The Right To Bear Arms

[turtledude]

you're a moron. you are too stupid to understand that a natural right that pre-exists government does not involve a "right" to serve the government

I predicted it, didn't I?

I said the insults would come.

How is it that I'm the moron?

I ask you about a historical document and you can't respond.

There's no way on this planet that you're a lawyer, no way on this planet that you go to law schools and talk about the Second Amendment.

Now go take your insults and FUCK OFF>

you're another low grade moron who wants to prove to himself he is smart so you post some irrelevant nonsense and pretend its intelligent. that document means nothing and the fact that you don't understand why, explains why you are so stupid

Oh please.

I've set out my case. You can't argue it.

You're the one insulting, not me.

Irrelevant nonsense? What the Founding Father said concerning the term "bear arms" is irrelevant?

No, it's not irrelevant, in fact it's extremely irrelevant, however it doesn't fit your agenda.

Seriously dude, you've made up this bullshit about being a lawyer, come off it.

You didn't try and argue you case. I mean, would a lawyer go into court and be like "no your honor, the defense lawyer's a moron"

YOU HAVE NOTHING. No argument. I said you'd pull the insults out of your ass, and you're pulling the insults out of your ass.

If the definition of "moron" to you is someone who has an argument, then fine. But really, you're not a lawyer and you probably only go to law school to serve them food.

you sound like one of those sovereign citizen types. how can a right that pre-exists government require membership in a government entity to vest?

And again, you're unable to talk about my argument. I couldn't give a fuck what you think I sound like.

No matter whether you think there's a pre-existing right or not, we're not talking about the pre-existing right, are we? We're talking about the SECOND AMENDMENT. The Second Amendment is there to PROTECT what people see as the pre-existing right. So, it doesn't matter whether you think there's a right or not, the Second Amendment exists and it is the law.

We're talking about LAW, you're supposed to be a LAWYER, ever noticed that the word LAWYER contains the word LAW and not the words pre-existing rights?

you're an idiot, when you write a law review article for the Yale Law Journal where you establish that the second amendment is a "right to join a militia" let me know

 

[turtledude]

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act. the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes

Then answer this one.

In 1903 they made the Dick Act.

Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.

They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?

Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?

The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".

So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.

Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.

damn you're one dumb MF. Why don't women have this same right? or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age

Again, your argument is an insult.

Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.

how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity

 

[frigidweirdo]

I predicted it, didn't I?

I said the insults would come.

How is it that I'm the moron?

I ask you about a historical document and you can't respond.

There's no way on this planet that you're a lawyer, no way on this planet that you go to law schools and talk about the Second Amendment.

Now go take your insults and FUCK OFF>

you're another low grade moron who wants to prove to himself he is smart so you post some irrelevant nonsense and pretend its intelligent. that document means nothing and the fact that you don't understand why, explains why you are so stupid

Oh please.

I've set out my case. You can't argue it.

You're the one insulting, not me.

Irrelevant nonsense? What the Founding Father said concerning the term "bear arms" is irrelevant?

No, it's not irrelevant, in fact it's extremely irrelevant, however it doesn't fit your agenda.

Seriously dude, you've made up this bullshit about being a lawyer, come off it.

You didn't try and argue you case. I mean, would a lawyer go into court and be like "no your honor, the defense lawyer's a moron"

YOU HAVE NOTHING. No argument. I said you'd pull the insults out of your ass, and you're pulling the insults out of your ass.

If the definition of "moron" to you is someone who has an argument, then fine. But really, you're not a lawyer and you probably only go to law school to serve them food.

you sound like one of those sovereign citizen types. how can a right that pre-exists government require membership in a government entity to vest?

And again, you're unable to talk about my argument. I couldn't give a fuck what you think I sound like.

No matter whether you think there's a pre-existing right or not, we're not talking about the pre-existing right, are we? We're talking about the SECOND AMENDMENT. The Second Amendment is there to PROTECT what people see as the pre-existing right. So, it doesn't matter whether you think there's a right or not, the Second Amendment exists and it is the law.

We're talking about LAW, you're supposed to be a LAWYER, ever noticed that the word LAWYER contains the word LAW and not the words pre-existing rights?

you're an idiot, when you write a law review article for the Yale Law Journal where you establish that the second amendment is a "right to join a militia" let me know

Insults again.

