CDZ 2nd amendmant and arms

[danielpalos]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, THE PEOPLE.

not the select group that qualified for duty in the militia.

THE PEOPLE

How can you lose?

By continuing on your current track.

Keep parsing.

I enjoy laughing at you.

Projecting much.

How do you account for the Intent and Purpose of the first clause?

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

Are all Persons of the People, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, THE PEOPLE.

not the select group that qualified for duty in the militia.

THE PEOPLE

How can you lose?

By continuing on your current track.

Keep parsing.

I enjoy laughing at you.

Projecting much.

How do you account for the Intent and Purpose of the first clause?

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

Are all Persons of the People, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State?

The Court already cleared it up as did our forefathers. The Militia is simply one of any number of reasons that one can own and possess firearms. The Court made it clear the right is given TO THE PEOPLE and no membership in a militia is required.

 

[danielpalos]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, THE PEOPLE.

not the select group that qualified for duty in the militia.

THE PEOPLE

How can you lose?

By continuing on your current track.

Keep parsing.

I enjoy laughing at you.

Projecting much.

How do you account for the Intent and Purpose of the first clause?

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

Are all Persons of the People, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State?

The Court already cleared it up as did our forefathers. The Militia is simply one of any number of reasons that one can own and possess firearms. The Court made it clear the right is given TO THE PEOPLE and no membership in a militia is required.

Too bad our federal Constitution secures no rights in property, only Due Process. Rights in property are secured in State Constitutions with the terms for Individuals of Acquire and Possess. That is how wise our Founding Fathers were; no ambiguity, at all.

 

[Auld Phart]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, THE PEOPLE.

not the select group that qualified for duty in the militia.

THE PEOPLE

How can you lose?

By continuing on your current track.

Keep parsing.

I enjoy laughing at you.

Projecting much.

How do you account for the Intent and Purpose of the first clause?

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

Are all Persons of the People, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State?

Did they give the right to the militia, or the people?

And note, I have already posted what group made up the militia

 

[Auld Phart]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, THE PEOPLE.

not the select group that qualified for duty in the militia.

THE PEOPLE

How can you lose?

By continuing on your current track.

Keep parsing.

I enjoy laughing at you.

Projecting much.

How do you account for the Intent and Purpose of the first clause?

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

Are all Persons of the People, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State?

The Court already cleared it up as did our forefathers. The Militia is simply one of any number of reasons that one can own and possess firearms. The Court made it clear the right is given TO THE PEOPLE and no membership in a militia is required.

Too bad our federal Constitution secures no rights in property, only Due Process. Rights in property are secured in State Constitutions with the terms for Individuals of Acquire and Possess. That is how wise our Founding Fathers were; no ambiguity, at all.

Keep parsing.

I'll keep laughing.

 

[danielpalos]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, THE PEOPLE.

not the select group that qualified for duty in the militia.

THE PEOPLE

How can you lose?

By continuing on your current track.

Keep parsing.

I enjoy laughing at you.

Projecting much.

How do you account for the Intent and Purpose of the first clause?

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

Are all Persons of the People, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State?

Did they give the right to the militia, or the people?

And note, I have already posted what group made up the militia

A well regulated militia of the People.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[danielpalos]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, THE PEOPLE.

not the select group that qualified for duty in the militia.

THE PEOPLE

How can you lose?

By continuing on your current track.

Keep parsing.

I enjoy laughing at you.

Projecting much.

How do you account for the Intent and Purpose of the first clause?

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

Are all Persons of the People, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State?

The Court already cleared it up as did our forefathers. The Militia is simply one of any number of reasons that one can own and possess firearms. The Court made it clear the right is given TO THE PEOPLE and no membership in a militia is required.

Too bad our federal Constitution secures no rights in property, only Due Process. Rights in property are secured in State Constitutions with the terms for Individuals of Acquire and Possess. That is how wise our Founding Fathers were; no ambiguity, at all.

Keep parsing.

I'll keep laughing.

Dude, you have no Thing but fallacy to work with.

 

[Auld Phart]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, THE PEOPLE.

not the select group that qualified for duty in the militia.

THE PEOPLE

How can you lose?

