Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[danielpalos]

Not me. I didn't ask you for I'd either.

 

[ChrisL]

dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.

only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed

That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.

Still nothing but diversion? The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.

No one in my state asked for my militia ID either.

dears, you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms.

you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms

Who ever said you did? I mean besides you?

Honestly, I don't think even he knows what he's talking about most of the time.

 

[M14 Shooter]

only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed

That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.

Still nothing but diversion? The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.

No one in my state asked for my militia ID either.

dears, you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms.

you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms
Who ever said you did? I mean besides you?

Honestly, I don't think even he knows what he's talking about most of the time.

And what he does say, he does not do so honestly.

 

[ChrisL]

Still nothing but diversion? The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.

No one in my state asked for my militia ID either.

dears, you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms.

you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms
Who ever said you did? I mean besides you?

Honestly, I don't think even he knows what he's talking about most of the time.

And what he does say, he does not do so honestly.

Seriously, I have absolutely NO idea what this dude is talking about MOST of the time.

 

[danielpalos]

Just the clueless and the Causeless having a conference?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one in my state asked for my militia ID either.

dears, you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms.

you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms
Who ever said you did? I mean besides you?

Honestly, I don't think even he knows what he's talking about most of the time.

And what he does say, he does not do so honestly.

Seriously, I have absolutely NO idea what this dude is talking about MOST of the time.

Neither does he.
In any case, there's no need to keep him off ignore.

 

[Dan Daly]

I thought you were still referring to the tangent. We have a natural right to shoot guns?

The right to keep and bear arms for the the defense of one's self, family and community is a basic human right that predates governments and constitutions.

Now riddle me this, where does government get its perceived right to be better armed than its citizens or to regulate their basic human rights?

 

[danielpalos]

I thought you were still referring to the tangent. We have a natural right to shoot guns?

The right to keep and bear arms for the the defense of one's self, family and community is a basic human right that predates governments and constitutions.

Now riddle me this, where does government get its perceived right to be better armed than its citizens or to regulate their basic human rights?

The socialism of a social Contract.

 

[Dan Daly]

I thought you were still referring to the tangent. We have a natural right to shoot guns?

The right to keep and bear arms for the the defense of one's self, family and community is a basic human right that predates governments and constitutions.

Now riddle me this, where does government get its perceived right to be better armed than its citizens or to regulate their basic human rights?

The socialism of a social Contract.

Nice try, but no cigar. But I do appreciate you admitting that Socialism is part of your repertoire.

Here is the bottom line, boy...no government can infringe upon your basic human rights unless they either use force or you let them. Also, in this country the "contract" with government is clearly stated in the Constitution...which clearly does not grant them any rights to be better armed than the citizens they derive their consent to govern from.

If you want to give away your rights, fine, that is your problem, but when you start trying to take away the rights of others, using government as your proxy, we have a problem...and you won't like the solution.

 

[danielpalos]

I thought you were still referring to the tangent. We have a natural right to shoot guns?

The right to keep and bear arms for the the defense of one's self, family and community is a basic human right that predates governments and constitutions.

Now riddle me this, where does government get its perceived right to be better armed than its citizens or to regulate their basic human rights?

The socialism of a social Contract.

Nice try, but no cigar. But I do appreciate you admitting that Socialism is part of your repertoire.

Here is the bottom line, boy...no government can infringe upon your basic human rights unless they either use force or you let them. Also, in this country the "contract" with government is clearly stated in the Constitution...which clearly does not grant them any rights to be better armed than the citizens they derive their consent to govern from.

If you want to give away your rights, fine, that is your problem, but when you start trying to take away the rights of others, using government as your proxy, we have a problem...and you won't like the solution.

Nothing but diversion? This is socialism: Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

 

[Wyld Kard]

The current 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 generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

Nay. The 2nd Amendment shouldn't have to be modified for any reason.

It's fine as is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Dude, that's your opinion, and utterly unsubstantisated by 1) the writings of the Founding Fathers, 2) the decisions of the courts since the Founding, 3) practice and application of the law since the Founding, and 4) common English grammar.

You're the only one "appealing to ignorance" here, and frankly, your ignorance is not the least bit appealing.

nope; not my opinion, but legal fact.