You come on to a forum like this, insult, claim to be a lawyer, claim to talk at law schools, then demand that you'll only discuss the Second Amendment with people who have written articles for the Yale Law Journal.

Oh, please.....

You can't actually debate a source from the FOUNDING FATHERS, and yet claim to be so big, and yet you're on THIS WEBSITE.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act. the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes

Then answer this one.

In 1903 they made the Dick Act.

Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.

They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?

Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?

The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".

So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.

Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.

damn you're one dumb MF. Why don't women have this same right? or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age

Again, your argument is an insult.

Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.

how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity

Did the right exist before government? What is a right?

A right is merely a thought of human beings. Someone says a right exists, so it therefore exists.

It doesn't matter. This is about the SECOND AMENDMENT. Had the founding fathers not written the Second Amendment, we wouldn't be talking about a right to keep and bear arms.

However, the Founding Fathers DID write the Second Amendment, they DID discuss the Second Amendment before passing it, they did Amendment it numerous times before passing it.

They wrote there was a right to bear arms, and I've shown you lots of evidence to suggest what they wanted to protect was the right to be in the militia.

What evidence you've provided suggests.... NOTHING because you haven't made a single argument that wasn't "you have to be in the Yale Law Journal for me to discuss things with you" or "I'm deflecting" or "I'm still deflecting" or "I won't talk to you" or "insult, insult, I'm a lawyer and all I've got is this t-shirt insulting you".

Wow.

 

[emilynghiem]

So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

Dear frigidweirdo
The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.

Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?

Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?

The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?

 

[easyt65]

The govt who wants to take your guns is ths same govt that...

- Illegally spied on Americans, on reporters, on the media, on the US Senate, and in the USSC...

- illegally used the IRS to target Americans that opposed the re-election of the party leader in office

- Who destroyed the US health care system while lying to Americans, putting into place a steppi g-stone system designed to fail and lead to single payer

- Abandoned 4 Americans to die at the hands of Al Qaeda - who slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01, the same terrorists they helped take over their own country

- Auded, abetted, financed, supplied, armed, trained, defended, and protected ISIS, Al Qaeda, The Muslim Brotherhood, Mexican Drug Cartels, violent illegals who preyed on US citizens, and Sanctuary cities...

- Who killed a US citizen without due process abroad...

- Who set a new historic record for illegal non-compliance with the FOIA and Federal Records Act in order to keep what they were doing secret, hidden from US citizens these politicians work for...

- Protected perjurers, influence peddlers, pedophiles, traitors, and people who selfishly endangered our national security...

- Who are so fiscally irresponsible they put us Trillions in debt....

....and this isn't even all....

...and dumbass liberal sheep qant to hand over all our weapons / rights to this same government?!

Bwuhahaha...

...actually, that's pretty damn scary.

-

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

Dear frigidweirdo
The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.

Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?

Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?

The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?

Okay, the way it's worded it could mean both. This is why my argument isn't just "it says this in the dictionary, so I'm going to cherry pick which one I want and then ignore everything else."

The Founding Fathers were pretty clear and the Supreme Court has been pretty clear about it too.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This document pretty much sums it up.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." Was the clause they were discussing

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Now, we have "bear arms" being used synonymously with "militia duty" AND "render military service".

Not only that we have Mr Jackson saying that people who didn't "bear arms" should pay an equivalent. Do you think the Founding Fathers would have demanded that people who don't "carry" firearms around with them on a daily basis pay an equivalent? Would you feel like being stopped by the police, being checked to see if you had your gun on you, and then being fined if you didn't?

Also, can you find any example of any Founding Father suggesting this? Because I've never, ever seen such a thing.

It makes no sense.

This Amendment is about protecting the militia.

If individuals are allowed to own guns, then the US federal govt cannot take these guns away, thereby destroying the militia.
Guns don't kill people, people do.

You need people in the militia. So they protected the right of people to be in the militia, so it has personnel to use the guns that it protects.

What's the point of protecting people walking around with guns if they can't be in the militia?

