Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

Poor poor gun grabbers get butch slapped again.

A federal judge dismissed a case that the Brady Center had against ammo dealers, and the ordered the idiot gun grabbers to pay the legal fees.

Ah sweet Justice!
At least you're consistent at being ignorant and ridiculous.

There are no 'gun grabbers,' no one is seeking to 'take' anyone's guns.

'Gun confiscation' is a delusional myth contrived by you and other paranoid rightists. Any effort by any government to 'confiscate' guns would violate the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause in particular, rendering 'confiscation' prohibitively burdensome and impossible to implement.

Therefore, you and others on the right will continue to look foolish and uninformed, where as a consequence of your sophomoric stupidity you pose a much greater threat to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any mythical 'gun grabber.'
 
Sarah Brady, Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton have all been quoted saying that they would like to take all the guns out of the hands of the public. There are politicians who would if they could just get around that pesky 2nd amendment.
 
Poor poor gun grabbers get butch slapped again.

A federal judge dismissed a case that the Brady Center had against ammo dealers, and the ordered the idiot gun grabbers to pay the legal fees.

Ah sweet Justice!
At least you're consistent at being ignorant and ridiculous.

There are no 'gun grabbers,' no one is seeking to 'take' anyone's guns.

'Gun confiscation' is a delusional myth contrived by you and other paranoid rightists. Any effort by any government to 'confiscate' guns would violate the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause in particular, rendering 'confiscation' prohibitively burdensome and impossible to implement.

Therefore, you and others on the right will continue to look foolish and uninformed, where as a consequence of your sophomoric stupidity you pose a much greater threat to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any mythical 'gun grabber.'

That is total garbage and you know it. The end result of liberal policy is gun confiscation. Just because they aren't coming for my guns TODAY, doesn't mean that that isn't the end game.

You are a gun grabber and if you had an ounce of sense, you'd know that.
 
Sarah Brady, Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton have all been quoted saying that they would like to take all the guns out of the hands of the public. There are politicians who would if they could just get around that pesky 2nd amendment.

It is the left wing's true agenda.
 
Our federal Constitution specifically applies to the Militia of the United States.

It applies to "the militia", not necessarily "the militia of the United States" as you have put it. There is one militia, Presser made this clear, which is in different parts (ie States) and controlled by the States unless in federal service.
Yes, our federal Constitution must apply to the Militia of the United States; State Constitutions are supreme for State Militias.

No. Absolutely not. Your claim that the US Constitution must conform to the US Code is backwards. The US Constitution is the law of the land, not the US Code. And the highest court in our land has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
 
Our federal Constitution specifically applies to the Militia of the United States.

It applies to "the militia", not necessarily "the militia of the United States" as you have put it. There is one militia, Presser made this clear, which is in different parts (ie States) and controlled by the States unless in federal service.
Yes, our federal Constitution must apply to the Militia of the United States; State Constitutions are supreme for State Militias.

No. Absolutely not. Your claim that the US Constitution must conform to the US Code is backwards. The US Constitution is the law of the land, not the US Code. And the highest court in our land has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

This is what gets me, there are two sides of the debate, using the debate as a hammer to whack each other with, and both sides ignore the reality.

Here were have one person shouting that "it" is an individuals right (what is it?) and another saying that it mentions the militia therefore it must be the right of the militia.

Has anyone ever wondered WHY the Founding Fathers put the 2A into the US constitution?
 
Yes, our federal Constitution must apply to the Militia of the United States; State Constitutions are supreme for State Militias.

"the Militia of the United States" and "State Militias" are the SAME THING. Go read Article 1 Section 8.

The right in the 2A is individual, the rights are there to protect the Militia from the US Federal Government.
 
Our federal Constitution specifically applies to the Militia of the United States.

It applies to "the militia", not necessarily "the militia of the United States" as you have put it. There is one militia, Presser made this clear, which is in different parts (ie States) and controlled by the States unless in federal service.
Yes, our federal Constitution must apply to the Militia of the United States; State Constitutions are supreme for State Militias.