By continuing on your current track.

Keep parsing.

I enjoy laughing at you.

Projecting much.

How do you account for the Intent and Purpose of the first clause?

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

Are all Persons of the People, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State?

Did they give the right to the militia, or the people?

And note, I have already posted what group made up the militia

A well regulated militia of the People.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

and females, and males under the age of 16, and over the age of 45, (59 in some areas).

History of the U.S. Militia

 

[Auld Phart]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, THE PEOPLE.

not the select group that qualified for duty in the militia.

THE PEOPLE

How can you lose?

By continuing on your current track.

Keep parsing.

I enjoy laughing at you.

Projecting much.

How do you account for the Intent and Purpose of the first clause?

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

Are all Persons of the People, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State?

The Court already cleared it up as did our forefathers. The Militia is simply one of any number of reasons that one can own and possess firearms. The Court made it clear the right is given TO THE PEOPLE and no membership in a militia is required.

Too bad our federal Constitution secures no rights in property, only Due Process. Rights in property are secured in State Constitutions with the terms for Individuals of Acquire and Possess. That is how wise our Founding Fathers were; no ambiguity, at all.

Keep parsing.

I'll keep laughing.

Dude, you have no Thing but fallacy to work with.

I have the facts.
You have nothing but parsing.

Just like your last post.

A comment by one man, as opposed to the facts about militias requirements.

You're welcome to quit, before you're completely lost in the rear view mirror.

 

[danielpalos]

Projecting much.

How do you account for the Intent and Purpose of the first clause?

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

Are all Persons of the People, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State?

The Court already cleared it up as did our forefathers. The Militia is simply one of any number of reasons that one can own and possess firearms. The Court made it clear the right is given TO THE PEOPLE and no membership in a militia is required.

Too bad our federal Constitution secures no rights in property, only Due Process. Rights in property are secured in State Constitutions with the terms for Individuals of Acquire and Possess. That is how wise our Founding Fathers were; no ambiguity, at all.

Keep parsing.

I'll keep laughing.

Dude, you have no Thing but fallacy to work with.

I have the facts.
You have nothing but parsing.

Just like your last post.

A comment by one man, as opposed to the facts about militias requirements.

You're welcome to quit, before you're completely lost in the rear view mirror.

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

Are all Persons of the People, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State?

Which facts do you have? I am quoting our supreme law of the land, as a legal fact.

 

[danielpalos]

The only Persons parsing (out of context), are those of the opposing view.

 

[Auld Phart]

The Court already cleared it up as did our forefathers. The Militia is simply one of any number of reasons that one can own and possess firearms. The Court made it clear the right is given TO THE PEOPLE and no membership in a militia is required.

Too bad our federal Constitution secures no rights in property, only Due Process. Rights in property are secured in State Constitutions with the terms for Individuals of Acquire and Possess. That is how wise our Founding Fathers were; no ambiguity, at all.

Keep parsing.

I'll keep laughing.

Dude, you have no Thing but fallacy to work with.

I have the facts.
You have nothing but parsing.

Just like your last post.

A comment by one man, as opposed to the facts about militias requirements.

You're welcome to quit, before you're completely lost in the rear view mirror.

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

Are all Persons of the People, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State?

Which facts do you have? I am quoting our supreme law of the land, as a legal fact.

What fact do I have?

The actual 2nd amendment.

the one that says the rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Not just adult males.

(Over the age of 16, til the age of 45)

The way it was written by the Founding Fathers,

Not parsed by whoever you think overrules them.

 

[danielpalos]

Too bad our federal Constitution secures no rights in property, only Due Process. Rights in property are secured in State Constitutions with the terms for Individuals of Acquire and Possess. That is how wise our Founding Fathers were; no ambiguity, at all.

Keep parsing.

I'll keep laughing.

Dude, you have no Thing but fallacy to work with.

I have the facts.
You have nothing but parsing.

Just like your last post.

A comment by one man, as opposed to the facts about militias requirements.

You're welcome to quit, before you're completely lost in the rear view mirror.

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

Are all Persons of the People, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State?

Which facts do you have? I am quoting our supreme law of the land, as a legal fact.

