Why doesn't the DOJ Civil Rights Division defend the 2nd?

[ThunderKiss1965]

Long Amendment. somehow, they can't seem to get past the comma.

I have to point out that very fact to the idiots constantly.

 

[koshergrl]

Long Amendment. somehow, they can't seem to get past the comma.

Because they are organically brain damaged communist slaves.

 

[Auld Phart]

Because they are organically brain damaged communist slaves.

ADHD

 

[koshergrl]

ADHD

Useful idiots.

 

[Smokin' OP]

You do realize that there is more to the 2nd Amendment than the mentioning of militia and the Founding Fathers where very clear that the people have the right to bear arms ?

Do you realize the 2nd amendment had a pretext?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
So............Why did the Founding Fathers include THAT on their very first sentence?

 

[koshergrl]

That isn't the entire sentence. Omg you really don't understand sentence structure and basic English.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So............Why did the Founding Fathers include THAT on their very first sentence?

"...the right of the people..."
Not the right of the militia
Not the right of the people in the militia.
The right of the people.
As no one has the right ti join the militia, the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms must exist outside the context of any sort of association with said militia.

Thus, the answer to your question:
Whatever the reason, it has nothing to with the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the people and the protections afforded same by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Smokin' OP]

"...the right of the people..."
Not the right of the militia
Not the right of the people in the militia.
The right of the people.
As no one has the right ti join the militia, the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms must exist outside the context of any sort of service with said militia.

You're FOS, as usual.

Thus, the answer to your question:
Whatever the reason, it has nothing to with the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the people and the protections afforded same by the 2nd Amendment.

YES, it does, moron.
WHY did the founders include it?
In the very first sentence?
Never answered that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're FOS, as usual.

All I see here is your usual inability to present a meaningful response.
As you cannot present such a response, this will not change.
And you're about to prove it.
Ready?
Go!

 

[Smokin' OP]

All I see here is your usual inability to present a meaningful response.

I just did.

As you cannot present such a response, this will not change.

Yes, I can and did.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".......

Why did they put that sentence first or..........include it at all?

And you're about to prove it.
Ready?
Go!

See above.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I just did.

And thus, you prove me correct.

Why did they put that sentence first or..........include it at all?

The answer:
Whatever the reason, it has nothing to with the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the people and the protections afforded same by the 2nd Amendment.

The proof for the answer:
"...the right of the people..."
Not the right of the militia
Not the right of the people in the militia.
The right of the people.
As no one has the right ti join the militia, the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms must exist outside the context of any sort of association with said militia.

To this, as always, you have no meaningful response -
As you have no capacity to present such a response, this will not change.
And you're about to prove it.
Ready?
Go!

 

[Smokin' OP]

And thus, you prove me correct.

The answer:
Whatever the reason, it has nothing to with the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the people and the protections afforded same by the 2nd Amendment.

YES, it does.

The proof for the answer:
"...the right of the people..."
Not the right of the militia
Not the right of the people in the militia.

WRONG.

The right of the people.
As no one has the right ti join the militia, the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms must exist outside the context of any sort of association with said militia.

NO, it doesn't.

To this, as always, you have no meaningful response -
As you have no capacity to present such a response, this will not change.
And you're about to prove it.

You have already proven..............You're wrong again.

Ready?
Go!

"Whatever the reason"?

LOL.

 

[M14 Shooter]

YES, it does.

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.
I, on the other hand, have demonstrated this to be false.

WRONG.

A lie.

NO, it doesn't.

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

You have already proven..............You're wrong again.

A lie.

"Whatever the reason"?
LOL.

Your inability to accept the truth is not my problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

 

[Smokin' OP]

View attachment 886436

You're inability to understand english grammar isn't my problem.

THIS may help............But I doubt it.


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

Prepositions: Definition and Examples​

Grammar Monster
https://www.grammar-monster.com › lessons › preposi...
Prepositions are words that show relationships between other nearby words. Lots of prepositions tell us where or when something is in relation to something ...

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're inability to understand english grammar isn't my problem.

Nothing here changes the fact that whatever the reason for those words, it has nothing to with the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the people and the protections afforded same by the 2nd Amendment.

You have no capacity to demonstrate otherwise.
And you will prove it in your response.
Ready?
Go!

 

[Smokin' OP]

Nothing here changes the fact that whatever the reason for those words, it has nothing to with the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the people and the protections afforded same by the 2nd Amendment.

Really?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Then why can't people own a fully functioning, right out of the factory, machine gun, an RPG or a howitzer?

You have no capacity to demonstrate otherwise.

The Trump U. "grammar" correspondence course doesn't have the capacity, to teach people.
You're living proof.

And you will prove it in your response.
Ready?
Go!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Really?

Yes.
And, as I said: You have no capacity to demonstrate otherwise.
Your response, just as I predicted, proves me correct.
Keep up the good work.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Yes.
And, as I said: You have no capacity to demonstrate otherwise.

That would be you, moron.

Your response, just as I predicted, proves me correct.
Keep up the good work.

You're delusional......

 

[M14 Shooter]

That would be you, moron.

You're lying.

You're delusional......

The only delusion here is yours, of adequacy.

Nothing here changes the fact that whatever the reason for those words, it has nothing to with the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the people, and the protections afforded same by the 2nd Amendment.

You have no capacity to demonstrate otherwise.
And you will continue to prove it in your response.
Ready?
Go!