Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Still spitting random fancy words in an attempt to impress people, loser?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary. You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Still spitting random fancy words in an attempt to impress people, loser?

Still not resorting to fallacy, unlike yourself.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary. You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.

No dear. I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.

Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best. Sincerely, dp

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary. You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.

No dear. I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.

Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best. Sincerely, dp

"I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong. Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. I just know I'm awesome."

The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you. Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.

Case closed. Argument over. Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over. FLUSH!

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary. You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.

No dear. I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.

Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best. Sincerely, dp

"I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong. Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. I just know I'm awesome."

The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you. Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.

Case closed. Argument over. Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over. FLUSH!

dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"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.

Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary. You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.

No dear. I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.

Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best. Sincerely, dp

"I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong. Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. I just know I'm awesome."

The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you. Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.

Case closed. Argument over. Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over. FLUSH!

dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.

rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.

State Constitutions allow more rights than the US Constitution?

 

[oldsoul]

I am not sure if this has been said yet, as I do not have the time right now to read the entire thread, and am new to the forum.

It is my understanding that what the authors of this ammendment where attempting to preserve was the ability, or right, of the govered to effectively resist ANY attempt by the government to forcibly impose laws, regulations, ect. on the people, that the people, as a whole, did not agree with nor accept.

In effect it is one of many ways in which they where attempting to prevent the very tyranny they fought so hard, and risked so much, to be free from. So, to re-word it to allow gun ownership to those effectively "controlled" by ANY level of government would be akin to removing it entirely. Nice try though.

 

[ChrisL]

"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.

Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary. You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.

No dear. I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.

Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best. Sincerely, dp

"I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong. Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. I just know I'm awesome."

The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you. Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.

Case closed. Argument over. Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over. FLUSH!

dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.

So? What is the point? What does that have to do with the Second?

 

[ChrisL]

You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what. Something very difficult.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary. You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.

No dear. I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.

Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best. Sincerely, dp

"I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong. Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. I just know I'm awesome."

The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you. Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.

Case closed. Argument over. Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over. FLUSH!

dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.

rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.

State Constitutions allow more rights than the US Constitution?

dear, State Constitutions recognize the concept of natural rights under our form of Government.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary. You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.

No dear. I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.

Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best. Sincerely, dp

"I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong. Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. I just know I'm awesome."

The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you. Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.

Case closed. Argument over. Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over. FLUSH!

dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.

So? What is the point? What does that have to do with the Second?

our Second Amendment secures no Individual rights in private property with the collective terms, militia and the people.

 

[danielpalos]

You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what. Something very difficult.

no, it isn't; you just need to ask.

 

[ChrisL]

Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary. You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.

No dear. I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.

Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best. Sincerely, dp

"I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong. Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. I just know I'm awesome."

The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you. Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.

Case closed. Argument over. Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over. FLUSH!

dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.

So? What is the point? What does that have to do with the Second?

our Second Amendment secures no Individual rights in private property with the collective terms, militia and the people.

So? What does that have to do with the second amendment specifically? the second amendment is NOT about "property" rights.

 

[ChrisL]

You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what. Something very difficult.

no, it isn't; you just need to ask.

I have and I do, and you don't make any sense. You just string words together, ending up with little to no real meaning. You have no clue and no cause.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary. You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.

No dear. I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.

Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best. Sincerely, dp

"I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong. Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. I just know I'm awesome."

The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you. Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.

Case closed. Argument over. Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over. FLUSH!

dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.

rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.

State Constitutions allow more rights than the US Constitution?

dear, State Constitutions recognize the concept of natural rights under our form of Government.

dear, the US Constitution recognizes the concept of natural rights under our form of Government.

 

[danielpalos]

No dear. I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.

Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best. Sincerely, dp

"I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong. Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. I just know I'm awesome."

The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you. Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.

Case closed. Argument over. Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over. FLUSH!

dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.

So? What is the point? What does that have to do with the Second?

our Second Amendment secures no Individual rights in private property with the collective terms, militia and the people.

So? What does that have to do with the second amendment specifically? the second amendment is NOT about "property" rights.

no, dear; it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.

 

[danielpalos]

You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what. Something very difficult.

no, it isn't; you just need to ask.

I have and I do, and you don't make any sense. You just string words together, ending up with little to no real meaning. You have no clue and no cause.

i do; it is merely those of your point of view who don't get it, dear.

 

[ChrisL]

"I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong. Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. I just know I'm awesome."

The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you. Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.

Case closed. Argument over. Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over. FLUSH!

dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.

So? What is the point? What does that have to do with the Second?

our Second Amendment secures no Individual rights in private property with the collective terms, militia and the people.

So? What does that have to do with the second amendment specifically? the second amendment is NOT about "property" rights.

no, dear; it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.

A "free" state? What do you mean by that. What is necessary to the security of a free state?

 

[ChrisL]

You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what. Something very difficult.

no, it isn't; you just need to ask.

I have and I do, and you don't make any sense. You just string words together, ending up with little to no real meaning. You have no clue and no cause.

i do; it is merely those of your point of view who don't get it, dear.

No, I'm sorry, but you don't make any sense. Plenty of people have tried to tell you this, but you never clarify.