This one is for the gun grabbers. Explain this.

[Frankeneinstein]

It says, well regulated militia are necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;

OK, now, copy and paste what it actually says in the second amendment under what you just posted and you will/or should be, able to tell who has a comprehension problem...everyone else will be able to tell.

not defense of natural rights.

you keep pretending that is in the constitution...if that has any bearing on rights then eventually we will have no rights at all, which of course is what the right is claiming you are really up to by going after the constitution on amendment two, the "no defense of natural rights" argument is exactly what you would need to go after the constitution...I have to ask now...after reading the second amendment do you personally think the comprehension level of those on the left leaves them feeling that they can point to the second amendment in a courtroom and claim that it says right there that "the congress can make laws that infringe on our rights to bear arms"? keep in mind that the question is what you think of the lefts comprehension level as the 2nd amendment reads...anything else will be a dodge

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It says, well regulated militia are necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; not defense of natural rights.

now try making that same point posting the 2nd amendment as it is actually written in the constitution....doesn't work for you does it?

 

[danielpalos]

It says, well regulated militia are necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;[/quote/]

not defense of natural rights.

OK, now, copy and paste what it actually says in the second amendment under what you just posted and you will/or should be, able to tell who has a comprehension problem...everyone else will be able to tell.

not defense of natural rights.

you keep pretending that is in the constitution...if that has any bearing on rights then eventually we will have no rights at all, which of course is what the right is claiming you are really up to by going after the constitution on amendment two, the "no defense of natural rights" argument is exactly what you would need to go after the constitution...I have to ask now...after reading the second amendment do you personally think the comprehension level of those on the left leaves them feeling that they can point to the second amendment in a courtroom and it says right there that "congress can make laws that infringe on our rights to bear arms"? keep in mind that the question is wht you think of the lefts comprehension level as the 2nd amendment reads...anything else will be a dodge

Yes, Our Constitution must have bearing as our supreme law of the land. Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

It says, well regulated militia are necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; not defense of natural rights.

now try making that same point posting the 2nd amendment as it is actually written in the constitution....doesn't work for you does it?

Yes, it does. You have to have an actual argument refuting my claim; not just an appeal to ignorance and claiming you are right.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Yes, it does. You have to have an actual argument refuting my claim; not just an appeal to ignorance and claiming you are right.

first you need to quote and not paraphrase your claim, you are asking me to refute something you pretend is true when in fact the onus is on you to prove it is true and that is why you refuse to quote the 2nd amendment, it does not match you claim

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does. You have to have an actual argument refuting my claim; not just an appeal to ignorance and claiming you are right.

first you need to quote and not paraphrase your claim, you are asking me to refute something you pretend is true when in fact the onus is on you to prove it is true and that is why you refuse to quote the 2nd amendment, it does not match you claim

You cannot appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.

The whole and entire People are the Militia.

Only the right wing seems to never get it, for political purposes.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Yes, it does. You have to have an actual argument refuting my claim; not just an appeal to ignorance and claiming you are right.

first you need to quote and not paraphrase your claim, you are asking me to refute something you pretend is true when in fact the onus is on you to prove it is true and that is why you refuse to quote the 2nd amendment, it does not match you claim

You cannot appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.

The whole and entire People are the Militia.

Only the right wing seems to never get it, for political purposes.

look at the tortured logic and language, it [your post] means both everything and nothing at all.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing but diversion, right wingers? This politics; only wo-men should make excuses, not men.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788