The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[there4eyeM]

That the 'right' to bear arms may be what is guaranteed, yet there is nothing in such a provision to exclude regulation of what arms are available.

Except the word "infringed", and the fact that "regulating" what arms can be owned is an infringement.

But, you know, aside from the English vocabulary and common logic, there's nothing there to stop you from controlling people's lives. Sure.

That's quite a leap. I'm not certain "infringement" necessarily means what you apparently think it does.
As long "arms" are available, one may have the 'right' to bear them. They still cost money, so not everyone might be able to have them. Infringement? Are taxes on firearms infringement? Is not importing some firearms infringement? What is the non-infringement part of the AR15 duplicate M16 not being available in stores near you?
Of course, perhaps your position is that, yes, all this and more is infringement. Such a radical view is your 'right', and it will eventually get you a whole lot of infringement some day.

 

[hadit]

The People are more than the militia.

yet, only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are declared Necessary.

No, the right of the people to bear arms is declared necessary.

no, it isn't. That which is Necessary to the security a free State, is declared to be, well regulated militia.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. The right of the People to bear arms, NOT that of the militia, shall not be infringed. That's the bottom line and which you refuse to acknowledge.

No, they didn't. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller applies to the unorganized militia. Well regulated militia are exempted when being Necessary to the security of a free State.

The right of the people, not the militia. You're just making up stuff.

 

[danielpalos]

yet, only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are declared Necessary.

No, the right of the people to bear arms is declared necessary.

no, it isn't. That which is Necessary to the security a free State, is declared to be, well regulated militia.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. The right of the People to bear arms, NOT that of the militia, shall not be infringed. That's the bottom line and which you refuse to acknowledge.

No, they didn't. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller applies to the unorganized militia. Well regulated militia are exempted when being Necessary to the security of a free State.

The right of the people, not the militia. You're just making up stuff.

The people are the militia. Well regulated militia militia are necessary, the unorganized militia are not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That the 'right' to bear arms may be what is guaranteed, yet there is nothing in such a provision to exclude regulation of what arms are available.

Except the word "infringed", and the fact that "regulating" what arms can be owned is an infringement.

But, you know, aside from the English vocabulary and common logic, there's nothing there to stop you from controlling people's lives. Sure.

That's quite a leap. I'm not certain "infringement" necessarily means what you apparently think it does.
As long "arms" are available, one may have the 'right' to bear them. They still cost money, so not everyone might be able to have them. Infringement? Are taxes on firearms infringement? Is not importing some firearms infringement? What is the non-infringement part of the AR15 duplicate M16 not being available in stores near you?
Of course, perhaps your position is that, yes, all this and more is infringement. Such a radical view is your 'right', and it will eventually get you a whole lot of infringement some day.

This is what I think infringement means, and feel free to correct me if you think you know better:

1: the act of infringing : violation
: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

Definition of INFRINGEMENT

Go ahead, enlighten me on how it doesn't mean what I think it means, Noah Webster. And your threats that "if you insist on defending your rights, we're gonna try even harder to take them!" doesn't scare me. For one thing, I'm better armed than you are.

 

[danielpalos]

That the 'right' to bear arms may be what is guaranteed, yet there is nothing in such a provision to exclude regulation of what arms are available.

Except the word "infringed", and the fact that "regulating" what arms can be owned is an infringement.

But, you know, aside from the English vocabulary and common logic, there's nothing there to stop you from controlling people's lives. Sure.

That's quite a leap. I'm not certain "infringement" necessarily means what you apparently think it does.
As long "arms" are available, one may have the 'right' to bear them. They still cost money, so not everyone might be able to have them. Infringement? Are taxes on firearms infringement? Is not importing some firearms infringement? What is the non-infringement part of the AR15 duplicate M16 not being available in stores near you?
Of course, perhaps your position is that, yes, all this and more is infringement. Such a radical view is your 'right', and it will eventually get you a whole lot of infringement some day.

This is what I think infringement means, and feel free to correct me if you think you know better:

1: the act of infringing : violation
: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

Definition of INFRINGEMENT

Go ahead, enlighten me on how it doesn't mean what I think it means, Noah Webster. And your threats that "if you insist on defending your rights, we're gonna try even harder to take them!" doesn't scare me. For one thing, I'm better armed than you are.

There is no Express provision for any form of Prohibition; regardless of any right wing fantasies.