What fact do I have?

The actual 2nd amendment.

the one that says the rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Not just adult males.

(Over the age of 16, til the age of 45)

The way it was written by the Founding Fathers,

Not parsed by whoever you think overrules them.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, including the first clause.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means. --The Federalist Number Forty

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.

Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union.

Any Thing more than fallacy (as that form of appeal to ignorance of the law) for your Cause?

 

[Auld Phart]

The only Persons parsing (out of context), are those of the opposing view.

You're finally admitting to parsing?

Good, you've made a first step.


Now, keep reading the 2nd, and note the right was given to the people, not the militia.

and if you get confused, look up who was, and was not, part of the militia.

Not someones comment about it.

actual facts.

Work on it all night if you have too.

The 2nd hasn't changed in a very long time, despite the efforts of people like you trying to change it's meaning.

 

[Auld Phart]

Keep parsing.

I'll keep laughing.

Dude, you have no Thing but fallacy to work with.

I have the facts.
You have nothing but parsing.

Just like your last post.

A comment by one man, as opposed to the facts about militias requirements.

You're welcome to quit, before you're completely lost in the rear view mirror.

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

Are all Persons of the People, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State?

Which facts do you have? I am quoting our supreme law of the land, as a legal fact.

What fact do I have?

The actual 2nd amendment.

the one that says the rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Not just adult males.

(Over the age of 16, til the age of 45)

The way it was written by the Founding Fathers,

Not parsed by whoever you think overrules them.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, including the first clause.

Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union.

So, only males between the ages of 16 and 45 were allowed to keep and bear arms?

You get more and more laughable.

 

[Auld Phart]

Dude, you have no Thing but fallacy to work with.

I have the facts.
You have nothing but parsing.

Just like your last post.

A comment by one man, as opposed to the facts about militias requirements.

You're welcome to quit, before you're completely lost in the rear view mirror.

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

Are all Persons of the People, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State?

Which facts do you have? I am quoting our supreme law of the land, as a legal fact.

What fact do I have?

The actual 2nd amendment.

the one that says the rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Not just adult males.

(Over the age of 16, til the age of 45)

The way it was written by the Founding Fathers,

Not parsed by whoever you think overrules them.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, including the first clause.

Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union.

So, only males between the ages of 16 and 45 were allowed to keep and bear arms?

You get more and more laughable.

bud, as much as I enjoy laughing at you, it's 1am here, and I need my beauty sleep.

(Just kidding, sleeping like Rip Van Winkle wouldn't make me beautiful).

Thanks for the laughs.

G'nite

 

[danielpalos]

I have the facts.
You have nothing but parsing.

Just like your last post.

A comment by one man, as opposed to the facts about militias requirements.

You're welcome to quit, before you're completely lost in the rear view mirror.

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

Are all Persons of the People, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State?

Which facts do you have? I am quoting our supreme law of the land, as a legal fact.

What fact do I have?

The actual 2nd amendment.

the one that says the rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Not just adult males.

(Over the age of 16, til the age of 45)

The way it was written by the Founding Fathers,

Not parsed by whoever you think overrules them.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, including the first clause.

Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union.

So, only males between the ages of 16 and 45 were allowed to keep and bear arms?

You get more and more laughable.

bud, as much as I enjoy laughing at you, it's 1am here, and I need my beauty sleep.

(Just kidding, sleeping like Rip Van Winkle wouldn't make me beautiful).

Thanks for the laughs.

G'nite

did you know that non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies (and appeals to ignorance of the law through error in reasoning)?

Good night; sleep tight.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, sawed-off shotguns are illegal, knives are controlled, there are reasonable and sensible limits to all privileges and 'rights'. There is no 2nd amendment infringement in requiring a trigger lock on weapons. Then all those with the excessive urge to 'open carry' could do so without menacing everyone around them the way someway toting a Samarai sword would be viewed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The prohibition of open carrying any weapon is Constitutional, refusing to license for concealed carry is not.

 

[Auld Phart]

Really?

Where in the Constitution is that, btw?

It's not in the 2nd.

The 2nd gives the right to keep and bear arms.

Doesn't say they have to be carried out of sight.