The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[P@triot]

Only the right wing doesn't comprehend the first clause.

Only the left-wing ignores the operative clause.

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

So simple, only the illiterate left could be confused by it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Amendment has Always been about what the First Clause orders the Second Clause, to do.

So, the first clause orders the second clause?

Yes, it does.

See, that’s your problem. You think words order other words to do something. The constitution orders the federal government, not the words ordering words. Words don’t do anything but convey a message. Words can’t tell other words what to do.

The constitution direct the federal government and the states. Ultimately, it orders people, individuals, how to act or behave, for the benefit of individuals.

Did we forget the purpose of society?

 

[danielpalos]

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

Even if that were true (and it’s not), what is “necessary to achieve that end” is for people to be armed.

Yes, for the security of a free State, not natural rights. Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of natural rights, for the unorganized militia.

 

[P@triot]

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

That is astounding ignorance (even by your normal standard of remarkable ignorance). The Bill of Rights doesn’t “follow” anything, you imbecile. It is an amendment. Thus it is legally (and literally) part of the entire constitution.

It is clear you’ve never read the U.S. Constitution. So why do you insist on discussing it?

 

[P@triot]

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed

Wrong. As usual. It clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. It doesn’t say the right of the ‘well regulated militia’ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

 

[danielpalos]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

That clause is Express, not Implied.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, for the security of a free State, not natural rights. Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of natural rights, for the unorganized militia.

So, for the security of a free state, the federal government will not infringe upon the natural rights of the people. Is that right?

 

[P@triot]

Yes, for the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The Bill of Rights is entirely about “natural rights”. My right to speech. My right to religion. My right to firearms. My right to privacy.

Stop trolling. You’ve gone from comical to just plain obnoxious now.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

That clause is Express, not Implied.

But that clause does nothing. That clause does nothing more than state a need. It directs no one to do anything.

 

[P@triot]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

That clause is Express, not Implied.

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

That clause is express, not implied.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, for the security of a free State, not natural rights. Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of natural rights, for the unorganized militia.

So, for the security of a free state, the federal government will not infringe upon the natural rights of the people. Is that right?

We have to quible since not all persons of the People are well regulated militia. We have well regulated militia, the unorganized militia, and right wing slackers who are mostly all talk and mostly no action.

 

[P@triot]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

That clause is Express, not Implied.

But that clause does nothing. That clause does nothing more than state a need. It directs no one to do anything.

 

[P@triot]

...and right wing slackers who are mostly all talk and mostly no action.

That’s the beauty of the U.S. Constitution, junior. It requires absolutely no “actions” on my behalf to be afforded my God-given rights.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The first clause has no operative ettedlct without the second closet. However, the second clause could stand on its own, without the first clause.

So ask yourself again, what is the operative clause?

First class – states a need.

Second clause – orders government to not infringe on natural rights.

Please explain to me how I am wrong, Puta.

You never answer that question and you never explain yourself because you’re a fucking cocksucker and a commie bastard. As usual, he will not do it here because you’re a pussy and a puta.

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody should take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; especially Banks who can afford to hire attorneys.

 

[danielpalos]

The first clause has no operative ettedlct without the second closet. However, the second clause could stand on its own, without the first clause.

So ask yourself again, what is the operative clause?

First class – states a need.

Second clause – orders government to not infringe on natural rights.

Please explain to me how I am wrong, Puta.

You never answer that question and you never explain yourself because you’re a fucking cocksucker and a commie bastard. As usual, he will not do it here because you’re a pussy and a puta.

Why not cite the actual rules of construction, instead of right wing fantasy.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, for the security of a free State, not natural rights. Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of natural rights, for the unorganized militia.

So, for the security of a free state, the federal government will not infringe upon the natural rights of the people. Is that right?

We have to quible since not all persons of the People are well regulated militia. We have well regulated militia, the unorganized militia, and right wing slackers who are mostly all talk and mostly no action.

Bullshit, motherfucker. You said the people are the militia.

 

[P@triot]

The first clause has no operate in fact without the second closet. However, the second clause could stand on its own, without the first clause.

So ask yourself again, what is the operative clause?

First class – states a need.

Second clause – orders government to not infringe on natural rights.

Please explain to me how I am wrong, Puta.

You never answer that question and you never explain yourself because you’re a fucking cocksucker and a commie bastard. As usual, he will not do it here because you’re a pussy and a puta.

but.....but....but....“express - not implied”...and....“no natural rights”....and...“the people are the militia”.

Ever notice he speaks in fragmented sentences and is incapable of forming new arguments once those weak arguments he was trained in fail?

 

[danielpalos]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

That clause is Express, not Implied, every time it comes up, right wingers.

 

[P@triot]

The first clause has no operative ettedlct without the second closet. However, the second clause could stand on its own, without the first clause.

So ask yourself again, what is the operative clause?

First class – states a need.

Second clause – orders government to not infringe on natural rights.

Please explain to me how I am wrong, Puta.

You never answer that question and you never explain yourself because you’re a fucking cocksucker and a commie bastard. As usual, he will not do it here because you’re a pussy and a puta.

Why not cite the actual rules of construction, instead of right wing fantasy.

Uh...that’s what he just did.