 

[hadit]

No, the right of the people to bear arms is declared necessary.

no, it isn't. That which is Necessary to the security a free State, is declared to be, well regulated militia.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. The right of the People to bear arms, NOT that of the militia, shall not be infringed. That's the bottom line and which you refuse to acknowledge.

No, they didn't. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller applies to the unorganized militia. Well regulated militia are exempted when being Necessary to the security of a free State.

The right of the people, not the militia. You're just making up stuff.

The people are the militia. Well regulated militia militia are necessary, the unorganized militia are not.

The people are more than the militia. You should know that.

 

[there4eyeM]

That the 'right' to bear arms may be what is guaranteed, yet there is nothing in such a provision to exclude regulation of what arms are available.

Except the word "infringed", and the fact that "regulating" what arms can be owned is an infringement.

But, you know, aside from the English vocabulary and common logic, there's nothing there to stop you from controlling people's lives. Sure.

That's quite a leap. I'm not certain "infringement" necessarily means what you apparently think it does.
As long "arms" are available, one may have the 'right' to bear them. They still cost money, so not everyone might be able to have them. Infringement? Are taxes on firearms infringement? Is not importing some firearms infringement? What is the non-infringement part of the AR15 duplicate M16 not being available in stores near you?
Of course, perhaps your position is that, yes, all this and more is infringement. Such a radical view is your 'right', and it will eventually get you a whole lot of infringement some day.

This is what I think infringement means, and feel free to correct me if you think you know better:

1: the act of infringing : violation
: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

Definition of INFRINGEMENT

Go ahead, enlighten me on how it doesn't mean what I think it means, Noah Webster. And your threats that "if you insist on defending your rights, we're gonna try even harder to take them!" doesn't scare me. For one thing, I'm better armed than you are.

Now it's "threat" that you use in a way that indicates you don't know what it is. You did, however, give yourself the excuse to declare how your arms are your first recourse. This is what paranoia is.
The cited definition of infringement refutes absolutely none of the points of the post it follows. Your evidently grandiose, all-encompassing view of what the Second Amendment confers upon you can hardly be expected to be shared by the majority of your compatriots.
There was absolutely no threatening going on in my verbiage, merely the observation that firearms extremists are pushing the issue to a point where public reaction will go further than any of we reasonable Second Amendment adherents want.

 

[danielpalos]

no, it isn't. That which is Necessary to the security a free State, is declared to be, well regulated militia.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. The right of the People to bear arms, NOT that of the militia, shall not be infringed. That's the bottom line and which you refuse to acknowledge.

No, they didn't. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller applies to the unorganized militia. Well regulated militia are exempted when being Necessary to the security of a free State.

The right of the people, not the militia. You're just making up stuff.

The people are the militia. Well regulated militia militia are necessary, the unorganized militia are not.

The people are more than the militia. You should know that.

What do you believe the militia to be?

 

[hadit]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. The right of the People to bear arms, NOT that of the militia, shall not be infringed. That's the bottom line and which you refuse to acknowledge.

No, they didn't. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller applies to the unorganized militia. Well regulated militia are exempted when being Necessary to the security of a free State.

The right of the people, not the militia. You're just making up stuff.

The people are the militia. Well regulated militia militia are necessary, the unorganized militia are not.

The people are more than the militia. You should know that.

What do you believe the militia to be?

A subset of the people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That the 'right' to bear arms may be what is guaranteed, yet there is nothing in such a provision to exclude regulation of what arms are available.

Except the word "infringed", and the fact that "regulating" what arms can be owned is an infringement.

But, you know, aside from the English vocabulary and common logic, there's nothing there to stop you from controlling people's lives. Sure.

That's quite a leap. I'm not certain "infringement" necessarily means what you apparently think it does.
As long "arms" are available, one may have the 'right' to bear them. They still cost money, so not everyone might be able to have them. Infringement? Are taxes on firearms infringement? Is not importing some firearms infringement? What is the non-infringement part of the AR15 duplicate M16 not being available in stores near you?
Of course, perhaps your position is that, yes, all this and more is infringement. Such a radical view is your 'right', and it will eventually get you a whole lot of infringement some day.

This is what I think infringement means, and feel free to correct me if you think you know better:

1: the act of infringing : violation
: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

Definition of INFRINGEMENT

Go ahead, enlighten me on how it doesn't mean what I think it means, Noah Webster. And your threats that "if you insist on defending your rights, we're gonna try even harder to take them!" doesn't scare me. For one thing, I'm better armed than you are.

Now it's "threat" that you use in a way that indicates you don't know what it is. You did, however, give yourself the excuse to declare how your arms are your first recourse. This is what paranoia is.

