CDZ 2nd amendmant and arms

[Soupnazi630]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

Because, it Only and merely means; Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union.

You might have a point if it gave the right to the militias, instead of the people.

I always have a point; the People are the Militia. Only well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia) are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the entirety of the Militias of the United States.

That is not what it says nor what it means which is why you have no point

Yes, it is; simply because I say so; and, if you don't know it, I am right even when on the left.

You are wrong right or left.

That is not what it says

 

[danielpalos]

Because, it Only and merely means; Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union.

You might have a point if it gave the right to the militias, instead of the people.

I always have a point; the People are the Militia. Only well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia) are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the entirety of the Militias of the United States.

That is not what it says nor what it means which is why you have no point

Yes, it is; simply because I say so; and, if you don't know it, I am right even when on the left.

You are wrong right or left.

That is not what it says

Have an actual argument or do you have nothing but diversion.

The People are the Militia. Only well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia) are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the entirety of the Militias of the sevreal United States.

Which part of that do you disagree with? I am paraphrasing our supreme law of the land.

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.

Are you claiming we can ignore the legislated Intent and Purpose of the Second Article of Amendment?

Are you claiming a well regulated militia of the People is not necessary to the security of a free State?

Are you claiming all of the People are well regulated and therefore necessary to the security of a free State?

Does the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment claim to secure rights in property instead of the security of a free State?

 

[danielpalos]

"Willful appeal to ignorance of the law can and may be considered a moral turpitude."

So someone doing unto others (such as stealing from others their ability to defend themselves) as they demonstrate they do not want the same done to themselves (or they would be giving, not taking) is someone demonstrating depravity of mind, as their evil shows through their counterfeit goodness, as they claim to be disarming people so as to defend people.

"You really do just need a good argument."

Argument can be argued as to what argument means, and if someone claims that the winner of the argument is winning the defensive capabilities of someone innocent of any wrongdoing, thereby giving the winner all the counterfeit reason the winner needs to disarm his, or her, targeted victim, then that can be claimed to be a "good argument" where the one claiming they win a "good argument" just so happens to end up with the guns previously earned, held, owned, and employed by the victim who is claimed as the loser of the "good argument"?

A good liar can win a good argument according to a good liar?

Yet a problem still exists, does it not, whereby the one claimed to be the one losing the argument is still possessing, still maintaining, still skilled at using, said armament, and the one claiming to "win" the "good argument" has yet to transfer the gun from the "loser" to the "winner."

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

Yes, all you need is a good argument.

 

[Josf]

A good liar can win a good argument according to a good liar?

"Yes, all you need is a good argument."

In context to law (expressed so well in Matthew 7:12): those who lie while those same liars work diligently to avoid being lied to, are those who prove their guilty minds.

That is also confirmed in other Christian writings, such as the concept of knowing the truth so as to be set free, and therefore if someone endeavors to deceive - with malice aforethought - someone confesses, once again, their guilty mind, since Matthew 7:12 has already been offered as the lie detector test. If someone were actually to be seeking the truth, seeking an accurate accounting of the facts, then someone would speak the truth, so as to do onto others as they would have others do onto them. They, by their unlawful actions, wish to be bonded, not free, they wish to be bonded to their malignancy of their own construction, through their willful choice to deceive other people.

That works also in practice as those well practiced at deception succumb to their own lies as they begin to have trouble keeping track of their lies, leaving them less able to discern the truth, as the tendency grows into a fog of lies, and a need to believe their own lies, turning into a fellow believer in lies, a victim of deception themselves.

Therefore, once again, "all you need" if you, or you, or you, or me, or anyone, needs to understand what "all you need" in matters of law is to understand the application of law offered well enough, simple enough, in Matthew 7:12, and simply do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you reach for deception, which appears to be the case with the one offering the red text above, your words confess your guilt, if at the same time said author of words proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they self contradict.

If you know the law then you are inspired to tell the truth, which is proven to be your state of mind, as your actions are such that you insist upon the truth being told to you; not content with being lied to, as a form of communication offered by other people.

If you falsely claim to know the law, and you claim that deception (fraud) is lawful, while you also claim that you - a deceiver - are an authority of the law, where deception is the rule, while you claim to be challenging those who make false claims, according to you, there is in that web of duplicity an obvious, measurable, self contained lie: one side of you claims that deception is the law, and the other side of you, all self contained, works to expose the deceptions, yet your words confess that you, yourself, seeks to deceive, while your counterfeit authority is maintained according to my understanding of what your claims mean.

But how can I ever know what your claims actually mean, if all that you do is lie?

I can ask, for example, can a good liar win a good argument according to a good liar?

And you might answer:

"Yes, all you need is a good argument."

In the context of the willful disarmament of innocent people whose arms they bear so as to afford them an effective defense against harm done by criminals with badges (so called government) the red words above amount to a confession made by a liar who is blowing the whistle on the counterfeiters who counterfeit rule of law when said counterfeiters set out to disarm the people through deception.

The classic example is the extortionist claiming to be collecting insurance premiums. The counterfeit buyer of the insurance asks: "Insurance against what?" The goon collecting the extortion payment responds with: "Insurance against broken knee caps."

