Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[danielpalos]

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?

one that bears true witness to its own laws instead of having to bear truer witness to laws imposed by the general government, for being infidel, protestant, and renegade to our supreme law of the land.

 

[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.

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

yes dear, only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

one that bears true witness to its own laws instead of having to bear truer witness to laws imposed by the general government, for being infidel, protestant, and renegade to our supreme law of the land.

What laws are you referring to? The second amendment is NOT a law. It is a right. It is right that is RECOGNIZED, not granted by the government.

 

[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.

yes dear, only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.

That must mean that you don't understand what you're saying.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

one that bears true witness to its own laws instead of having to bear truer witness to laws imposed by the general government, for being infidel, protestant, and renegade to our supreme law of the land.

What laws are you referring to? The second amendment is NOT a law. It is a right. It is right that is RECOGNIZED, not granted by the government.

our second article of amendment, dear. that is what thread is about.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

yes dear, only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.

That must mean that you don't understand what you're saying.

sorry dear; i get it.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

one that bears true witness to its own laws instead of having to bear truer witness to laws imposed by the general government, for being infidel, protestant, and renegade to our supreme law of the land.

What laws are you referring to? The second amendment is NOT a law. It is a right. It is right that is RECOGNIZED, not granted by the government.

our second article of amendment, dear. that is what thread is about.

What about it?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

one that bears true witness to its own laws instead of having to bear truer witness to laws imposed by the general government, for being infidel, protestant, and renegade to our supreme law of the land.

What laws are you referring to? The second amendment is NOT a law. It is a right. It is right that is RECOGNIZED, not granted by the government.

our second article of amendment, dear. that is what thread is about.

What about it?

it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

No surprise. The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.

 

[danielpalos]

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

No surprise. The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.

No surprise here that those who are full of fallacy object to those who are not.

 

[ChrisL]

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

one that bears true witness to its own laws instead of having to bear truer witness to laws imposed by the general government, for being infidel, protestant, and renegade to our supreme law of the land.

What laws are you referring to? The second amendment is NOT a law. It is a right. It is right that is RECOGNIZED, not granted by the government.

our second article of amendment, dear. that is what thread is about.

What about it?

it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.

So? What's your point? It's a right and not a law. The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities. IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.

 

[ChrisL]

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

No surprise. The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.

I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!

 

[danielpalos]

one that bears true witness to its own laws instead of having to bear truer witness to laws imposed by the general government, for being infidel, protestant, and renegade to our supreme law of the land.

What laws are you referring to? The second amendment is NOT a law. It is a right. It is right that is RECOGNIZED, not granted by the government.

our second article of amendment, dear. that is what thread is about.

What about it?

it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.

So? What's your point? It's a right and not a law. The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities. IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.

no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.

 

[ChrisL]

What laws are you referring to? The second amendment is NOT a law. It is a right. It is right that is RECOGNIZED, not granted by the government.

our second article of amendment, dear. that is what thread is about.

What about it?

it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.

So? What's your point? It's a right and not a law. The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities. IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.

no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.

The Supreme Court disagrees, as do ALL the founding fathers documents and thoughts (included in the federalist papers) that were written down regarding the second amendment, in which they clearly agree that the right to individuals to own guns is a natural right, not to be infringed upon by the government.

 

[ChrisL]

What laws are you referring to? The second amendment is NOT a law. It is a right. It is right that is RECOGNIZED, not granted by the government.

our second article of amendment, dear. that is what thread is about.

What about it?

it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.

So? What's your point? It's a right and not a law. The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities. IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.

no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.

Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe. Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?

 

[danielpalos]

our second article of amendment, dear. that is what thread is about.

What about it?

it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.

So? What's your point? It's a right and not a law. The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities. IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.

no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.

The Supreme Court disagrees, as do ALL the founding fathers documents and thoughts (included in the federalist papers) that were written down regarding the second amendment, in which they clearly agree that the right to individuals to own guns is a natural right, not to be infringed upon by the government.

There are no Individual rights with the collective terms, militia and the People. It is a simple error in reasoning.

 

[danielpalos]

our second article of amendment, dear. that is what thread is about.

What about it?

it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.

So? What's your point? It's a right and not a law. The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities. IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.

no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.

Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe. Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?

dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.

 

[ChrisL]

What about it?

it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.

So? What's your point? It's a right and not a law. The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities. IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.

no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.

The Supreme Court disagrees, as do ALL the founding fathers documents and thoughts (included in the federalist papers) that were written down regarding the second amendment, in which they clearly agree that the right to individuals to own guns is a natural right, not to be infringed upon by the government.

There are no Individual rights with the collective terms, militia and the People. It is a simple error in reasoning.

You are certainly wrong. You need to read the Federalist papers where the founders CLEARLY state that the right to bear arms is a natural right that extends to ALL citizens.

 

[ChrisL]

What about it?

it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.

So? What's your point? It's a right and not a law. The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities. IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.

no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.

Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe. Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?

dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.

That's a lie. Where do they support your contention? Quote the section and link to it please.

 

[ChrisL]

What about it?

it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.

So? What's your point? It's a right and not a law. The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities. IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.

no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.

Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe. Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?

dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.

I can quote and link to sections that support my statements. Can you?

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“(W)hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” – Federal Farmer, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788