]

A musket from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today.CreditTop, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecilie1200, post: 19589172

And where, exactly, do you find that AR-15s are not protected under the 2nd Amendment?

If I tell you will you accept it? If it comes from Supreme Court Justice Scalia will you accept it? SA rights protections are limited. Do you agree with that?


Cecilie1200, post: 19589172

Except that they're no more similar to "weapons of war" than any other gun is.

That is false. Rapid fire and high velacity are necessary in combat when an enemy is trying to kill you.

Deer don't usually shoot back, in fact probably never.

They're not especially rapid-fire OR high velocity compared to any number of other guns. What the ability of game animals to shoot back has to do with anything is beyond me. Thanks for playing, and demonstrating that you know nothing of the subject you're pronouncing upon.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Second says you're full of it

The Supreme Court says not all firearms are protected by the Second Anendnent.

AR15s are not protected.

They can be and should be banned as similar to weapons of war.

Except that they're no more similar to "weapons of war" than any other gun is. And where, exactly, do you find that AR-15s are not protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Maryland banned the AR15

"The 4th Circuit held that Maryland’s ban on military-style assault rifles is constitutional regardless of the standard of scrutiny because the Second Amendment does not give civilians a right to own such weapons."

Second Amendment does not apply to assault weapons: en banc 4th...


"The majority focused instead on Justice Scalia’s concession that governments may prohibit “weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like.” The semi-automatic weapons banned under Maryland’s law were adapted from M-16s and other automatic rifles developed for military use, according to the 4th Circuit. That fact, the court said, put them within the category of weapons the Heller opinion excepted from Second Amendment protection."

I don't give a rat's ass what Maryland had to say on the subject. Nor do I think "adapted from" means a damned thing, except that they AREN'T military weapons. This is borne out by the fact that they aren't actually used by the military. Duhhh.

And for the record, I don't have a huge amount of interest in the Supreme Court, which also gave us such gems as Dredd Scott, "separate but equal", and "emanations from the penumbra".

 

[Auld Phart]

A musket from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today.CreditTop, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .

What's your point?

the First gives freedom of the press.

Priniting press when the Constitution was written

Revolutionary newspaper.

Current newspaper

things change.

LIve with it