The proof of America is otherwise. Those liars counterfeiting government have been working to deceive Americans for over 200 years now, those enemies domestic and foreign, and yet I am still armed, not only armed in my own mind, armed with a true understanding of what the law means, but I am also well armed with guns, as was may father, and perhaps here is where persistence may be working in favor of the deceivers. My children are less armed, less diligent, as my efforts to instill in them the need to be armed has been slightly less effective as my parents efforts on me; and possibly their parents on them, on and on back in time. On the other hand my children have taught me lessons about the relative power of knowledge, knowing the true law, compared to the power of physical armaments, which is cause for hope for posterity for people federated into many states united rightfully, and truthfully.

So "all you need is a good argument" in this context is such that all you (deceivers) need is a good argument in order to counterfeit government and tear down every good thing in life, so long as enough people, over enough persistent exposure to lies, end up disarmed to a point at which the worst evil people are then able to set in motion a world wide pogrom.

If on the other hand "all you need" in order to set everyone free from such Empires of deception is to tell the truth instead, since the law is simple enough to understand, you tell the truth and others are then inspired to tell the truth, rather than you telling a lie, inspiring others to get as caught up in your chosen world of deception: if not more caught up as the tendency in self made hell on earth is to be the best liar.

 

[danielpalos]

With "arguments" like yours; it is no wonder you don't seem to be accomplishing anything..

 

[Josf]

"With "arguments" like yours; it is no wonder you don't seem to be accomplishing anything.."

Looks are often deceptive by design. As far as I am concerned I do not argue, there is no point to it. As far as my investments in my time and energy writing on this forum I measure my accomplishments according to the available data that exists in actual reality; to the extent of my ability to perceive it.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

 

[danielpalos]

Now I understand what your problem is; you are not discovering sublime Truth (value) through argumentation; and it is easy to notice for anyone that does.

 

[Josf]

"Now I understand what your problem is; you are not discovering sublime Truth (value) through argumentation; and it is easy to notice for anyone that does."

How does that work out reasonably? Someone with an agenda, such as disarming the targeted innocent victims, is someone who employs deception as a means of arriving at their goal. Said individual then creates an imaginary target that is made of figurative straw, and this man of straw is said to have a problem.

So the deceiver with the disarmament agenda creates this man of straw that - according to the deceiver - has a problem.

So Dr. Frankenstein, creating his monster out of dead things, now has his imaginary being that was created with an imaginary problem, and so the "good" Doctor arrives on the scene, of this play acting play, to diagnose and offer remedy to his fictitious creation with the fictitious problem.

"...for anyone that does..."

Is that a fictitious army of fellow Dr. Frankenstein mice in his pocket?

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You might have a point if it gave the right to the militias, instead of the people.

I always have a point; the People are the Militia. Only well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia) are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the entirety of the Militias of the United States.

That is not what it says nor what it means which is why you have no point

Yes, it is; simply because I say so; and, if you don't know it, I am right even when on the left.

You are wrong right or left.

That is not what it says

Have an actual argument or do you have nothing but diversion.

The People are the Militia. Only well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia) are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the entirety of the Militias of the sevreal United States.

Which part of that do you disagree with? I am paraphrasing our supreme law of the land.

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.

Are you claiming we can ignore the legislated Intent and Purpose of the Second Article of Amendment?

Are you claiming a well regulated militia of the People is not necessary to the security of a free State?

Are you claiming all of the People are well regulated and therefore necessary to the security of a free State?

Does the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment claim to secure rights in property instead of the security of a free State?

The right of the people is the controlling section of the sentence, the militia part is simply an attachment. An Expert in the English language already destroyed your entire argument.

 

[danielpalos]

"Now I understand what your problem is; you are not discovering sublime Truth (value) through argumentation; and it is easy to notice for anyone that does."

How does that work out reasonably? Someone with an agenda, such as disarming the targeted innocent victims, is someone who employs deception as a means of arriving at their goal. Said individual then creates an imaginary target that is made of figurative straw, and this man of straw is said to have a problem.

So the deceiver with the disarmament agenda creates this man of straw that - according to the deceiver - has a problem.

So Dr. Frankenstein, creating his monster out of dead things, now has his imaginary being that was created with an imaginary problem, and so the "good" Doctor arrives on the scene, of this play acting play, to diagnose and offer remedy to his fictitious creation with the fictitious problem.

"...for anyone that does..."

Is that a fictitious army of fellow Dr. Frankenstein mice in his pocket?

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Gun control is not gun Prohibition.

The one with the most fallacies is the greatest deceiver.

 

[danielpalos]

I always have a point; the People are the Militia. Only well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia) are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the entirety of the Militias of the United States.

That is not what it says nor what it means which is why you have no point

Yes, it is; simply because I say so; and, if you don't know it, I am right even when on the left.

You are wrong right or left.

That is not what it says

Have an actual argument or do you have nothing but diversion.

The People are the Militia. Only well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia) are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the entirety of the Militias of the sevreal United States.

Which part of that do you disagree with? I am paraphrasing our supreme law of the land.

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.

Are you claiming we can ignore the legislated Intent and Purpose of the Second Article of Amendment?

Are you claiming a well regulated militia of the People is not necessary to the security of a free State?

Are you claiming all of the People are well regulated and therefore necessary to the security of a free State?

Does the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment claim to secure rights in property instead of the security of a free State?

The right of the people is the controlling section of the sentence, the militia part is simply an attachment. An Expert in the English language already destroyed your entire argument.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; including the first clause which is the legislated Intent and Purpose. And, our Second Article of Amendment cannot be read in a vacuum of special pleading.