What would you do with the second amendment?

[kaz]

What are the first three words of the Constitution?

A. We the People

Q. Who wrote "We the People" and who signed off on COTUS

Right. We the People are Citizens of the United States. The Constitution wasn't written by foreigners, it was written by and for the Citizens of the United States.

Leftists constantly throw in the stupid shit that you did

Kaz, I know you to be damn liar, but now I'm beginning to wonder if your brain is addled by drugs, alcohol or trauma. If you are going to respond with your biases, you add nothing to any discussion no matter the topic, you might as well not bother since you have no credibility from anyone other than the fools.

You're arguing that the founders meant non-citizens and you're saying I'm on drugs. Somehow that doesn't hurt ...

Wow...that is not my argument and if you truly believe it is, I'm puzzled as to what is wrong with you.

Post #577, moron.

Maybe you should read your own crap since you force other people to read it

 

[Wry Catcher]

A. We the People

Q. Who wrote "We the People" and who signed off on COTUS

Right. We the People are Citizens of the United States. The Constitution wasn't written by foreigners, it was written by and for the Citizens of the United States.

Leftists constantly throw in the stupid shit that you did

Kaz, I know you to be damn liar, but now I'm beginning to wonder if your brain is addled by drugs, alcohol or trauma. If you are going to respond with your biases, you add nothing to any discussion no matter the topic, you might as well not bother since you have no credibility from anyone other than the fools.

You're arguing that the founders meant non-citizens and you're saying I'm on drugs. Somehow that doesn't hurt ...

Wow...that is not my argument and if you truly believe it is, I'm puzzled as to what is wrong with you.

Post #577, moron.

Maybe you should read your own crap since you force other people to read it

Thanks for sharing. I would pity you but for you arrogance and dishonesty.

 

[kaz]

Right. We the People are Citizens of the United States. The Constitution wasn't written by foreigners, it was written by and for the Citizens of the United States.

Leftists constantly throw in the stupid shit that you did

Kaz, I know you to be damn liar, but now I'm beginning to wonder if your brain is addled by drugs, alcohol or trauma. If you are going to respond with your biases, you add nothing to any discussion no matter the topic, you might as well not bother since you have no credibility from anyone other than the fools.

You're arguing that the founders meant non-citizens and you're saying I'm on drugs. Somehow that doesn't hurt ...

Wow...that is not my argument and if you truly believe it is, I'm puzzled as to what is wrong with you.

Post #577, moron.

Maybe you should read your own crap since you force other people to read it

Thanks for sharing. I would pity you but for you arrogance and dishonesty.

You said that the second amendment applies to non-citizens (post #577), and you're asking what I'm talking about when I said the Constitution is for citizens. Then you call me dishonest. You're pathetic

 

[Wry Catcher]

Kaz, I know you to be damn liar, but now I'm beginning to wonder if your brain is addled by drugs, alcohol or trauma. If you are going to respond with your biases, you add nothing to any discussion no matter the topic, you might as well not bother since you have no credibility from anyone other than the fools.

You're arguing that the founders meant non-citizens and you're saying I'm on drugs. Somehow that doesn't hurt ...

Wow...that is not my argument and if you truly believe it is, I'm puzzled as to what is wrong with you.

Post #577, moron.

Maybe you should read your own crap since you force other people to read it

Thanks for sharing. I would pity you but for you arrogance and dishonesty.

You said that the second amendment applies to non-citizens (post #577), and you're asking what I'm talking about when I said the Constitution is for citizens. Then you call me dishonest. You're pathetic

The Second Amendment does not apply only to citizens! Only a damn liar will make that claim. Read the Bill of Rights without your biases and wishful thinking.

In fact the 2nd A. clearly states it is the right of the people in a free State to keep and bear arms, and the clear inference is those people vetted by the State and trained under the provisions of Art. I, sec 8 and clause 16.

It is clear that Scalia bent over backwards and upside down to try and convince the people that the 2nd A. has zero to do with you or other's not in the militia, and thus not vetted, disciplined or trained.

It is the Right of each of the several states to have arms that shall not be infringed, and the State under the 10th Amendment to organize, arm and discipline their militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Respect what the founding fathers said, "As part of a well regulated militia".

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed

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.

A well regulated militia.
Cons ignore this, which is part of the same sentence. Cons don't read well or ...

they simply don't understand, Order over Chaos, is the objective.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You're arguing that the founders meant non-citizens and you're saying I'm on drugs. Somehow that doesn't hurt ...

Wow...that is not my argument and if you truly believe it is, I'm puzzled as to what is wrong with you.

