The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by P@triot, Jan 7, 2018.

  1. P@triot
    Offline

    P@triot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    48,468
    Thanks Received:
    5,336
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    United States
    Ratings:
    +26,415
    And the second clause “is about” the right of the people to keep and bear arms. So crystal clear, only a Dumbocrat could be confused by it. :laugh:
     
  2. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    46,549
    Thanks Received:
    1,002
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +6,885
    Well regulated militia are People too; who, may not be Infringed when it is about the security of a free State or the Union?
     
  3. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    46,549
    Thanks Received:
    1,002
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +6,885
    no, they are not. there are no natural rights expressly stated or implied in the second clause of our Second Amendment.
     
  4. Lesh
    Online

    Lesh Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    6,797
    Thanks Received:
    643
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +5,054
    It explains why the second clause is there
     
  5. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    38,025
    Thanks Received:
    5,403
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,618
    Explaining why they recognized THE PEOPLE'S right in no way limits or restricts that right. Sorry. Thanks for playing
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Lesh
    Online

    Lesh Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    6,797
    Thanks Received:
    643
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +5,054
    Of course it's "the people". Would it be "the orangutans"?

    Of course it doesn't limit anything.

    It simply ONLY protects those rights in the context of the militia
     
  7. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    46,549
    Thanks Received:
    1,002
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +6,885
    it explains which Persons of the People may not be Infringed, when it really really matters.
     
  8. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    38,025
    Thanks Received:
    5,403
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,618
    Oh, exactly . . . if you're illiterate and have no clue how sentence structure works.

    Buy a grammar book, dumbass. I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm very much over going 'round and 'round with someone who flunked high school English and wants to just blankly declare over and over, "No, REALLY, all the rules of grammar are wrong! It means THIS! I don't care what every effing expert since forever has said, I think it means this, so it DOES! It DOES mean this! No, it DOES mean this!" You're ignorant, and you're always going to be ignorant, because education might force you to realize the world doesn't give a shit about what you want, and isn't going to change itself for you.
     
  9. hadit
    Offline

    hadit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    19,202
    Thanks Received:
    2,236
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +11,096
    They are a subset of the people, the people whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress.
     
  10. hadit
    Offline

    hadit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    19,202
    Thanks Received:
    2,236
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +11,096
    No, it explains one reason why the people's right shall not be infringed, not which peoples.
     

Share This Page