Also the Dick Act 1903 made the "unorganized militia" which basically put people into the militia so they couldn't demand to be in the National Guard. How much discipline would there be in the National Guard if you could demand to be in it?

Also there were different versions of the Second Amendment.

"June 8th 1789

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."


"August 17th 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Again, using "bear arms" and "render military service" synonymously.

Also in Presser the US Supreme Court said:

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

So, if there's a right to carry arms, then you could get together with a bunch of buddies and drill or parade with those arms in the city. But the Supreme Court in 1886 said there was no right to carry arms. And also the Heller case recently reaffirmed the Presser case.


ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)


“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

This case said that laws preventing carrying concealed weapons do not infringe on the Second Amendment. Well, if there were a right to carry arms, this wouldn't be the case.

I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

Dear frigidweirdo
The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.

Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?

Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?

The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?

To answer the other points.

Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?

In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:

• 1 Connecticut
• 2 Delaware
• 3 Georgia
• 4 Maryland
• 5 Massachusetts
• 6 New Hampshire
• 7 New Jersey
• 8 New York
• 9 North Carolina
• 10 Pennsylvania
• 11 Rhode Island
• 12 South Carolina
• 13 Vermont
• 14 Virginia

That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.


List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.

You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.

 

[francoHFW]

The govt who wants to take your guns is ths same govt that...

- Illegally spied on Americans, on reporters, on the media, on the US Senate, and in the USSC...

- illegally used the IRS to target Americans that opposed the re-election of the party leader in office

- Who destroyed the US health care system while lying to Americans, putting into place a steppi g-stone system designed to fail and lead to single payer

- Abandoned 4 Americans to die at the hands of Al Qaeda - who slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01, the same terrorists they helped take over their own country

- Auded, abetted, financed, supplied, armed, trained, defended, and protected ISIS, Al Qaeda, The Muslim Brotherhood, Mexican Drug Cartels, violent illegals who preyed on US citizens, and Sanctuary cities...

- Who killed a US citizen without due process abroad...

- Who set a new historic record for illegal non-compliance with the FOIA and Federal Records Act in order to keep what they were doing secret, hidden from US citizens these politicians work for...

- Protected perjurers, influence peddlers, pedophiles, traitors, and people who selfishly endangered our national security...

- Who are so fiscally irresponsible they put us Trillions in debt....

....and this isn't even all....

...and dumbass liberal sheep qant to hand over all our weapons / rights to this same government?!

Bwuhahaha...

...actually, that's pretty damn scary.

-

Very hypothetical and idea at the moment but even in the article about Australia they only took one fifth of the guns in Australia the assault weapons I believe basically and hand guns. All anybody wants is no automatics of any kind and background checks. Of course you're in favor of States being able to ban assault weapons as a states rights person? LOL

 

[Markle]

Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution.
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms
Amendment Text | Annotations

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please note, the single sentence contains, of all things, COMMAS.

13 Rules For Using Commas Without Looking Like An Idiot

• Christina Sterbenz

• Sep. 17, 2013, 11:39

Contrary to popular belief, commas don't just signify pauses in a sentence.

In fact, precise rules govern when to use this punctuation mark. When followed, they lay the groundwork for clear written communication.

We've compiled a list of all of the times when you need the mighty comma.

1. Use a comma before any coordinating conjunction (and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet) that links two independent clauses.

Example: "I went running, and I saw a duck."

You may need to learn a few grammatical terms to understand this one.

An independent clause is a unit of grammatical organization that includes both a subject and verb and can stand on its own as a sentence. In the previous example, "I went running" and "I saw a duck" are both independent clauses, and "and" is the coordinating conjunction that connects them. Consequently, we insert a comma.

If we were to eliminate the second "I" from that example, the second clause would lack a subject, making it not a clause at all. In that case, it would no longer need a comma: "I went running and saw a duck."

2. Use a comma after a dependent clause that starts a sentence.

Example: "When I went running, I saw a duck."

A dependent clause is a grammatical unit that contains both subject and verb but cannot stand on its own, like "When I went running ..."

Commas always follow these clauses at the start of a sentence. If a dependent clause ends the sentence, however, it no longer requires a comma. Only use a comma to separate a dependent clause at the end of a sentence for added emphasis, usually when negation occurs.