No. Absolutely not. Your claim that the US Constitution must conform to the US Code is backwards. The US Constitution is the law of the land, not the US Code. And the highest court in our land has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

This is what gets me, there are two sides of the debate, using the debate as a hammer to whack each other with, and both sides ignore the reality.

Here were have one person shouting that "it" is an individuals right (what is it?) and another saying that it mentions the militia therefore it must be the right of the militia.

Has anyone ever wondered WHY the Founding Fathers put the 2A into the US constitution?

Yes. Read the Federalist Papers.
 
Our federal Constitution specifically applies to the Militia of the United States.

It applies to "the militia", not necessarily "the militia of the United States" as you have put it. There is one militia, Presser made this clear, which is in different parts (ie States) and controlled by the States unless in federal service.
Yes, our federal Constitution must apply to the Militia of the United States; State Constitutions are supreme for State Militias.

No. Absolutely not. Your claim that the US Constitution must conform to the US Code is backwards. The US Constitution is the law of the land, not the US Code. And the highest court in our land has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
No one is claiming that; words have meaning. Our Second Amendment mentions the Militia. The Militia of the United States is defined at 10USC311. It really is that simple, except to the right.
 
Our federal Constitution specifically applies to the Militia of the United States.

It applies to "the militia", not necessarily "the militia of the United States" as you have put it. There is one militia, Presser made this clear, which is in different parts (ie States) and controlled by the States unless in federal service.
Yes, our federal Constitution must apply to the Militia of the United States; State Constitutions are supreme for State Militias.

No. Absolutely not. Your claim that the US Constitution must conform to the US Code is backwards. The US Constitution is the law of the land, not the US Code. And the highest court in our land has consistently ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

This is what gets me, there are two sides of the debate, using the debate as a hammer to whack each other with, and both sides ignore the reality.

Here were have one person shouting that "it" is an individuals right (what is it?) and another saying that it mentions the militia therefore it must be the right of the militia.

Has anyone ever wondered WHY the Founding Fathers put the 2A into the US constitution?
Yes, to ensure the security of free States as is the Intent and Purpose as explained in the first clause.
 
I honestly think it is a bot. It can't comprehend a question but it picks up on certain words and spits out the same rhetorical remarks.
I honestly think those of your point of view are just ignorant shills who don't have a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    33 KB · Views: 79
Yes. Read the Federalist Papers.

I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.

I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.
 
Yes. Read the Federalist Papers.

I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.

I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.
Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.

And, I already read the Federalist Papers.
 
Yes. Read the Federalist Papers.

I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.

I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.
Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.

And, I already read the Federalist Papers.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?
 
Yes. Read the Federalist Papers.

I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because I want others to figure it out.

I'm not sure most people do understand it, and that includes many of those who think they understand it.
Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of legislated Intent and Purpose of Any law.

And, I already read the Federalist Papers.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Can you tell me why the 2A was written into the Constitution?
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.

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.
 
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.

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.


Is that it? Is that your argument?

It "must" be about the "States sovereign rights".

Give me a break.

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.

Ah. must be about the well being to the free people. See, I proved it.
 
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.

It must be about States sovereign rights within our federal Union.


Is that it? Is that your argument?

It "must" be about the "States sovereign rights".

Give me a break.

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.

Ah. must be about the well being to the free people. See, I proved it.
no; there is no break for appeals to ignorance of the law.This is the string of words used by our Founding Fathers: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
 
no; there is no break for appeals to ignorance of the law.This is the string of words used by our Founding Fathers: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

I get the feeling if you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't keep relying on NOTHING and writing two sentences of two lines to "make your point" (note, I don't think you're even making a point, hence the quotation marks.)

Get on with it. Say what you want to say. You just quote something and then make a fuzzy sentence about nothing and expect what?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top