Wrong on both counts, ass kitten.

I know exactly what "threat" means, and I used it EXACTLY as I intended. You can lie to yourself until the cows come home about what you meant when you said "it will eventually get you a whole lot of infringement some day", but I'm very clear that what you were saying is that if we don't knuckle under to your idea of "reasonable restrictions" du jour, you and your ilk will try to punish us by attacking our rights even further.

Also, arms are NOT my first recourse. However, the only way you're going to reach your ultimate goals is to seize our guns bodily, and I am merely pointing out the realities of that situation to edify you.

The cited definition of infringement refutes absolutely none of the points of the post it follows.

I wasn't trying to refute a post that didn't even exist yet, moron. I'm amazing, but telling the future is a BIT beyond my scope.

I was refuting your insistence that I didn't know what "infringement" means, and don't think for a second that you managed to gloss over the fact that I was right, you were wrong, and you were too much of an asshole to admit it.

Your evidently grandiose, all-encompassing view of what the Second Amendment confers upon you can hardly be expected to be shared by the majority of your compatriots.

My "grandiose, all-encompassing view of what the Second Amendment confers"? You mean, the one derived from the ACTUAL DEFINITIONS OF THE WORDS USED?

There was absolutely no threatening going on in my verbiage, merely the observation that firearms extremists are pushing the issue to a point where public reaction will go further than any of we reasonable Second Amendment adherents want.

Again, you can lie to yourself until you're blue in the face, and you can believe it just as long. But don't waste anyone's time expecting ME to believe it. Unlike you, I understand the meanings of words.

You are correct, however, that "firearms extremists" are pushing the issue. Unfortunately for your skewed view of "I'm the reasonable adherent, because I want to throw my guns at the feet of anyone who looks at me cross-eyed. That's reasonable!", the firearms extremists are the people who hate firearms and want to systematically ban them. And before you even start to swell up like a toad with all your denials and protestations, stuff 'em where the sun don't shine, because I detailed for this board forever ago the precise timeline of the leftist gun-grabbers' incremental approach to nullifying the Second Amendment. Not gonna work, so don't even bother.

 

[danielpalos]

No, they didn't. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller applies to the unorganized militia. Well regulated militia are exempted when being Necessary to the security of a free State.

The right of the people, not the militia. You're just making up stuff.

The people are the militia. Well regulated militia militia are necessary, the unorganized militia are not.

The people are more than the militia. You should know that.

What do you believe the militia to be?

A subset of the people.

Well regulated militia is a subset of the People. You had a fallacy of composition.

 

[hadit]

The right of the people, not the militia. You're just making up stuff.

The people are the militia. Well regulated militia militia are necessary, the unorganized militia are not.

The people are more than the militia. You should know that.

What do you believe the militia to be?

A subset of the people.

Well regulated militia is a subset of the People. You had a fallacy of composition.

You just agreed with me and contradicted your former position. Are you aware of that?

 

[danielpalos]

The people are the militia. Well regulated militia militia are necessary, the unorganized militia are not.

The people are more than the militia. You should know that.

What do you believe the militia to be?

A subset of the people.

Well regulated militia is a subset of the People. You had a fallacy of composition.

You just agreed with me and contradicted your former position. Are you aware of that?

The well regulated militia is a smaller subset of the People.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The well regulated militia is a smaller subset of the People.

I thought the militia was the whole people. What are you saying?

“The right of each person to individually keep and carry motherfucking machine guns shall not be infringed by any government.’

That is what it really says.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well regulated militia is a subset of the People. You had a fallacy of composition.

You had the fallacy of go fuck yourself.

This is what the amendment LITERALLY says:

"Everybody gets a machine gun."

 

[there4eyeM]

Adieu, all. There is no possibility of conversation with those who cannot understand anything other than their projections.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, everybody gers a machine gun."

 

[danielpalos]

The well regulated militia is a smaller subset of the People.

I thought the militia was the whole people. What are you saying?

“The right of each person to individually keep and carry motherfucking machine guns shall not be infringed by any government.’

That is what it really says.

No, it doesn't. The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless. We dare not call it spam, while in the minority.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia is a subset of the People. You had a fallacy of composition.

You had the fallacy of go fuck yourself.

This is what the amendment LITERALLY says:

"Everybody gets a machine gun."

Well regulated militia may get a machine gun, Because, they are Necessary.

 

[danielpalos]

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, everybody gers a machine gun."

every weapons qualified person.