Post #577, moron.

Maybe you should read your own crap since you force other people to read it

Thanks for sharing. I would pity you but for you arrogance and dishonesty.

You said that the second amendment applies to non-citizens (post #577), and you're asking what I'm talking about when I said the Constitution is for citizens. Then you call me dishonest. You're pathetic

The Second Amendment does not apply only to citizens! Only a damn liar will make that claim. Read the Bill of Rights without your biases and wishful thinking.

In fact the 2nd A. clearly states it is the right of the people in a free State to keep and bear arms, and the clear inference is those people vetted by the State and trained under the provisions of Art. I, sec 8 and clause 16.

It is clear that Scalia bent over backwards and upside down to try and convince the people that the 2nd A. has zero to do with you or other's not in the militia, and thus not vetted, disciplined or trained.

It is the Right of each of the several states to have arms that shall not be infringed, and the State under the 10th Amendment to organize, arm and discipline their militia.

A well-balanced diet, being necessary for good health, the right of the people to obtain and eat vegetables shall not be infringed.

You are arguing that the people may only have an unifringed right to vegetables while eating a well-balanced diet.

No vegetables for you!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

has anyone considered a gub'mit allowing an armed citizenry creating it's own anarchy , much to the point that every other freedom is compromised?

it would appear to me that this is occuring

~S~

To you, perhaps.

But in fact, not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You're arguing that the founders meant non-citizens and you're saying I'm on drugs. Somehow that doesn't hurt ...

Wow...that is not my argument and if you truly believe it is, I'm puzzled as to what is wrong with you.

Post #577, moron.

Maybe you should read your own crap since you force other people to read it

Thanks for sharing. I would pity you but for you arrogance and dishonesty.

You said that the second amendment applies to non-citizens (post #577), and you're asking what I'm talking about when I said the Constitution is for citizens. Then you call me dishonest. You're pathetic

The Second Amendment does not apply only to citizens! Only a damn liar will make that claim. Read the Bill of Rights without your biases and wishful thinking.

In fact the 2nd A. clearly states it is the right of the people in a free State to keep and bear arms, and the clear inference is those people vetted by the State and trained under the provisions of Art. I, sec 8 and clause 16.

It is clear that Scalia bent over backwards and upside down to try and convince the people that the 2nd A. has zero to do with you or other's not in the militia, and thus not vetted, disciplined or trained.

It is the Right of each of the several states to have arms that shall not be infringed, and the State under the 10th Amendment to organize, arm and discipline their militia.

Be that as it may, Heller/McDonald is nonetheless the law of the land, establishing the Framers’ original understanding and intent of the Second Amendment.

And unlike most on the right, liberals respect the rule of law, are consistent in their support of the Supreme Court’s rulings, recognizing the Court’s authority to determine what the Constitution means, whether liberals agree with those rulings or not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Second Amendment concerns more than just guns or weapons in general; as the Heller court reaffirmed, there is also a fundamental right to self-defense, hence the individual right to possess a handgun to facilitate that right to self-defense.

Because the individual right is unconnected with militia service – not a ‘collective’ right – how the militia might be ‘regulated’ is irrelevant, given the fact that the militia and the notion of the ‘citizen soldier’ are obsolete, the consequence of the National Guard and an established modern military.

Likewise, the canard that the Second Amendment seeks to ‘defend against tyranny’ is just as ridiculous, given the comprehensive power and might of the forces at the disposal of the Federal government, and the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution establishing the ‘criteria of tyranny’ or otherwise authorizing citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

The Heller Court reaffirmed the holding in United States v. Cruikshank that the people realize their collective security from the police powers of the state, not ‘citizen soldiers’; and in Miller the Heller Court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment’s reference to ‘militia’ concerns the types of arms that might be ‘in common use,’ whose possession are entitled to Constitutional protections, and weapons that are ‘dangerous and unusual,’ not entitled to Constitutional protections – having nothing to do with ‘fighting tyranny’ or ‘repelling’ foreign invasion.

 

[kaz]

You're arguing that the founders meant non-citizens and you're saying I'm on drugs. Somehow that doesn't hurt ...

Wow...that is not my argument and if you truly believe it is, I'm puzzled as to what is wrong with you.

Post #577, moron.

Maybe you should read your own crap since you force other people to read it

Thanks for sharing. I would pity you but for you arrogance and dishonesty.

