Biden says “No Amendment to the Constitution is absolute”

[bigrebnc1775]

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

There are limits on any and all rights.

For example, the second amendment only applies to public property. You do not have the right to bring weapons onto private property without permission from the owner.

I've done it countless times

When your concealed carry no one should see your firearm.
But to address your query I have every right to enter
since jo believe rights are not absolute he could start and demand we have a state run religion

Our Second Amendment absolutely states it is a well regulated militia that is Necessary to the security of a free State.

no the second amendment like all the bill of rights was given authority to the federal government
To ensure every citizens rights were protected 14th amendment

 

[pknopp]

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

There are limits on any and all rights.

For example, the second amendment only applies to public property. You do not have the right to bring weapons onto private property without permission from the owner.

I've done it countless times
When your concealed carry no one should see your firearm.
But to address your query I have every right to enter
since jo believe rights are not absolute he could start and demand we have a state run religion

You can ignore the wishes of private property owners as long as you don't get caught.

I see this though mostly from those who would get very upset with someone doing it to their property.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

There are limits on any and all rights.

For example, the second amendment only applies to public property. You do not have the right to bring weapons onto private property without permission from the owner.

I've done it countless times
When your concealed carry no one should see your firearm.
But to address your query I have every right to enter
since jo believe rights are not absolute he could start and demand we have a state run religion

You can ignore the wishes of private property owners as long as you don't get caught.

I see this though mostly from those who would get very upset with someone doing it to their property.

when you find out if I am armed or not it's too late

 

[Rigby5]

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

There are limits on any and all rights.

For example, the second amendment only applies to public property. You do not have the right to bring weapons onto private property without permission from the owner.

I've done it countless times
When your concealed carry no one should see your firearm.
But to address your query I have every right to enter
since jo believe rights are not absolute he could start and demand we have a state run religion

Our Second Amendment absolutely states it is a well regulated militia that is Necessary to the security of a free State.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on any federal firearms restrictions.
And while it does say that a reason for that is to ensure there is a well practiced militia there when needed, that in no way implies that is the only reason why federal firearms restrictions are banned.

A well regulated militia is also necessary for state protection, municipal posses, and individual home protection.

 

[danielpalos]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

lol so you believe only the government should have access to firearms?
FYI why doesn't that militia you keep referencing allowed to keep their weapons on them and at their homes?
3....2.....1....
DODGE AWAY

I know how to read.

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.

evidently, you don't and stop acting as if you've have lost this argument many times
lol so you believe only the government should have access to firearms?
FYI why doesn't that militia you keep referencing allowed to keep their weapons on them and at their homes?

How did I lose? Simply because a false witness bearing right-winger says so. You need valid arguments not merely gossip, hearsay, or soothsay.

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

you keep repeating this same stuff and I ask you "DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN?"

You can't or you would present actual valid arguments for rebuttal instead of nonsequiturs which are usually considered fallacies.

Dude, you act as if all your post are forgotten from other threads they don't go away
You say don't regulate guns regulate gun lovers
You don't like the unorganized militia you believe the only militia is the national guard
You believe the only group that should have access to firearms is the government
So tell me do you know the meaning of George Mason's words?

Mason's quote supports my argument more than yours. Do You understand Mason's quote?

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.

You notice it does not claim the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

How do the words of George Mason support your position when you disliked pknopp post?
"It's really irrelevant. The Supreme Court ruled the 2nd applied to the people and that's unlikely to change for a long time."
pknopp and I have gone toe to toe a few times but he seems to understand what George Mason was saying you on the other hand not so much.

States are welcome to challenge that ruling whenever it is convenient. Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any judiciary who cannot explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means. Any legal error can be easily challenged.

Just as I said you do not know what you quote means
Do you believe George Mason would agree with you that a state can have restrictive gun laws?
Interesting you believe a state can suspend the 13th Amendment since the states have a tenth amendment right to do so?

Dude, you have nothing but appeals to ignorance and claiming that of me.

