The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[Daryl Hunt]

Here we go again. Do you really want me to weigh in on this one or are you going to stop with the insults and actually discuss things. Or do you want your ass handed to you once again. I don't mind open discussion but when outright bullying starts by either side, I take offense.

Here we go AGAIN? You have NEVER made a convincing argument about the language and interpretation of the 2A.

Apparently, we are now defining "having your ass handed to you" as "repeating ignorant arguments that have been debunked thousands of times as though they're brand-new and brilliant".

At least we aren't having to sit through his constant misquoting and misinterpreting the various SC rulings lately. That took up a ton of band width. I don't argue morals, I argue legalities. If you want to change the laws and rulings do so at the ballot box or in the courts.

 

[hadit]

Is a person part of the people?

Only when plurally engaged.

So, to revisit your previous blunder, which you won't address, how do you have First Amendment rights without belonging to a licensed and regulated advocacy group? You claimed none of the amendments protected individuals, only groups. If that is the case, you don't have protected free speech rights unless you belong to a regulated group, so which one do you belong to?

Now you know I'm not going to let this go, so you might as well fire off one of your dozen or so canned phrases.

I know how to read.

Each Amendment covers a specific topic.

The Words, actually mean what they say.

No, you said none of the amendments apply to individuals, only to groups. Now explain how you have free speech rights without belonging to a regulated group. You know you're on a losing path here, because once you admit the first amendment applies to individuals, you'll have a much harder time insisting that the second only applies to regulated groups. So explain away. No canned phrases allowed.

lol. nice story, story teller.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment. It is about the security of a free State and the Means necessary to achieve that End.

Again, you fail to read what's written. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, so I'm talking about the first. We'll get to the second in a bit, but before that you have to explain why and how the first only applies to groups and why you're not subject to arrest for posting without being a member of a regulated group.

 

[danielpalos]

Only when plurally engaged.

So, to revisit your previous blunder, which you won't address, how do you have First Amendment rights without belonging to a licensed and regulated advocacy group? You claimed none of the amendments protected individuals, only groups. If that is the case, you don't have protected free speech rights unless you belong to a regulated group, so which one do you belong to?

Now you know I'm not going to let this go, so you might as well fire off one of your dozen or so canned phrases.

I know how to read.

Each Amendment covers a specific topic.

The Words, actually mean what they say.

No, you said none of the amendments apply to individuals, only to groups. Now explain how you have free speech rights without belonging to a regulated group. You know you're on a losing path here, because once you admit the first amendment applies to individuals, you'll have a much harder time insisting that the second only applies to regulated groups. So explain away. No canned phrases allowed.

lol. nice story, story teller.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment. It is about the security of a free State and the Means necessary to achieve that End.

Again, you fail to read what's written. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, so I'm talking about the first. We'll get to the second in a bit, but before that you have to explain why and how the first only applies to groups and why you're not subject to arrest for posting without being a member of a regulated group.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not the concept of natural rights.

It must be so, simply Because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it merely follows our federal Constitution,

like the second clause must follow the first clause of our Second Amendment.

Order over Chaos.

 

[P@triot]

Our Second Amendment is quite clear.

Yes it is. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So simple, only a progressive could be confused by it.

 

[P@triot]

the People are the Militia

No, snowflake, they are not. You are a person. You are not in a militia. That fact doesn’t make you cease to be a person (or a U.S. citizen).

You’ve tried that tired and desperate argument hundreds of times already. I’ve exposed the idiocy of it and destroyed it hundreds of times already. Time to find some new material, sparky.

 

[P@triot]

The People are the Militia by virtue of Citizenship.

Ehhhh! Wrong again. Citizenship does not require one to be a part of any organization. Period. That wouldn’t be liberty, Hitler.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is quite clear.

Yes it is. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So simple, only a progressive could be confused by it.

lol. only for the security needs of a free State; 10USC246 applies, when it is, really really serious.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Our Second Amendment is quite clear.

Yes it is. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So simple, only a progressive could be confused by it.

And I say that it's so simple that it can be misinterpreted and needs to be qualified like others have been done. We keep leaving it up to the Courts to do this when it should be done by the Legislation.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

the People are the Militia

No, snowflake, they are not. You are a person. You are not in a militia. That fact doesn’t make you cease to be a person (or a U.S. citizen).