You said that the second amendment applies to non-citizens (post #577), and you're asking what I'm talking about when I said the Constitution is for citizens. Then you call me dishonest. You're pathetic

The Second Amendment does not apply only to citizens! Only a damn liar will make that claim. Read the Bill of Rights without your biases and wishful thinking.

In fact the 2nd A. clearly states it is the right of the people in a free State to keep and bear arms, and the clear inference is those people vetted by the State and trained under the provisions of Art. I, sec 8 and clause 16.

It is clear that Scalia bent over backwards and upside down to try and convince the people that the 2nd A. has zero to do with you or other's not in the militia, and thus not vetted, disciplined or trained.

It is the Right of each of the several states to have arms that shall not be infringed, and the State under the 10th Amendment to organize, arm and discipline their militia.

The Constitution is written by and for "We The People of the United States of America," you're an idiot

 

[kaz]

Wow...that is not my argument and if you truly believe it is, I'm puzzled as to what is wrong with you.

Post #577, moron.

Maybe you should read your own crap since you force other people to read it

Thanks for sharing. I would pity you but for you arrogance and dishonesty.

You said that the second amendment applies to non-citizens (post #577), and you're asking what I'm talking about when I said the Constitution is for citizens. Then you call me dishonest. You're pathetic

The Second Amendment does not apply only to citizens! Only a damn liar will make that claim. Read the Bill of Rights without your biases and wishful thinking.

In fact the 2nd A. clearly states it is the right of the people in a free State to keep and bear arms, and the clear inference is those people vetted by the State and trained under the provisions of Art. I, sec 8 and clause 16.

It is clear that Scalia bent over backwards and upside down to try and convince the people that the 2nd A. has zero to do with you or other's not in the militia, and thus not vetted, disciplined or trained.

It is the Right of each of the several states to have arms that shall not be infringed, and the State under the 10th Amendment to organize, arm and discipline their militia.

A well-balanced diet, being necessary for good health, the right of the people to obtain and eat vegetables shall not be infringed.

You are arguing that the people may only have an unifringed right to vegetables while eating a well-balanced diet.

No vegetables for you!

Wry is arguing that if I say I give my family a salad for lunch because it's healthy, then everyone else who wants a salad can demand I provide them with one because I think salads are healthy

 

[kaz]

And unlike most on the right, liberals respect the rule of law, are consistent in their support of the Supreme Court’s rulings, recognizing the Court’s authority to determine what the Constitution means, whether liberals agree with those rulings or not.

Did he just say that?





You live in a fantasy world, Clayton?

 

[2aguy]

You're arguing that the founders meant non-citizens and you're saying I'm on drugs. Somehow that doesn't hurt ...

Wow...that is not my argument and if you truly believe it is, I'm puzzled as to what is wrong with you.

Post #577, moron.

Maybe you should read your own crap since you force other people to read it

Thanks for sharing. I would pity you but for you arrogance and dishonesty.

You said that the second amendment applies to non-citizens (post #577), and you're asking what I'm talking about when I said the Constitution is for citizens. Then you call me dishonest. You're pathetic

The Second Amendment does not apply only to citizens! Only a damn liar will make that claim. Read the Bill of Rights without your biases and wishful thinking.

In fact the 2nd A. clearly states it is the right of the people in a free State to keep and bear arms, and the clear inference is those people vetted by the State and trained under the provisions of Art. I, sec 8 and clause 16.

It is clear that Scalia bent over backwards and upside down to try and convince the people that the 2nd A. has zero to do with you or other's not in the militia, and thus not vetted, disciplined or trained.

It is the Right of each of the several states to have arms that shall not be infringed, and the State under the 10th Amendment to organize, arm and discipline their militia.

Wrong....you need to read Heller where the Right to bear arms is not attached to militia service...at all, ever.....if you actually read the decision you would see it isn't even Scalia saying this but the entire history of our country, going back to England, and our legal precedents that also state this....you don't know what you are talking about...you are lying.....

 

[2aguy]

Wow...that is not my argument and if you truly believe it is, I'm puzzled as to what is wrong with you.

Post #577, moron.

Maybe you should read your own crap since you force other people to read it

Thanks for sharing. I would pity you but for you arrogance and dishonesty.

You said that the second amendment applies to non-citizens (post #577), and you're asking what I'm talking about when I said the Constitution is for citizens. Then you call me dishonest. You're pathetic

The Second Amendment does not apply only to citizens! Only a damn liar will make that claim. Read the Bill of Rights without your biases and wishful thinking.

In fact the 2nd A. clearly states it is the right of the people in a free State to keep and bear arms, and the clear inference is those people vetted by the State and trained under the provisions of Art. I, sec 8 and clause 16.