The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

BUT DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS? EXPLAIN IT TO ME

You explain it to Me. I am not the one appealing to ignorance, straw man fallacies or ad hominems. Ask (relevant) questions on where you don't understand the concept.

no you're the one that keeps repeating the cut and paste post
You really don't understand what it means.
It's not up to me to explain it to you it's up to you to show you actually understand what you are posting.

You don't really understand and refuse to ask questions. That is less ethical if not actually immoral. How right-wing of you.

 

[danielpalos]

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

There are limits on any and all rights.

For example, the second amendment only applies to public property. You do not have the right to bring weapons onto private property without permission from the owner.

I've done it countless times

When your concealed carry no one should see your firearm.
But to address your query I have every right to enter
since jo believe rights are not absolute he could start and demand we have a state run religion

Our Second Amendment absolutely states it is a well regulated militia that is Necessary to the security of a free State.

no the second amendment like all the bill of rights was given authority to the federal government
To ensure every citizens rights were protected 14th amendment

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.

Our Second Amendment clearly makes this a sovereign States' right:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

There are limits on any and all rights.

For example, the second amendment only applies to public property. You do not have the right to bring weapons onto private property without permission from the owner.

I've done it countless times
When your concealed carry no one should see your firearm.
But to address your query I have every right to enter
since jo believe rights are not absolute he could start and demand we have a state run religion

Our Second Amendment absolutely states it is a well regulated militia that is Necessary to the security of a free State.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on any federal firearms restrictions.
And while it does say that a reason for that is to ensure there is a well practiced militia there when needed, that in no way implies that is the only reason why federal firearms restrictions are banned.

A well regulated militia is also necessary for state protection, municipal posses, and individual home protection.

How did you reach that conclusion?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

lol so you believe only the government should have access to firearms?
FYI why doesn't that militia you keep referencing allowed to keep their weapons on them and at their homes?
3....2.....1....
DODGE AWAY

I know how to read.

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.

evidently, you don't and stop acting as if you've have lost this argument many times
lol so you believe only the government should have access to firearms?
FYI why doesn't that militia you keep referencing allowed to keep their weapons on them and at their homes?

How did I lose? Simply because a false witness bearing right-winger says so. You need valid arguments not merely gossip, hearsay, or soothsay.

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

you keep repeating this same stuff and I ask you "DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN?"

You can't or you would present actual valid arguments for rebuttal instead of nonsequiturs which are usually considered fallacies.

Dude, you act as if all your post are forgotten from other threads they don't go away
You say don't regulate guns regulate gun lovers
You don't like the unorganized militia you believe the only militia is the national guard
You believe the only group that should have access to firearms is the government
So tell me do you know the meaning of George Mason's words?

Mason's quote supports my argument more than yours. Do You understand Mason's quote?

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.

You notice it does not claim the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

How do the words of George Mason support your position when you disliked pknopp post?
"It's really irrelevant. The Supreme Court ruled the 2nd applied to the people and that's unlikely to change for a long time."
pknopp and I have gone toe to toe a few times but he seems to understand what George Mason was saying you on the other hand not so much.

States are welcome to challenge that ruling whenever it is convenient. Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any judiciary who cannot explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means. Any legal error can be easily challenged.

Just as I said you do not know what you quote means
Do you believe George Mason would agree with you that a state can have restrictive gun laws?
Interesting you believe a state can suspend the 13th Amendment since the states have a tenth amendment right to do so?

Dude, you have nothing but appeals to ignorance and claiming that of me.

The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

BUT DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS? EXPLAIN IT TO ME

You explain it to Me. I am not the one appealing to ignorance, straw man fallacies or ad hominems. Ask (relevant) questions on where you don't understand the concept.

no you're the one that keeps repeating the cut and paste post
You really don't understand what it means.
It's not up to me to explain it to you it's up to you to show you actually understand what you are posting.

You don't really understand and refuse to ask questions. That is less ethical if not actually immoral. How right-wing of you.

I've asked plenty of questions, why did you say I refuse to ask questions?
I've asked you many times do you understand what you are quoting?

 

[pknopp]

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

There are limits on any and all rights.

For example, the second amendment only applies to public property. You do not have the right to bring weapons onto private property without permission from the owner.