You’ve tried that tired and desperate argument hundreds of times already. I’ve exposed the idiocy of it and destroyed it hundreds of times already. Time to find some new material, sparky.

If I read you right, you are saying that a single person does not have the right to be armed and only an Organized Militia has that right? If I read it verbatum, that is exactly what it says. The last 3rd of it does say that the right to be armed shall not be infringed but it never says by what degree one may be armed. Again, it's too ambiguous. We have left it up to the courts to make these rulings when, in fact, Legislation should have been doing it all along.

 

[danielpalos]

the People are the Militia

No, snowflake, they are not. You are a person. You are not in a militia. That fact doesn’t make you cease to be a person (or a U.S. citizen).

You’ve tried that tired and desperate argument hundreds of times already. I’ve exposed the idiocy of it and destroyed it hundreds of times already. Time to find some new material, sparky.

If I read you right, you are saying that a single person does not have the right to be armed and only an Organized Militia has that right? If I read it verbatum, that is exactly what it says. The last 3rd of it does say that the right to be armed shall not be infringed but it never says by what degree one may be armed. Again, it's too ambiguous. We have left it up to the courts to make these rulings when, in fact, Legislation should have been doing it all along.

Defense of self and property is a natural right.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

 

[P@triot]

We have left it up to the courts to make these rulings when, in fact, Legislation should have been doing it all along.

What do you think the 2nd Amendment was?!? It was legislation.

 

[P@triot]

Again, it's too ambiguous.

Again, only to the illiterate left. To the educated, it could not be more clear.

 

[P@triot]

Defense of self and property is a natural right.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

Oh man...this poor little boys IQ is so low he doesn’t even realize he contradicts himself in the same sentence.

He states “defense of self” is a “natural right”. Then turns around and immediately says in the next sentence “the 2nd Amendment is not a natural right”.

Uh...how is one supposed to DEFEND themselves if they are denied the right to a firearm?

What an idiot.

 

[danielpalos]

Defense of self and property is a natural right.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

Oh man...this poor little boys IQ is so low he doesn’t even realize he contradicts himself in the same sentence.

He states “defense of self” is a “natural right”. Then turns around and immediately says in the next sentence “the 2nd Amendment is not a natural right”.

Uh...how is one supposed to DEFEND themselves if they are denied the right to a firearm?

What an idiot.

Our Second Amendment is about the militia, and what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Again, it's too ambiguous.

Again, only to the illiterate left. To the educated, it could not be more clear.

You can't come up with a reason I am wrong, can you. Outside of, Because You Say So.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We have left it up to the courts to make these rulings when, in fact, Legislation should have been doing it all along.

What do you think the 2nd Amendment was?!? It was legislation.

And it was dead on in 1791 when it was adopted by the States which made it part of the Constitution. Since then, it hasn't kept up with the changes made and is no longer current. It needs to be rewritten to stay with the times. It's been chopped up so badly that there isn't much of it left. Care to tell me what parts are still current and specific and are not ambiguous? And please don't use the same old tired cliches.

 

[P@triot]

Our Second Amendment is about the militia, and what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

Our 2nd Amendment is not about the militia no matter how much you wished otherwise. It clearly and indisputably states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. If it were about the militia, as you state, then it would have said “the right of the militia”.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Amendment is about the militia, and what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

Our 2nd Amendment is not about the militia no matter how much you wished otherwise. It clearly and indisputably states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. If it were about the militia, as you state, then it would have said “the right of the militia”.

But but but the people are the militia!!

(as if that matters)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Defense of self and property is a natural right.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

Oh man...this poor little boys IQ is so low he doesn’t even realize he contradicts himself in the same sentence.

He states “defense of self” is a “natural right”. Then turns around and immediately says in the next sentence “the 2nd Amendment is not a natural right”.

Uh...how is one supposed to DEFEND themselves if they are denied the right to a firearm?

What an idiot.

Our Second Amendment is about the militia, and what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

...and the PEOPLE are the militia, so, it’s about the people.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about the militia, and what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

Our 2nd Amendment is not about the militia no matter how much you wished otherwise. It clearly and indisputably states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. If it were about the militia, as you state, then it would have said “the right of the militia”.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, and what is necessary to achieve that End.