It is clear that Scalia bent over backwards and upside down to try and convince the people that the 2nd A. has zero to do with you or other's not in the militia, and thus not vetted, disciplined or trained.

It is the Right of each of the several states to have arms that shall not be infringed, and the State under the 10th Amendment to organize, arm and discipline their militia.

Be that as it may, Heller/McDonald is nonetheless the law of the land, establishing the Framers’ original understanding and intent of the Second Amendment.

And unlike most on the right, liberals respect the rule of law, are consistent in their support of the Supreme Court’s rulings, recognizing the Court’s authority to determine what the Constitution means, whether liberals agree with those rulings or not.

Yes....if they respect our Rights then explain the rulings from the 4th, 9th, 7th, and 2nd Circuit Courts of appeals the either completely ignore the legal Precedents from the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment, or deliberately misread them to come to their own conclusion...even after Alito bitch slapped them in Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia explained Heller again in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park...

You are lying......you know the left hate the Constitution and guns and that no law will keep them from banning them if they get the power.

 

[danielpalos]

The Second Amendment concerns more than just guns or weapons in general; as the Heller court reaffirmed, there is also a fundamental right to self-defense, hence the individual right to possess a handgun to facilitate that right to self-defense.

Because the individual right is unconnected with militia service – not a ‘collective’ right – how the militia might be ‘regulated’ is irrelevant, given the fact that the militia and the notion of the ‘citizen soldier’ are obsolete, the consequence of the National Guard and an established modern military.

Likewise, the canard that the Second Amendment seeks to ‘defend against tyranny’ is just as ridiculous, given the comprehensive power and might of the forces at the disposal of the Federal government, and the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution establishing the ‘criteria of tyranny’ or otherwise authorizing citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

The Heller Court reaffirmed the holding in United States v. Cruikshank that the people realize their collective security from the police powers of the state, not ‘citizen soldiers’; and in Miller the Heller Court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment’s reference to ‘militia’ concerns the types of arms that might be ‘in common use,’ whose possession are entitled to Constitutional protections, and weapons that are ‘dangerous and unusual,’ not entitled to Constitutional protections – having nothing to do with ‘fighting tyranny’ or ‘repelling’ foreign invasion.

No, it doesn't. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, it doesn't. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Not true, no matter how many times your commie ass repeats it.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Not true, no matter how many times your commie ass repeats it.

Lol. I resort to the fewest fallacies for my Cause; that makes me, more moral than those of the opposing view.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Post #577, moron.

Maybe you should read your own crap since you force other people to read it

Thanks for sharing. I would pity you but for you arrogance and dishonesty.

You said that the second amendment applies to non-citizens (post #577), and you're asking what I'm talking about when I said the Constitution is for citizens. Then you call me dishonest. You're pathetic

The Second Amendment does not apply only to citizens! Only a damn liar will make that claim. Read the Bill of Rights without your biases and wishful thinking.

In fact the 2nd A. clearly states it is the right of the people in a free State to keep and bear arms, and the clear inference is those people vetted by the State and trained under the provisions of Art. I, sec 8 and clause 16.

It is clear that Scalia bent over backwards and upside down to try and convince the people that the 2nd A. has zero to do with you or other's not in the militia, and thus not vetted, disciplined or trained.

It is the Right of each of the several states to have arms that shall not be infringed, and the State under the 10th Amendment to organize, arm and discipline their militia.

Be that as it may, Heller/McDonald is nonetheless the law of the land, establishing the Framers’ original understanding and intent of the Second Amendment.

And unlike most on the right, liberals respect the rule of law, are consistent in their support of the Supreme Court’s rulings, recognizing the Court’s authority to determine what the Constitution means, whether liberals agree with those rulings or not.

Yes....if they respect our Rights then explain the rulings from the 4th, 9th, 7th, and 2nd Circuit Courts of appeals the either completely ignore the legal Precedents from the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment, or deliberately misread them to come to their own conclusion...even after Alito bitch slapped them in Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia explained Heller again in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park...

You are lying......you know the left hate the Constitution and guns and that no law will keep them from banning them if they get the power.

Your use of the BIG LIE is getting old, guns will never be successfully banned, nor will abortion, prostitution, homosexuality, theft, or taxes. You will continue to piss and whine obsessively, but the facts belie every lie you tell.

Why don't you grow up? Why won't you admit there are too many school shootings and too many innocent kids murdered, for your point of view to be acceptable to socially conscious men and women.