I've done it countless times
When your concealed carry no one should see your firearm.
But to address your query I have every right to enter
since jo believe rights are not absolute he could start and demand we have a state run religion

You can ignore the wishes of private property owners as long as you don't get caught.

I see this though mostly from those who would get very upset with someone doing it to their property.

when you find out if I am armed or not it's too late

Because you seem to believe the right to carry is the only right that matters. Screw your property rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

There are limits on any and all rights.

For example, the second amendment only applies to public property. You do not have the right to bring weapons onto private property without permission from the owner.

I've done it countless times

When your concealed carry no one should see your firearm.
But to address your query I have every right to enter
since jo believe rights are not absolute he could start and demand we have a state run religion

Our Second Amendment absolutely states it is a well regulated militia that is Necessary to the security of a free State.

no the second amendment like all the bill of rights was given authority to the federal government
To ensure every citizens rights were protected 14th amendment

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.

Our Second Amendment clearly makes this a sovereign States' right:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

it's not a sovereign state's right
the bill of rights is written in the U.S. Constitution which supersedes state laws.
14TH AMENDMENT.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

There are limits on any and all rights.

For example, the second amendment only applies to public property. You do not have the right to bring weapons onto private property without permission from the owner.

I've done it countless times
When your concealed carry no one should see your firearm.
But to address your query I have every right to enter
since jo believe rights are not absolute he could start and demand we have a state run religion

You can ignore the wishes of private property owners as long as you don't get caught.

I see this though mostly from those who would get very upset with someone doing it to their property.

when you find out if I am armed or not it's too late

Because you seem to believe the right to carry is the only right that matters. Screw your property rights.

WHICH IS OF GREAT VALUE PROPERTY OR HUMAN LIFE?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

There are limits on any and all rights.

For example, the second amendment only applies to public property. You do not have the right to bring weapons onto private property without permission from the owner.

I've done it countless times
When your concealed carry no one should see your firearm.
But to address your query I have every right to enter
since jo believe rights are not absolute he could start and demand we have a state run religion

Our Second Amendment absolutely states it is a well regulated militia that is Necessary to the security of a free State.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on any federal firearms restrictions.
And while it does say that a reason for that is to ensure there is a well practiced militia there when needed, that in no way implies that is the only reason why federal firearms restrictions are banned.

A well regulated militia is also necessary for state protection, municipal posses, and individual home protection.

How did you reach that conclusion?

Because the government has no rights the bill of rights is directives to the Federal government what it cannot do.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well, this could get interesting...

Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn&#821…

nypost.com

View attachment 478215

He's right....thus the 21st eliminating the 18th. Know your history.

Right. It takes an AMENDMENT to change the constitution.

 

[Flash]

Democrats hate the Constitution when it becomes an impediment to making the US a Socialist shithole.

 

[pknopp]

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

There are limits on any and all rights.

For example, the second amendment only applies to public property. You do not have the right to bring weapons onto private property without permission from the owner.

I've done it countless times
When your concealed carry no one should see your firearm.
But to address your query I have every right to enter
since jo believe rights are not absolute he could start and demand we have a state run religion

You can ignore the wishes of private property owners as long as you don't get caught.

I see this though mostly from those who would get very upset with someone doing it to their property.

when you find out if I am armed or not it's too late

Because you seem to believe the right to carry is the only right that matters. Screw your property rights.

WHICH IS OF GREAT VALUE PROPERTY OR HUMAN LIFE?

Irrelevant. People have property rights or they do not. You have NO respect for some rights which is every bit as bad as those who have no respect for other rights.

If you do not feel safe you are perfectly within your rights to stay off the property.

 

[danielpalos]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

lol so you believe only the government should have access to firearms?
FYI why doesn't that militia you keep referencing allowed to keep their weapons on them and at their homes?
3....2.....1....
DODGE AWAY

I know how to read.

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.

evidently, you don't and stop acting as if you've have lost this argument many times
lol so you believe only the government should have access to firearms?
FYI why doesn't that militia you keep referencing allowed to keep their weapons on them and at their homes?

How did I lose? Simply because a false witness bearing right-winger says so. You need valid arguments not merely gossip, hearsay, or soothsay.

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

you keep repeating this same stuff and I ask you "DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN?"