3. Use commas to offset appositives from the rest of the sentence.

Appositives act as synonyms for a juxtaposed word or phrase. For example, "While running, I saw a mallard, a kind of duck." "A kind of duck" is the appositive, which gives more information about "a mallard."

If the appositive occurs in the middle of the sentence, both sides of the phrase need a comma. As in, "A mallard, a kind of duck, attacked me."

Don't let the length of an appositive scare you. As long as the phrase somehow gives more information about its predecessor, you usually need a comma.

"A mallard, the kind of duck I saw when I went running, attacked me."

There's one exception to this rule. Don't offset a phrase that gives necessary information to the sentence. Usually, commas surround a non-essential clause or phrase. For example, "The duck that attacked me scared my friend" doesn't require any commas. Even though the phrase "that attacked me" describes "the duck," it provides essential information to the sentence. Otherwise, no one would know why the duck scared your friend. Clauses that begin with "that" are usually essential to the sentence and do not require commas.

4. Use commas to separate items in a series.

For example, "I saw a duck, a magician, and a liquor store when I went running."

That last comma, known as the serial comma, Oxford comma, or Harvard comma, causes serious controversy. Although many consider it unnecessary, others, including Business Insider, insist on its use to reduce ambiguity.

Internet meme that demonstrates its necessity perfectly. The sentence, "We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin," means the speaker sent three separate invitations: one to some strippers, one to JFK, and one to Stalin. The version without the Oxford comma, however, takes on an entirely different meaning, potentially suggesting that only one invitation was sent — to two strippers named JFK and Stalin. Witness: "We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin.

5. Use a comma after introductory adverbs.

"Finally, I went running."

"Unsurprisingly, I saw a duck when I went running."

Many adverbs end in "ly" and answer the question "how?" How did someone do something? How did something happen? Adverbs that don't end in "ly," such as "when" or "while," usually introduce a dependent clause, which rule number two in this post already covered.

Also insert a comma when "however" starts a sentence, too. Phrases like "on the other hand" and "furthermore" also fall into this category.

Also insert a comma when "however" starts a sentence, too. Phrases like "on the other hand" and "furthermore" also fall into this category.

Starting a sentence with "however," however, is discouraged by many careful writers. A better method would be to use "however" within a sentence after the phrase you want to negate, as in the previous sentence.

6. Use a comma when attributing quotes.

The rule for where the comma goes, however, depends on where attribution comes.

If attribution comes before the quote, place the comma outside the quotations marks. The runner said, "I saw a duck."

If attribution comes after the quote, put the comma inside the quotation marks. "I saw a duck," said the runner.

7. Use a comma to separate each element in an address. Also use a comma after a city-state combination within a sentence.

"I work at 257 Park Ave. South, New York, N.Y. 10010."

"Cleveland, Ohio, is a great city."

8. Also use a comma to separate the elements in a full date (weekday, month and day, and year). Also separate a combination of those elements from the rest of the sentence with commas.

"March 15, 2013, was a strange day." Even if you add a weekday, keep the comma after "2013."

"Friday, March 15, 2013, was a strange day."

"Friday, March 15, was a strange day."

You don't need to add a comma when the sentence mentions only the month and year. "March 2013 was a strange month."

9. Use a comma when the first word of the sentence is freestanding "yes" or "no."

"Yes, I saw a duck when I went running."

"No, the duck didn't bite me."

10. Use a comma when directly addressing someone or something in a sentence.

My editor often asks, "Christina, is that article up yet?"

Another clever meme shows the problem with incorrect placement of this comma. "Stop clubbing baby seals" reads like an order to desist harming infant mammals of the seal variety. The version with a comma, however, instructs them to stop attending hip dance clubs. "Stop clubbing, baby seals."

11. Use a comma between two adjectives that modify the same noun.

For example: "I saw the big, mean duck when I went running."

Only coordinate adjectives require a comma between them. Two adjectives are coordinate if you can answer yes to both of these questions: 1. Does the sentence still make sense if you reverse the order of the words? 2. Does the sentence still make sense if you insert "and" between the words?

Since "I saw the mean, big duck " and "I saw the big and mean duck" both sound fine, you need the comma.