Every mass murder results with your defense of guns, and not once did you demonstrate remorse for the dead or empathy for those who loved them. Why is that?

 

[danielpalos]

Thanks for sharing. I would pity you but for you arrogance and dishonesty.

You said that the second amendment applies to non-citizens (post #577), and you're asking what I'm talking about when I said the Constitution is for citizens. Then you call me dishonest. You're pathetic

The Second Amendment does not apply only to citizens! Only a damn liar will make that claim. Read the Bill of Rights without your biases and wishful thinking.

In fact the 2nd A. clearly states it is the right of the people in a free State to keep and bear arms, and the clear inference is those people vetted by the State and trained under the provisions of Art. I, sec 8 and clause 16.

It is clear that Scalia bent over backwards and upside down to try and convince the people that the 2nd A. has zero to do with you or other's not in the militia, and thus not vetted, disciplined or trained.

It is the Right of each of the several states to have arms that shall not be infringed, and the State under the 10th Amendment to organize, arm and discipline their militia.

Be that as it may, Heller/McDonald is nonetheless the law of the land, establishing the Framers’ original understanding and intent of the Second Amendment.

And unlike most on the right, liberals respect the rule of law, are consistent in their support of the Supreme Court’s rulings, recognizing the Court’s authority to determine what the Constitution means, whether liberals agree with those rulings or not.

Yes....if they respect our Rights then explain the rulings from the 4th, 9th, 7th, and 2nd Circuit Courts of appeals the either completely ignore the legal Precedents from the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment, or deliberately misread them to come to their own conclusion...even after Alito bitch slapped them in Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia explained Heller again in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park...

You are lying......you know the left hate the Constitution and guns and that no law will keep them from banning them if they get the power.

Your use of the BIG LIE is getting old, guns will never be successfully banned, nor will abortion, prostitution, homosexuality, theft, or taxes. You will continue to piss and whine obsessively, but the facts belie every lie you tell.

Why don't you grow up? Why won't you admit there are too many school shootings and too many innocent kids murdered, for your point of view to be acceptable to socially conscious men and women.

Every mass murder results with your defense of guns, and not once did you demonstrate remorse for the dead or empathy for those who loved them. Why is that?

Projecting much? I don't have to lie since I resort to fewer fallacies than You.

Our Constitution is Express, not Implied, every time we have to quibble.

 

[kaz]

Thanks for sharing. I would pity you but for you arrogance and dishonesty.

You said that the second amendment applies to non-citizens (post #577), and you're asking what I'm talking about when I said the Constitution is for citizens. Then you call me dishonest. You're pathetic

The Second Amendment does not apply only to citizens! Only a damn liar will make that claim. Read the Bill of Rights without your biases and wishful thinking.

In fact the 2nd A. clearly states it is the right of the people in a free State to keep and bear arms, and the clear inference is those people vetted by the State and trained under the provisions of Art. I, sec 8 and clause 16.

It is clear that Scalia bent over backwards and upside down to try and convince the people that the 2nd A. has zero to do with you or other's not in the militia, and thus not vetted, disciplined or trained.

It is the Right of each of the several states to have arms that shall not be infringed, and the State under the 10th Amendment to organize, arm and discipline their militia.

Be that as it may, Heller/McDonald is nonetheless the law of the land, establishing the Framers’ original understanding and intent of the Second Amendment.

And unlike most on the right, liberals respect the rule of law, are consistent in their support of the Supreme Court’s rulings, recognizing the Court’s authority to determine what the Constitution means, whether liberals agree with those rulings or not.

Yes....if they respect our Rights then explain the rulings from the 4th, 9th, 7th, and 2nd Circuit Courts of appeals the either completely ignore the legal Precedents from the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment, or deliberately misread them to come to their own conclusion...even after Alito bitch slapped them in Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia explained Heller again in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park...

You are lying......you know the left hate the Constitution and guns and that no law will keep them from banning them if they get the power.

Your use of the BIG LIE is getting old, guns will never be successfully banned, nor will abortion, prostitution, homosexuality, theft, or taxes. You will continue to piss and whine obsessively, but the facts belie every lie you tell.

Why don't you grow up? Why won't you admit there are too many school shootings and too many innocent kids murdered, for your point of view to be acceptable to socially conscious men and women.

Every mass murder results with your defense of guns, and not once did you demonstrate remorse for the dead or empathy for those who loved them. Why is that?

Whoa, and kaz hits bone on that one. Wry loses it in an explosion of anger. Direct hit. Thank you for letting me know.

Your reliance on emotion is tired. Man up, Shirley