Some liberals STILL think govt can have some say in who can own a gun

[bripat9643]

This whole long ridiculous rant and not once was the term "well regulated" referenced in any way. Why is that?

Because the amendment states the militia needs to be well regulated, not the people.

No it doesn't.

reread it

I've read it 1000 times. It doesn't say what you claim.

Because the amendment states the militia needs to be well regulated, not the people.

It doesn't say: 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.?

Apparently you failed English. The dependent clause is purely explanatory. It has no legal implications.

 

[bripat9643]

This whole long ridiculous rant and not once was the term "well regulated" referenced in any way. Why is that?

Because the amendment states the militia needs to be well regulated, not the people.

No it doesn't.

reread it

I've read it 1000 times. It doesn't say what you claim.

You could read it a 1000 more times and still not understand it

I understood it the first time. However, unlike you, I don't have an agenda that requires me to lie about it.

 

[daws101]

Because the amendment states the militia needs to be well regulated, not the people.

No it doesn't.

reread it

I've read it 1000 times. It doesn't say what you claim.

Because the amendment states the militia needs to be well regulated, not the people.

It doesn't say: 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.?

Apparently you failed English. The dependent clause is purely explanatory. It has no legal implications.

False!

 

[daws101]

Because the amendment states the militia needs to be well regulated, not the people.

No it doesn't.

reread it

I've read it 1000 times. It doesn't say what you claim.

You could read it a 1000 more times and still not understand it

I understood it the first time. However, unlike you, I don't have an agenda that requires me to lie about it.

No you didn't and still don't so that's 2 lies you've told in this post.
Everything you do has an agenda.
Fail!

 

[P@triot]

Because the amendment states the militia needs to be well regulated, not the people.

No it doesn't.

reread it

I've read it 1000 times. It doesn't say what you claim.

Because the amendment states the militia needs to be well regulated, not the people.

It doesn't say: 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.?

Apparently you failed English. The dependent clause is purely explanatory. It has no legal implications.

It is cut and dry......"the right of the people"

It does not say "the right of the militia". It does not say "the right of the soldiers". It does not say "the right of the Minutemen". It written in plain English and even your average toddler understand what it says. Anyone who claims otherwise is being a completely disingenuous asshat with an agenda. End of story.

 

[Auld Phart]

Because the amendment states the militia needs to be well regulated, not the people.

No it doesn't.

reread it

I've read it 1000 times. It doesn't say what you claim.

Because the amendment states the militia needs to be well regulated, not the people.

It doesn't say: 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.?

Apparently you failed English. The dependent clause is purely explanatory. It has no legal implications.

Hilarious.

If anyone failed English, it's you.

You either dont' have a clue what I'm saying, or you don't' have a clue what you're saying.

 

[bripat9643]

No it doesn't.

reread it

I've read it 1000 times. It doesn't say what you claim.

You could read it a 1000 more times and still not understand it

I understood it the first time. However, unlike you, I don't have an agenda that requires me to lie about it.

No you didn't and still don't so that's 2 lies you've told in this post.
Everything you do has an agenda.
Fail!

I never claimed I don't have an agenda. However, mine doesn't require me to lie. Yours does.

 

[daws101]

No it doesn't.

reread it

I've read it 1000 times. It doesn't say what you claim.

Because the amendment states the militia needs to be well regulated, not the people.

It doesn't say: 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.?

Apparently you failed English. The dependent clause is purely explanatory. It has no legal implications.

It is cut and dry......"the right of the people"

It does not say "the right of the militia". It does not say "the right of the soldiers". It does not say "the right of the Minutemen". It written in plain English and even your average toddler understand what it says. Anyone who claims otherwise is being a completely disingenuous asshat with an agenda. End of story.

False !

 

[daws101]

reread it

I've read it 1000 times. It doesn't say what you claim.

You could read it a 1000 more times and still not understand it

I understood it the first time. However, unlike you, I don't have an agenda that requires me to lie about it.

No you didn't and still don't so that's 2 lies you've told in this post.
Everything you do has an agenda.
Fail!

I never claimed I don't have an agenda. However, mine doesn't require me to lie. Yours does.

Also bullshit.
If you're breathing you're lying .

 

[bripat9643]

reread it

I've read it 1000 times. It doesn't say what you claim.

Because the amendment states the militia needs to be well regulated, not the people.

It doesn't say: 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.?

Apparently you failed English. The dependent clause is purely explanatory. It has no legal implications.

It is cut and dry......"the right of the people"

It does not say "the right of the militia". It does not say "the right of the soldiers". It does not say "the right of the Minutemen". It written in plain English and even your average toddler understand what it says. Anyone who claims otherwise is being a completely disingenuous asshat with an agenda. End of story.