Sentences with non-coordinate adjectives, however, don't require a comma. For example, "I lay under the powerful summer sun." "Powerful" describes "summer sun" as a whole phrase. This often occurs with adjunct nouns, a phrase where a noun acts as an adjective describing another noun — like "chicken soup" or "dance club."

12. Use a comma to offset negation in a sentence.

For example: "I saw a duck, not a baby seal, when I went running."

In this case, you still need the comma if the negation occurs at the end of the sentence. "I saw a baby seal, not a duck."

Also use commas when any distinct shift occurs in the sentence or thought process. "The cloud looked like an animal, perhaps a baby seal."

13. Use commas before every sequence of three numbers when writing a number larger than 999. (Two exceptions are writing years and house numbers.)

For example, 10,000 or 1,304,687.

That concludes today's lesson.

 

[Markle]

I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".

That is a lie. You are simply a Troll. You and your simple cohorts.

bear arms
DEFINITION

1. carry firearms.
   • wear or display a coat of arms.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".

That is a lie. You are simply a Troll. You and your simple cohorts.

bear arms
DEFINITION

1. carry firearms.
   • wear or display a coat of arms.

I lie? Come off it.

Bear means LOTS of things.

bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

1) carry
2) support
3) endure
4) give birth to
5) turn and proceed in a specific direction

Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?

Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.

How do we know the difference? Context.

1) ‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
4) ‘she bore six daughters’
5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’

Now under your logic this is what happens

1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
3) she carried the pain stoically
4) she carried six daughters
5) carry left and follow the old road

The reality is that it's not the case, is it?

The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"

Sorry, but you're wrong.

 

[Markle]

I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".

That is a lie. You are simply a Troll. You and your simple cohorts.

bear arms
DEFINITION

1. carry firearms.
   • wear or display a coat of arms.

I lie? Come off it.

Bear means LOTS of things.

bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

1) carry
2) support
3) endure
4) give birth to
5) turn and proceed in a specific direction

Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?

Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.

How do we know the difference? Context.

1) ‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
4) ‘she bore six daughters’
5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’

Now under your logic this is what happens

1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
3) she carried the pain stoically
4) she carried six daughters
5) carry left and follow the old road

The reality is that it's not the case, is it?

The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"

Sorry, but you're wrong.

You missed punctuation in school, didn't you? Quite a few other classes in English too.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".

That is a lie. You are simply a Troll. You and your simple cohorts.

bear arms
DEFINITION

1. carry firearms.
   • wear or display a coat of arms.

I lie? Come off it.

Bear means LOTS of things.

bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

1) carry
2) support
3) endure
4) give birth to
5) turn and proceed in a specific direction

Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?

Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.

How do we know the difference? Context.

1) ‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
4) ‘she bore six daughters’
5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’

Now under your logic this is what happens

1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
3) she carried the pain stoically
4) she carried six daughters
5) carry left and follow the old road

The reality is that it's not the case, is it?

The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"

Sorry, but you're wrong.

You missed punctuation in school, didn't you? Quite a few other classes in English too.

I'm sorry, what the fuck?

You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?

Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all.

Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.

The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".

No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.

 

[ChrisL]

I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".

That is a lie. You are simply a Troll. You and your simple cohorts.

bear arms
DEFINITION

1. carry firearms.
   • wear or display a coat of arms.

I lie? Come off it.

Bear means LOTS of things.

bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

1) carry
2) support
3) endure
4) give birth to
5) turn and proceed in a specific direction

Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?

Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.

How do we know the difference? Context.

1) ‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
4) ‘she bore six daughters’
5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’

Now under your logic this is what happens

1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
3) she carried the pain stoically
4) she carried six daughters
5) carry left and follow the old road

The reality is that it's not the case, is it?

The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"

Sorry, but you're wrong.

You missed punctuation in school, didn't you? Quite a few other classes in English too.

I'm sorry, what the fuck?

You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?

Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all.

Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.

The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".

No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.

This idiot is jumping through hoops to try to change the meaning of the 2nd amendment. This is a perfect example of why you should NEVER trust a leftist. Lol! A perfect demonstration of willful ignorance about our rights.

 

[ChrisL]

I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".

