The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

anybody can Talk, right winger. social Talk and no capital action, is worthless under Capitalism.

You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. That’s why you’re a comment. Commies are dumb motherfuckers. Those dumb motherfuckers are useful idiots to those who want power. That’s you. You are useful idiot.

lol. nothing but social fallacy instead of capital refutation?

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

The concept of natural rights, is recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

Only the frivolous right wing, never gets it.

No capital conscription. Just appeals to social studies. Only the left wing commies don’t understand the paradigm investment of the ex-post-facto status quo.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights. It says so in the first clause.

The concept of natural rights, is recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights. It says so in the first clause.

The concept of natural rights, is recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

Our constitution secures the wisdom of the founder’s genious by capitalizing and maximizing the potential utilization of the principals of liberty while simultaniously diverting social philanthropy through local ordinances as established in the pre-revolution British commonwealths in the New Wirld, subject to the conditions and accords reached under feudal law with an addendum established in the post-Norman usurpatorian Franco-British courts.

Therefor, thank you.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights. It says so in the first clause.

The concept of natural rights, is recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

Our constitution secures the wisdom of the founder’s genious by capitalizing and maximizing the potential utilization of the principals of liberty while simultaniously diverting social philanthropy through local ordinances as established in the pre-revolution British commonwealths in the New Wirld, subject to the conditions and accords reached under feudal law with an addendum established in the post-Norman usurpatorian Franco-British courts.

Therefor, thank you.

Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary, not the whole and entire People.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights. It says so in the first clause.

The concept of natural rights, is recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

Our constitution secures the wisdom of the founder’s genious by capitalizing and maximizing the potential utilization of the principals of liberty while simultaniously diverting social philanthropy through local ordinances as established in the pre-revolution British commonwealths in the New Wirld, subject to the conditions and accords reached under feudal law with an addendum established in the post-Norman usurpatorian Franco-British courts.

Therefor, thank you.

Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary, not the whole and entire People.

But, Our constitution secures the wisdom of the founder’s genious by capitalizing and maximizing the potential utilization of the principals of liberty while simultaniously diverting social philanthropy through local ordinances as established in the pre-revolution British commonwealths in the New Wirld, subject to the conditions and accords reached under feudal law with an addendum established in the post-Norman usurpatorian Franco-British courts.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights. It says so in the first clause.

The concept of natural rights, is recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

Our constitution secures the wisdom of the founder’s genious by capitalizing and maximizing the potential utilization of the principals of liberty while simultaniously diverting social philanthropy through local ordinances as established in the pre-revolution British commonwealths in the New Wirld, subject to the conditions and accords reached under feudal law with an addendum established in the post-Norman usurpatorian Franco-British courts.

Therefor, thank you.

Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary, not the whole and entire People.

But, Our constitution secures the wisdom of the founder’s genious by capitalizing and maximizing the potential utilization of the principals of liberty while simultaniously diverting social philanthropy through local ordinances as established in the pre-revolution British commonwealths in the New Wirld, subject to the conditions and accords reached under feudal law with an addendum established in the post-Norman usurpatorian Franco-British courts.

Infringed does not mean debarred. Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with the concept of natural rights. Those are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights. It says so in the first clause.

The concept of natural rights, is recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

Our constitution secures the wisdom of the founder’s genious by capitalizing and maximizing the potential utilization of the principals of liberty while simultaniously diverting social philanthropy through local ordinances as established in the pre-revolution British commonwealths in the New Wirld, subject to the conditions and accords reached under feudal law with an addendum established in the post-Norman usurpatorian Franco-British courts.

Therefor, thank you.

Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary, not the whole and entire People.

But, Our constitution secures the wisdom of the founder’s genious by capitalizing and maximizing the potential utilization of the principals of liberty while simultaniously diverting social philanthropy through local ordinances as established in the pre-revolution British commonwealths in the New Wirld, subject to the conditions and accords reached under feudal law with an addendum established in the post-Norman usurpatorian Franco-British courts.

Infringed does not mean debarred. Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with the concept of natural rights. Those are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

But you forgot that.our constitution secures the wisdom of the founder’s genious by capitalizing and maximizing the potential utilization of the principals of liberty while simultaniously diverting social philanthropy through local ordinances as established in the pre-revolution British commonwealths in the New Wirld, subject to the conditions and accords reached under feudal law with an addendum established in the post-Norman usurpatorian Franco-British courts. It’s irrefutable.