False !

It's true. This point has been debated ad nauseum. The militia clause has absolutely no legal significance.

 

[daws101]

I've read it 1000 times. It doesn't say what you claim.

Because the amendment states the militia needs to be well regulated, not the people.

It doesn't say: 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.?

Apparently you failed English. The dependent clause is purely explanatory. It has no legal implications.

It is cut and dry......"the right of the people"

It does not say "the right of the militia". It does not say "the right of the soldiers". It does not say "the right of the Minutemen". It written in plain English and even your average toddler understand what it says. Anyone who claims otherwise is being a completely disingenuous asshat with an agenda. End of story.

False !

It's true. This point has been debated ad nauseum. The militia clause has absolutely no legal significance.

False!

 

[daws101]

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment


A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

 

[Chuz Life]

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment


A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

That article is essentially right. Our RIGHT as individuals to keep and bear arms does not come from the 2nd amendment nor from any other part of the Constitution. That's because the right for individuals to keep and bear arms for personal protection is something that predates the Constitution by several hundreds of years.

The 2nd amendment secures our right as an armed citizenry to form and organize militias to secure the freedoms in our States. (Ref. The declaration of independence for perspective)

As for any regulations to the individual right to keep and bear arms. . . I think this part of the Declaration of independence is most illustrative of what the framers intended.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Translation: The government only has the power and the authority to impose its will upon our rights - if we (the governed) CONSENT to it.

Like the Declaration says after the above: "—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it; and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Bottom line,.... just because we "the people" might to consent to some regulations of our rights (including gun rights) that should in no way be taken as a sign by the government or by anyone else that the right itself is diminished in any way.

 

[Contumacious]

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment


A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

A Constitutional Lesson for left wing fascists

The right to bear arms for a lawful purpose is EXTRA constitutional - not dependent on the Constitution but protected by the document;

There is no SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED authority for fedgov to regulate firearms , therefore it is FULLY PROTECTED by the NINTH AMENDMENT.

The Founding Fathers EMPHASIZED the RIGHT using the BOR Second Amendment.


.

 

[daws101]

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment


A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

A Constitutional Lesson for left wing fascists

The right to bear arms for a lawful purpose is EXTRA constitutional - not dependent on the Constitution but protected by the document;

There is no SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED authority for fedgov to regulate firearms , therefore it is FULLY PROTECTED by the NINTH AMENDMENT.

The Founding Fathers EMPHASIZED the RIGHT using the BOR Second Amendment.


.

 

[bripat9643]

I've read it 1000 times. It doesn't say what you claim.

You could read it a 1000 more times and still not understand it

I understood it the first time. However, unlike you, I don't have an agenda that requires me to lie about it.

No you didn't and still don't so that's 2 lies you've told in this post.
Everything you do has an agenda.
Fail!

I never claimed I don't have an agenda. However, mine doesn't require me to lie. Yours does.

Also bullshit.
If you're breathing you're lying .

You have a sad view of humanity.

 

[daws101]

You could read it a 1000 more times and still not understand it

I understood it the first time. However, unlike you, I don't have an agenda that requires me to lie about it.

No you didn't and still don't so that's 2 lies you've told in this post.
Everything you do has an agenda.
Fail!

I never claimed I don't have an agenda. However, mine doesn't require me to lie. Yours does.

Also bullshit.
If you're breathing you're lying .

You have a sad view of humanity.

hardly, I'm a realist, and you are just barely human.
you have no idea how farcical your comment is.

 

[bripat9643]

I understood it the first time. However, unlike you, I don't have an agenda that requires me to lie about it.

No you didn't and still don't so that's 2 lies you've told in this post.
Everything you do has an agenda.
Fail!

I never claimed I don't have an agenda. However, mine doesn't require me to lie. Yours does.

Also bullshit.
If you're breathing you're lying .

You have a sad view of humanity.

hardly, I'm a realist, and you are just barely human.
you have no idea how farcical your comment is.

You're an idiot and a douche bag.

 

[Intolerant]

These right wingers want racists and rapists and bank robbers to have guns. Then complain about blacks in gangs having guns. How does that happen? Is the toopid thick?

Want hell they all ready have them dumb ass.

 

[daws101]

No you didn't and still don't so that's 2 lies you've told in this post.
Everything you do has an agenda.
Fail!

I never claimed I don't have an agenda. However, mine doesn't require me to lie. Yours does.

Also bullshit.
If you're breathing you're lying .

You have a sad view of humanity.

hardly, I'm a realist, and you are just barely human.
you have no idea how farcical your comment is.

You're an idiot and a douche bag.

again you prove my point for me.