Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[Muhammed]

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

Utnil the next time one of you loons shoots up a school or a church and people finally get fed up with your shit.

It's you Democrat loons who are against security. If you don't wan't guns then don't buy them, DAN.

 

[danielpalos]

which ignorance is that, dears: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

Yup, every one of us.

why do you believe you are a well regulated militia of the People instead of a non-well regulated militia of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?

I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.

Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.

Which right is that? acquiring and possessing Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.

The individual right to keep and bear arms.

simple possession is already secured in State Constitutions, dears.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup, every one of us.

why do you believe you are a well regulated militia of the People instead of a non-well regulated militia of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?

I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.

Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.

Which right is that? acquiring and possessing Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.

The individual right to keep and bear arms.

simple possession is already secured in State Constitutions, dears.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Possession is a right, the constitutions aren't necessary. But thanks anyway.

 

[danielpalos]

why do you believe you are a well regulated militia of the People instead of a non-well regulated militia of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?

I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.

Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.

Which right is that? acquiring and possessing Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.

The individual right to keep and bear arms.

simple possession is already secured in State Constitutions, dears.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Possession is a right, the constitutions aren't necessary. But thanks anyway.

that is so special, dear.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.

Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.

Which right is that? acquiring and possessing Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.

The individual right to keep and bear arms.

simple possession is already secured in State Constitutions, dears.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Possession is a right, the constitutions aren't necessary. But thanks anyway.

that is so special, dear.

Are you half a fag, or what?

 

[danielpalos]

Which right is that? acquiring and possessing Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.

The individual right to keep and bear arms.

simple possession is already secured in State Constitutions, dears.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Possession is a right, the constitutions aren't necessary. But thanks anyway.

that is so special, dear.

Are you half a fag, or what?

are you full of fallacy or what?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

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.​

This is what I was talking about.

The liberal reading: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
The conservative reading: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The actual text: 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.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.

That is not what it says at all, and SCOTUS recently corrected that erroneous and short-lived mid-20th Century Leftist notion.

Give it up Democrats. You have been rendered impotent on this issue.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

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.​

This is what I was talking about.

The liberal reading: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
The conservative reading: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The actual text: 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.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.

It says, a well regulated militia of the People is necessary to the security of a free State, and that is why the People (who are a well regulated militia) may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It really is that simple; except to the clueless and Causeless, right.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.

That is not what it says at all, and SCOTUS recently corrected that erroneous and short-lived mid-20th Century Leftist notion.

Give it up Democrats. You have been rendered impotent on this issue.

yes, it is what it says; and, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How exactly am I trying to grab your guns by amending the amendment to clearly and incontrovertibly state your right to own them?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
You do understand that this is not an opinion, it is settled law -- right?

Nothing in your proposal prevents those who want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding from doing so.
Thus, I receive nothing in exchange for something; you offer not compromise, but capitulation..

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.

That is not what it says at all, and SCOTUS recently corrected that erroneous and short-lived mid-20th Century Leftist notion.

Give it up Democrats. You have been rendered impotent on this issue.

yes, it is what it says; and, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.

Fine. Produce writings from the Founding Fathers indicating it is so. We'll wait.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.

That is not what it says at all, and SCOTUS recently corrected that erroneous and short-lived mid-20th Century Leftist notion.

Give it up Democrats. You have been rendered impotent on this issue.

yes, it is what it says; and, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.

Fine. Produce writings from the Founding Fathers indicating it is so. We'll wait.

Our Second Amendment was produced by our Founding Fathers; there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.

That is not what it says at all, and SCOTUS recently corrected that erroneous and short-lived mid-20th Century Leftist notion.

Give it up Democrats. You have been rendered impotent on this issue.

yes, it is what it says; and, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.

Fine. Produce writings from the Founding Fathers indicating it is so. We'll wait.

Our Second Amendment was produced by our Founding Fathers; there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.

That does not produce the requested documentation, so off you go.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.

That is not what it says at all, and SCOTUS recently corrected that erroneous and short-lived mid-20th Century Leftist notion.

Give it up Democrats. You have been rendered impotent on this issue.

yes, it is what it says; and, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.

Fine. Produce writings from the Founding Fathers indicating it is so. We'll wait.

Our Second Amendment was produced by our Founding Fathers; there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.

That does not produce the requested documentation, so off you go.

Dude; the Intent and Purpose is in the first clause in our Second Article of Amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that Intent and Purpose as a privilege and immunity for Persons in our fine and glorious Republic.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Your repetition of ignorance merely multiplies it.

 

[danielpalos]

Your repetition of ignorance merely multiplies it.

Which ignorance is that.

Here it is again, in "color by numbers" simplicity, for your ease and convenience, simply to work on my attitude and character and be a Good socialist instead of a lousy socialist or even worse capitalist.

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

The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause in our Second Article of Amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that Intent and Purpose as a privilege and immunity for Persons in our fine and glorious Republic.

There are no Individual rights in private property secured by our Second Article of Amendment; no amount of legislation from the bench can change the actual meaning of the string of words that comprises It since Only our federal Congress may write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our fine and glorious Republic, outside of an amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Which ignorance is that in the public domain, Todd?

 

[danielpalos]

I would like to take this time and opportunity to thank those of the opposing view for having no clue, no Cause, and no Standing as a result.

 

[koshergrl]

Nope. No. Never.