 

[danielpalos]

Everyone is a State citizen or in the federal districts.

Why wouldn't State law be more applicable?

 

[hadit]

I know this is difficult for you to follow, but try. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, remember? Let's start at the beginning with the first amendment and you convince me that it only protects you if you're a member of a regulated group. Go.

nice story, story teller. I gave you my story.

You have failed, monumentally. When you're ready to explain how the first doesn't protect individuals, let me know. Until then, you've failed.

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.

Defense of self and property is a natural right, covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process;

we should need frivolous tax rates from the right wing, if they should continue.

The first, the first. Focus on the first. You said it didn't protect individuals. Explain why.

I said it is not about natural rights; only the clueless, Causeless, and therefore frivolous right wing who should pay taxes for their frivolocity in public venues, say that.

Dude, you're spouting nonsense attempting to cloud the issue. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, only regulated groups. Now explain why you are not subject to arrest for posting on this board when you are not a part of a regulated speech group.

That what you have to do and what you cannot do. Admit you are making up stuff as you go along to justify your absurd claims.

While you're at it, you can try to rehabilitate your contempt for women. You really look bad.

 

[hadit]

Everyone is a State citizen or in the federal districts.

Why wouldn't State law be more applicable?

Because the Constitution overrides state law when they are in conflict. That's the whole purpose of the Constitution. It specifies the limited powers of the federal government and reserves everything else to the states and the people.

Now, back to your blunder. Explain why the first amendment doesn't protect your right to free speech if you are not part of a related group.

 

[danielpalos]

nice story, story teller. I gave you my story.

You have failed, monumentally. When you're ready to explain how the first doesn't protect individuals, let me know. Until then, you've failed.

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.

Defense of self and property is a natural right, covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process;

we should need frivolous tax rates from the right wing, if they should continue.

The first, the first. Focus on the first. You said it didn't protect individuals. Explain why.

I said it is not about natural rights; only the clueless, Causeless, and therefore frivolous right wing who should pay taxes for their frivolocity in public venues, say that.

Dude, you're spouting nonsense attempting to cloud the issue. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, only regulated groups. Now explain why you are not subject to arrest for posting on this board when you are not a part of a regulated speech group.

That what you have to do and what you cannot do. Admit you are making up stuff as you go along to justify your absurd claims.

While you're at it, you can try to rehabilitate your contempt for women. You really look bad.

You don't know what you are talking about, frivolous, right winger.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment or it would say so in the first clause.

Who are the well regulated militia enumerated as necessary in our Second Amendment?

 

[danielpalos]

Everyone is a State citizen or in the federal districts.

Why wouldn't State law be more applicable?

Because the Constitution overrides state law when they are in conflict. That's the whole purpose of the Constitution. It specifies the limited powers of the federal government and reserves everything else to the states and the people.

Now, back to your blunder. Explain why the first amendment doesn't protect your right to free speech if you are not part of a related group.

There is no conflict. State Constitutions secure natural rights, not our Second Amendment.

 

[hadit]

You have failed, monumentally. When you're ready to explain how the first doesn't protect individuals, let me know. Until then, you've failed.

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.

Defense of self and property is a natural right, covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process;

we should need frivolous tax rates from the right wing, if they should continue.

The first, the first. Focus on the first. You said it didn't protect individuals. Explain why.

I said it is not about natural rights; only the clueless, Causeless, and therefore frivolous right wing who should pay taxes for their frivolocity in public venues, say that.

Dude, you're spouting nonsense attempting to cloud the issue. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, only regulated groups. Now explain why you are not subject to arrest for posting on this board when you are not a part of a regulated speech group.

That what you have to do and what you cannot do. Admit you are making up stuff as you go along to justify your absurd claims.

While you're at it, you can try to rehabilitate your contempt for women. You really look bad.

You don't know what you are talking about, frivolous, right winger.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment or it would say so in the first clause.

Who are the well regulated militia enumerated as necessary in our Second Amendment?

You made the statement, now you're trying to ignore that fact. How does the first amendment only protect the free speech rights of regulated groups and not individuals?

 

[hadit]

Everyone is a State citizen or in the federal districts.

Why wouldn't State law be more applicable?

Because the Constitution overrides state law when they are in conflict. That's the whole purpose of the Constitution. It specifies the limited powers of the federal government and reserves everything else to the states and the people.