That is a lie. You are simply a Troll. You and your simple cohorts.

bear arms
DEFINITION

1. carry firearms.
   • wear or display a coat of arms.

I lie? Come off it.

Bear means LOTS of things.

bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

1) carry
2) support
3) endure
4) give birth to
5) turn and proceed in a specific direction

Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?

Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.

How do we know the difference? Context.

1) ‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
4) ‘she bore six daughters’
5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’

Now under your logic this is what happens

1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
3) she carried the pain stoically
4) she carried six daughters
5) carry left and follow the old road

The reality is that it's not the case, is it?

The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Holy shitskies. This guy is a complete idiot. Apparently, one of the dumbest fuckers on this board. I just can't even believe it. Lol.

It says right in the FEDERALIST PAPERS that self defense is one of the MAIN reasons for the right to bear and keep arms, you ninny.

 

[ChrisL]

I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".

That is a lie. You are simply a Troll. You and your simple cohorts.

bear arms
DEFINITION

1. carry firearms.
   • wear or display a coat of arms.

I lie? Come off it.

Bear means LOTS of things.

bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

1) carry
2) support
3) endure
4) give birth to
5) turn and proceed in a specific direction

Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?

Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.

How do we know the difference? Context.

1) ‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
4) ‘she bore six daughters’
5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’

Now under your logic this is what happens

1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
3) she carried the pain stoically
4) she carried six daughters
5) carry left and follow the old road

The reality is that it's not the case, is it?

The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Pathetic beyond belief. The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were. Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself. The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.

James Madison -

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

 

[ChrisL]

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson asserts that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish said government, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. It seems here apparent that Jefferson considered the right to abolish or alter one’s government a primary right and indeed a right which must be kept by the people if they are to expect their government to function properly and within its afforded sphere of delegated powers.

Publius also recognized the preeminence of the right of man over his government. In Federalist 28, Alexander Hamilton (as Publius) claims that the people’s right of self-defense (defending oneself against unlawful infringement by his government) is “original.” That the right of self-defense is “original” means that it existed before the formation of the state.

In fact, it may be said that the state was created by man to unite himself with others with a common view of the good, and as a result of the commonality of that view, the state became a defensive organization to protect its members from intrusion by men of opposing views. Hamilton asserts that since the right of the people to defend themselves cannot be taken from them, that right will always be a means of controlling those by whom they are governed.

In the republic of the United States, citizens elect representatives. However, if the elected representatives of the people betray their constituents, the people have the inherent right to divest those representatives of their “artificial strength of government.”

The Founding Fathers believed that the power of government was artificial because citizens of a republic elect representatives to do for them what is by nature under their own dominion. Alexander Hamilton explained this principle thus: “The right of colonists, therefore, to exercise a legislative power, is an inherent right. It is founded upon the right of all men to freedom and happiness.”

Federalist Papers and the Right of "Self-Defense"

 

[ChrisL]

The second amendment and the right to self defense are a couple of the most important FOUNDING PRINCIPLES of this country. If you don't like freedom, then there are plenty of other countries that have governments that you can gladly surrender your rights to for a false sense of "safety." If you don't like freedom, then the solution is simple. MOVE.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".

That is a lie. You are simply a Troll. You and your simple cohorts.

bear arms
DEFINITION

1. carry firearms.
   • wear or display a coat of arms.

I lie? Come off it.

Bear means LOTS of things.

bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

1) carry
2) support
3) endure
4) give birth to
5) turn and proceed in a specific direction

Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?

Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.

How do we know the difference? Context.

1) ‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
4) ‘she bore six daughters’
5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’

Now under your logic this is what happens

1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
3) she carried the pain stoically
4) she carried six daughters
5) carry left and follow the old road

The reality is that it's not the case, is it?

The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"

Sorry, but you're wrong.

You missed punctuation in school, didn't you? Quite a few other classes in English too.

I'm sorry, what the fuck?

You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?

Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all.

Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.

The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".

No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.

This idiot is jumping through hoops to try to change the meaning of the 2nd amendment. This is a perfect example of why you should NEVER trust a leftist. Lol! A perfect demonstration of willful ignorance about our rights.

What am I trying to change?

I'm sourcing the FOUNDING FATHERS.

I'm certain you don't really know what I'm talking about though.