Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[P@triot]

Another perfect example of how the Constitution saves lives and liberal policy would cause deaths. This hatchet-wielding maniac would be fully compliant with law under liberals gun control utopia. But thankfully, the Constitution granted this person the right to protect himself and those around him.

Customer Steps Up to Stop a Hatchet-Wielding Masked Man From Wreaking Havoc at a 7-Eleven

Another perfect example of a statistics of small numbers fallacy from the right.

Ah! I see....so your logic is that so long as (and I quote) "a small number" of people die, then they should die? The minority should have no right to protect themselves? CCJ "logic" at its finest folks!

 

[P@triot]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

 

[P@triot]

The numbers aren't so "small" CCJ. What is small is your mind! The way you intentionally avoid the facts and the truth in favor of your absurd ideology.

Gun-Wielding Man Tries Robbing Store in Broad Daylight, Gets Shot by Employee. Reactions From Fed-Up Residents Are Far From Sympathetic.

 

[PK1]

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

---
"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."
.

 

[Camp]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

Are you sure? I thought the 2nd Amendment was a single sentence that began with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...". What 2nd Amendment are you using?

 

[P@triot]

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

---
"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."
.

Exactly....the right belongs to the people as you just pointed out in your FULL quote. You can't go back several sentence before the right and declare that is where the right belongs. The previous section was simply the why. And the why (while important for sure in context), is largely irrelevant what it comes to the what. And the what is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Sorry, but you lose. Big. Nice try though.

 

[FJO]

Everyone has a right to bare arms! Ban long sleeve shirts!

 

[P@triot]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

Are you sure? I thought the 2nd Amendment was a single sentence that began with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...". What 2nd Amendment are you using?

I am sure. It clearly states "the right of the people". The right belongs to the people. There is simply no denying it.

 

[Camp]

Everyone has a right to bare arms! Ban long sleeve shirts!

If it were spelled the way you are spelling it then the CC definitely be unconstitutional since the word bare includes displaying in its definition. The word in the constitution is "bear" and that word does not distinguish between open carry or concealed carry. It is left to the State Militia regulators with the court's approval to determine.

 

[P@triot]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

Are you sure? I thought the 2nd Amendment was a single sentence that began with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...". What 2nd Amendment are you using?

By the way - just out of curiosity - why do you want people to be helpless victims? And why do you want to convince people that only the militia should be able to defend themselves?

By the way - a few days ago I created the National Rottweiler Militia (NRM). It's free to join, no dues at all, you are a member for life if you choose to be, and there are no requirements to attend meetings. Boom. Everyone in the U.S. now has a right to keep and bear arms. Everyone. And....I'm ensuring that it is "well regulated" so don't even attempt that nonsense. No where does it state that the state or the federal governments are in charge of the regulation.

Either way you lose, whether you accept the Constitution as you know it to be or whether you want to play some silly game and attempt to pervert what it says.

 

[PK1]

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

---
"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."
.

.... The previous section was simply the why. And the why (while important for sure in context), is largely irrelevant what it comes to the what. And the what is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

---
Before the "why" & "what" is the intent -- the "why" & "what" during their era.
.

 

[P@triot]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

Are you sure? I thought the 2nd Amendment was a single sentence that began with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...". What 2nd Amendment are you using?

I am sure. It clearly states "the right of the people". The right belongs to the people. There is simply no denying it.

Obviously you’re not serious about the thread topic, obviously you’re not a serious poster, and obviously you care nothing about the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Your ignorant, ridiculous extremism is both harmful and counterproductive.

Obviously you get really upset when I post facts which you cannot dispute. Watching you throw tantrums is amusing.

 

[P@triot]

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

---
"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."
.

.... The previous section was simply the why. And the why (while important for sure in context), is largely irrelevant what it comes to the what. And the what is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

---
Before the "why" & "what" is the intent of the writers during their era.
.

Uh....no genius. Their intent was "the right of the people". Which is why they said "the right of the people".

 

[FJO]

Everyone has a right to bare arms! Ban long sleeve shirts!

If it were spelled the way you are spelling it then the CC definitely be unconstitutional since the word bare includes displaying in its definition. The word in the constitution is "bear" and that word does not distinguish between open carry or concealed carry. It is left to the State Militia regulators with the court's approval to determine.

I guess my - admittedly feeble - humor flew right by your overly serious head.
Smile!

 

[Camp]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

Are you sure? I thought the 2nd Amendment was a single sentence that began with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...". What 2nd Amendment are you using?

I am sure. It clearly states "the right of the people". The right belongs to the people. There is simply no denying it.

The right of the people is clearly defined as for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated Militia. That is why the Amendment starts out with the purpose of the Amendment. You do not understand the meaning of Militia and how the SCOTUS has judged and confirmed its meaning since the inception of the United States.

 

[P@triot]

Before the "why" & "what" is the intent of the writers during their era.

By your "logic" (and man am I using that term lightly here) then, Congress is not permitted to create laws. At all. The Bill of Rights opens with:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

So if we apply your "logic" we read the first few words, intentionally ignore the rest of the clause, and declare that Congress is not empowered to make a single law. So tell me junior, who is going to make our laws now? And where in the Constitution is that other governing body empowered to do so?

Stupid.

 

[Camp]

Everyone has a right to bare arms! Ban long sleeve shirts!

If it were spelled the way you are spelling it then the CC definitely be unconstitutional since the word bare includes displaying in its definition. The word in the constitution is "bear" and that word does not distinguish between open carry or concealed carry. It is left to the State Militia regulators with the court's approval to determine.

I guess my - admittedly feeble - humor flew right by your overly serious head.
Smile!

Sorry, my bad. That is funny.

 

[P@triot]

The right of the people is clearly defined as for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated Militia. That is why the Amendment starts out with the purpose of the Amendment. You do not understand the meaning of Militia and how the SCOTUS has judged and confirmed its meaning since the inception of the United States.

Ah! You just admitted it! They "why" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter why the founders felt it was necessary that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. It only matters that they did feel it was necessary.

 

[P@triot]

The right of the people is clearly defined as for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated Militia. That is why the Amendment starts out with the purpose of the Amendment. You do not understand the meaning of Militia and how the SCOTUS has judged and confirmed its meaning since the inception of the United States.

By your "logic" (and man am I using that term lightly here) then, Congress is not permitted to create laws. At all. The Bill of Rights opens with:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

So if we apply your "logic" we read the first few words, intentionally ignore the rest of the clause, and declare that Congress is not empowered to make a single law. So tell me junior, who is going to make our laws now? And where in the Constitution is that other governing body empowered to do so?

Stupid.

 

[alpine]

The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country. The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks. Why can't we have access to those things? What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?

So I can have one of these?