Really? You should definitely drop a note to the Supreme Court to let them know, because they seem to think you're full of shit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

True. Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.

Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises. No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear: the right of the people shall not be infringed. The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people": the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.

dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.

only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed

That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.

Still nothing but diversion? The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.

Also in the US Constitution, to secure our rights from fools like you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'll be willing to discuss laws to limit gun ownership when Congress disarms all the security guards at the Capitol and the White House and puts up signs declaring them "gun-free zones", and relies on that to protect them.

Of course, during that discussion, my answer will still be "NO!"

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Dude, that's your opinion, and utterly unsubstantisated by 1) the writings of the Founding Fathers, 2) the decisions of the courts since the Founding, 3) practice and application of the law since the Founding, and 4) common English grammar.

You're the only one "appealing to ignorance" here, and frankly, your ignorance is not the least bit appealing.

nope; not my opinion, but legal fact.

Really? You should definitely drop a note to the Supreme Court to let them know, because they seem to think you're full of shit.

Projecting much, dear? It is those of the opposing view that have nothing but fallacy, and prove it in the public domain.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

True. Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.

Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises. No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear: the right of the people shall not be infringed. The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people": the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.

dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.

only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed

That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.

Still nothing but diversion? The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.

Also in the US Constitution, to secure our rights from fools like you.

With what? You have nothing but fallacy. There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment. Militia and People are collective, not Individual, should we need to quibble in legal venues.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Dude, that's your opinion, and utterly unsubstantisated by 1) the writings of the Founding Fathers, 2) the decisions of the courts since the Founding, 3) practice and application of the law since the Founding, and 4) common English grammar.

You're the only one "appealing to ignorance" here, and frankly, your ignorance is not the least bit appealing.

nope; not my opinion, but legal fact.

Really? You should definitely drop a note to the Supreme Court to let them know, because they seem to think you're full of shit.

Projecting much, dear? It is those of the opposing view that have nothing but fallacy, and prove it in the public domain.

Projecting? Has anyone ever bothered to tell you that there's nothing clever about parroting what other people say with no regard to relevance?

 

[Cecilie1200]

True. Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.

Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises. No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear: the right of the people shall not be infringed. The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people": the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.

dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.

only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed

That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.

Still nothing but diversion? The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.

Also in the US Constitution, to secure our rights from fools like you.

With what? You have nothing but fallacy. There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment. Militia and People are collective, not Individual, should we need to quibble in legal venues.

"People" is never used in the Constitution to mean any sort of collective group. It always refers to the individual citizens of the United States. Yes, there are a lot of us, but don't let that confuse you any more than you can help.

No need to quibble anywhere. The Supreme Court issued a ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right. We have no need to compromise with you in the slightest bit on anything, nor will we. End of story.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Dude, that's your opinion, and utterly unsubstantisated by 1) the writings of the Founding Fathers, 2) the decisions of the courts since the Founding, 3) practice and application of the law since the Founding, and 4) common English grammar.

You're the only one "appealing to ignorance" here, and frankly, your ignorance is not the least bit appealing.

nope; not my opinion, but legal fact.

Really? You should definitely drop a note to the Supreme Court to let them know, because they seem to think you're full of shit.

Projecting much, dear? It is those of the opposing view that have nothing but fallacy, and prove it in the public domain.

Projecting? Has anyone ever bothered to tell you that there's nothing clever about parroting what other people say with no regard to relevance?

Still projecting with nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy, dear?

 

[danielpalos]

dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.

only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed

That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.

Still nothing but diversion? The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.

Also in the US Constitution, to secure our rights from fools like you.

With what? You have nothing but fallacy. There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment. Militia and People are collective, not Individual, should we need to quibble in legal venues.

"People" is never used in the Constitution to mean any sort of collective group. It always refers to the individual citizens of the United States. Yes, there are a lot of us, but don't let that confuse you any more than you can help.

No need to quibble anywhere. The Supreme Court issued a ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right. We have no need to compromise with you in the slightest bit on anything, nor will we. End of story.

Sorry dear, it is about collective rights secured by our Tenth and Ninth Amendments, should this specific issue need to be quibbled in specifically legal venues.