Now, back to your blunder. Explain why the first amendment doesn't protect your right to free speech if you are not part of a related group.

There is no conflict. State Constitutions secure natural rights, not our Second Amendment.

Does the first amendment protect individual rights or only the rights of regulated groups? Deal with that.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Defense of self and property is a natural right, covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process;

we should need frivolous tax rates from the right wing, if they should continue.

The first, the first. Focus on the first. You said it didn't protect individuals. Explain why.

I said it is not about natural rights; only the clueless, Causeless, and therefore frivolous right wing who should pay taxes for their frivolocity in public venues, say that.

Dude, you're spouting nonsense attempting to cloud the issue. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, only regulated groups. Now explain why you are not subject to arrest for posting on this board when you are not a part of a regulated speech group.

That what you have to do and what you cannot do. Admit you are making up stuff as you go along to justify your absurd claims.

While you're at it, you can try to rehabilitate your contempt for women. You really look bad.

You don't know what you are talking about, frivolous, right winger.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment or it would say so in the first clause.

Who are the well regulated militia enumerated as necessary in our Second Amendment?

You made the statement, now you're trying to ignore that fact. How does the first amendment only protect the free speech rights of regulated groups and not individuals?

apples and oranges, is a fallacy of false Cause.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment or it would say so in the first clause. The security needs of a free State, may preclude the concept of natural rights, for the duration.

 

[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.

As long as it's not repealed, it's still the law of the land and law abiding citizens will obey it.

I was chopped to pieces starting in 1851 with the invention of the Walker Colt. Then again in 1861 with the invention of the Galtling Gun. Then when they inventing exploding cannon shells that became Artillery. Then when Automatic Rifles were invented. Then when they mounted Machine Guns on Aircraft. And then again when they started dropping bombs from aircraft. The last part of the 2nd amendment rather got chewed up.

Then the first part got chewed up when, due to the WWI aftermath, they nationalized the State Militias.

The 2nd amendment is so invalid, it needs to be rewritten to a modern standard. We need it but it needs to be clarified. For instance, you have the right to bear arms but what arms do you have that right to bear? One might say, within reason. But who determines that reason? The Law has to be specific, not ambiguous. Our Founding Fathers never envisioned the wide spread use of rapid fire rifles, exploding shells and grenades, nuclear weapons and more. They wrote the law determined to the weapons of the day. Cannons with iron, steel balls and pit shots, single shot rifles and short ranged black powder explosives. Within 100 years, Man exceeded those with a vengeance and kept expanding on it. Today, we have to have some way of coming up with a law that expressly states, "Within Reason". But what would be "Within Reason". Who makes that determination? Obviously, it can't be the individual themselves as some will not be governed by any form or reason at all while others will reason it to death. The second the 1934 Firearms Act was passed, the 2nd amendment was changed forever. In fact, it's been monkeyed with since right after 1791. Can we depend on the Courts to determine the "Within Reason"? Or how about the Legislators? Obviously, we can't depend on the individuals either. Tell, me, cupcake, what can we depend on? Certainly not you.

 

[P@triot]

natural rights are secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

If that were even remotely true, you would have 0 “natural rights”. You see, my illiterate and ignorant little friend, the Supremacy Clause establishes the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Which means it trumps all state and local laws.

Therefore, the federal government could snap their fingers and eliminate religion, the press, you’re right to privacy, etc. But of course, they can’t do that because our “natural rights” are all established in the U.S. Constitution. You would know that if you would bother to read it before commenting.

 

[P@triot]

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment or it would say so in the first clause.

Uh...according to who? Who says that the first clause in each amendment dictates natural rights in a constitutional amendments?!?

Why do you think you can just make shit up?

 

[P@triot]

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

Security is a “natural right”, stupid. Oops.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

If that were even remotely true, you would have 0 “natural rights”. You see, my illiterate and ignorant little friend, the Supremacy Clause establishes the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Which means it trumps all state and local laws.

Therefore, the federal government could snap their fingers and eliminate religion, the press, you’re right to privacy, etc. But of course, they can’t do that because our “natural rights” are all established in the U.S. Constitution. You would know that if you would bother to read it before commenting.

Natural rights are Recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not implied in our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment or it would say so in the first clause.

Uh...according to who? Who says that the first clause in each amendment dictates natural rights in a constitutional amendments?!?

Why do you think you can just make shit up?

unlike the right wing?

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment or it would say so in our Second Amendment. The security of a free State, is what is expressed.