Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[turtledude]

yes; thus, not all of the militia of the United States is well regulated; dear. Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed.

more of the brain dead bot

no dear; hearsay and soothsay is not admissible as evidence; there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.

Again, it is not hearsay. It is history. Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.

yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

You are the one who is ignorant. Shall I post the link to the federalist papers again?

dear; you missed the point. you are welcome to cite the federalist papers regarding the militia.

I've already done that. Try to follow along. The "militia" is made up of all free men/citizens of the United States, to be ready with their arms at a moment's notice.

DON'T FEED THE BOT

 

[ChrisL]

yes; thus, not all of the militia of the United States is well regulated; dear. Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed.

more of the brain dead bot

Again, it is not hearsay. It is history. Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.

yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

You are the one who is ignorant. Shall I post the link to the federalist papers again?

dear; you missed the point. you are welcome to cite the federalist papers regarding the militia.

I've already done that. Try to follow along. The "militia" is made up of all free men/citizens of the United States, to be ready with their arms at a moment's notice.

DON'T FEED THE BOT

He's not smart enough to be a bot.

 

[danielpalos]

Still nothing but fallacy, drs. clueless and Causeless?

Rights in private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions. Our Second Amendment clearly deals with our civic obligation as the militia of the United States, well regulated or not.

 

[turtledude]

He's not smart enough to be a bot.

He's a gaping asshole seeking attention with his brain dead attempt to pretend he knows something about constitutional law

 

[ChrisL]

Still nothing but fallacy, drs. clueless and Causeless?

Rights in private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions. Our Second Amendment clearly deals with our civic obligation as the militia of the United States, well regulated or not.

Provide some documentation. And again, you are wrong according to the Justices of the Supreme Court, daniel!

 

[turtledude]

Still nothing but fallacy, drs. clueless and Causeless?

Rights in private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions. Our Second Amendment clearly deals with our civic obligation as the militia of the United States, well regulated or not.

Provide some documentation. And again, you are wrong according to the Justices of the Supreme Court, daniel!

bot-a-tard just makes crap up

 

[danielpalos]

Still nothing but fallacy, drs. clueless and Causeless?

Rights in private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions. Our Second Amendment clearly deals with our civic obligation as the militia of the United States, well regulated or not.

Provide some documentation. And again, you are wrong according to the Justices of the Supreme Court, daniel!

dear, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; it just hasn't come up due to equality between work and pay issues.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

He's a gaping asshole seeking attention with his brain dead attempt to pretend he knows something about constitutional law

Reminds me a bit of a certain Gay Marxist that infests another site of which we are both familiar.

 

[oldsoul]

Good to see that people have FINALLY realized that arguing with an obvious Marxist, that has been Cali-foricated, is an excercise in futility. Issues based discussions with liberals is, at best, like trying to explain quantum physics to a toddler... Even if you could, what's the point? Neither will ever use the info for anything useful.

 

[danielpalos]

only shills say that; and, don't let me catch y'all whining in the affirmative action threads.

 

[oldsoul]

Name-calling is a hallmark of someone who has nothing of value to base their arguement on. As to Affirmative Action...I can't see how it is benificial to make decisions, of any kind, based, in any way, on a persons Federally protected "minority" status. I prefer to make desisions based on the merits of the various options, regardless of who's ego I may, or may not, bruise. If you, or your idea, is not the best option, you should not be selected. Period. Unless, of course you are in favor of collapsing our entire society, in which case, bugger-off, and leave MY country alone.

 

[danielpalos]

projecting much? y'all don't have any valid arguments.

 

[turtledude]

He's a gaping asshole seeking attention with his brain dead attempt to pretend he knows something about constitutional law

Reminds me a bit of a certain Gay Marxist that infests another site of which we are both familiar.

which one, that narrows it down to about 10

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

dear, all of those authors support my contention that there are no Individual rights with the terms, militia and the People.

I don't think you know how to read or comprehend what you are reading. Clearly, the intention is that every able-bodied American would be a part of the "militia" and that men have the right to bear arms for self defense. Shall I bold it for you? Maybe that would lessen your confusion and make it more simple for you to understand what it is you are reading?


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

For some reason, it's very hard for certain people to understand that the Founding Fathers, who took on the British with an army made up of everyday citizens, would see the people themselves as a very necessary last line of defense that must be preserved.

 

[danielpalos]

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

dear, all of those authors support my contention that there are no Individual rights with the terms, militia and the People.

I don't think you know how to read or comprehend what you are reading. Clearly, the intention is that every able-bodied American would be a part of the "militia" and that men have the right to bear arms for self defense. Shall I bold it for you? Maybe that would lessen your confusion and make it more simple for you to understand what it is you are reading?


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

For some reason, it's very hard for certain people to understand that the Founding Fathers, who took on the British with an army made up of everyday citizens, would see the people themselves as a very necessary last line of defense that must be preserved.

dear, it was well regulated militias, not merely gun lovers.

 

[ChrisL]

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

dear, all of those authors support my contention that there are no Individual rights with the terms, militia and the People.

I don't think you know how to read or comprehend what you are reading. Clearly, the intention is that every able-bodied American would be a part of the "militia" and that men have the right to bear arms for self defense. Shall I bold it for you? Maybe that would lessen your confusion and make it more simple for you to understand what it is you are reading?


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

For some reason, it's very hard for certain people to understand that the Founding Fathers, who took on the British with an army made up of everyday citizens, would see the people themselves as a very necessary last line of defense that must be preserved.

Oops. I meant to give you a thank you but I pressed the funny button by accident. Fixed it!

 

[ChrisL]

projecting much? y'all don't have any valid arguments.

No daniel, we have all provided many links to reputable sources to back our side of the argument. All you have done is repeat the same nonsense that you always do. You must have been schooled on this a million times, but still you refuse to learn. Sad for you is all it is that you can't learn anything new.

 

[turtledude]

projecting much? y'all don't have any valid arguments.

No daniel, we have all provided many links to reputable sources to back our side of the argument. All you have done is repeat the same nonsense that you always do. You must have been schooled on this a million times, but still you refuse to learn. Sad for you is all it is that you can't learn anything new.

DanielBottrollus is some MIT or Cal Tech's artificial intelligence project

earned the student about a C-

 

[Bob Blaylock]

He's a gaping asshole seeking attention with his brain dead attempt to pretend he knows something about constitutional law

Reminds me a bit of a certain Gay Marxist that infests another site of which we are both familiar.

which one, that narrows it down to about 10

Try saying “Gay Marxist” out loud a few times. Some part of me wants to think that in some contexts, in Spanish, the “G” has more of an “H” sound. Try saying it that way. I don't think it'll take long for you to figure out which Gay Marxist I have in mind.

 

[danielpalos]

projecting much? y'all don't have any valid arguments.

No daniel, we have all provided many links to reputable sources to back our side of the argument. All you have done is repeat the same nonsense that you always do. You must have been schooled on this a million times, but still you refuse to learn. Sad for you is all it is that you can't learn anything new.

dear, hearsay and soothsay is just that; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.