You can't or you would present actual valid arguments for rebuttal instead of nonsequiturs which are usually considered fallacies.

Dude, you act as if all your post are forgotten from other threads they don't go away
You say don't regulate guns regulate gun lovers
You don't like the unorganized militia you believe the only militia is the national guard
You believe the only group that should have access to firearms is the government
So tell me do you know the meaning of George Mason's words?

Mason's quote supports my argument more than yours. Do You understand Mason's quote?

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.

You notice it does not claim the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

How do the words of George Mason support your position when you disliked pknopp post?
"It's really irrelevant. The Supreme Court ruled the 2nd applied to the people and that's unlikely to change for a long time."
pknopp and I have gone toe to toe a few times but he seems to understand what George Mason was saying you on the other hand not so much.

States are welcome to challenge that ruling whenever it is convenient. Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any judiciary who cannot explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means. Any legal error can be easily challenged.

Just as I said you do not know what you quote means
Do you believe George Mason would agree with you that a state can have restrictive gun laws?
Interesting you believe a state can suspend the 13th Amendment since the states have a tenth amendment right to do so?

Dude, you have nothing but appeals to ignorance and claiming that of me.

The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

BUT DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS? EXPLAIN IT TO ME

You explain it to Me. I am not the one appealing to ignorance, straw man fallacies or ad hominems. Ask (relevant) questions on where you don't understand the concept.

no you're the one that keeps repeating the cut and paste post
You really don't understand what it means.
It's not up to me to explain it to you it's up to you to show you actually understand what you are posting.

You don't really understand and refuse to ask questions. That is less ethical if not actually immoral. How right-wing of you.

I've asked plenty of questions, why did you say I refuse to ask questions?
I've asked you many times do you understand what you are quoting?

I understand everything I argue. Why don't you ask relevant questions instead of simply making stuff up like the less ethical Right-Wing is wont to do by custom and habit?

 

[Rigby5]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

lol so you believe only the government should have access to firearms?
FYI why doesn't that militia you keep referencing allowed to keep their weapons on them and at their homes?
3....2.....1....
DODGE AWAY

I know how to read.

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.

evidently, you don't and stop acting as if you've have lost this argument many times
lol so you believe only the government should have access to firearms?
FYI why doesn't that militia you keep referencing allowed to keep their weapons on them and at their homes?

How did I lose? Simply because a false witness bearing right-winger says so. You need valid arguments not merely gossip, hearsay, or soothsay.

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

you keep repeating this same stuff and I ask you "DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN?"

You can't or you would present actual valid arguments for rebuttal instead of nonsequiturs which are usually considered fallacies.

Dude, you act as if all your post are forgotten from other threads they don't go away
You say don't regulate guns regulate gun lovers
You don't like the unorganized militia you believe the only militia is the national guard
You believe the only group that should have access to firearms is the government
So tell me do you know the meaning of George Mason's words?

Mason's quote supports my argument more than yours. Do You understand Mason's quote?

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.

You notice it does not claim the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

How do the words of George Mason support your position when you disliked pknopp post?
"It's really irrelevant. The Supreme Court ruled the 2nd applied to the people and that's unlikely to change for a long time."
pknopp and I have gone toe to toe a few times but he seems to understand what George Mason was saying you on the other hand not so much.

States are welcome to challenge that ruling whenever it is convenient. Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any judiciary who cannot explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means. Any legal error can be easily challenged.

Just as I said you do not know what you quote means
Do you believe George Mason would agree with you that a state can have restrictive gun laws?
Interesting you believe a state can suspend the 13th Amendment since the states have a tenth amendment right to do so?

Dude, you have nothing but appeals to ignorance and claiming that of me.

The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

BUT DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS? EXPLAIN IT TO ME

You explain it to Me. I am not the one appealing to ignorance, straw man fallacies or ad hominems. Ask (relevant) questions on where you don't understand the concept.

It is very easy.
The fact the 2nd amendment implies there is one reason why the federal government is to have no jurisdiction over firearms, does not at all imply there are not many other reasons of equal or even greater importance.

Here is an analogy.

Commerce and and transportation being important to the national economy, the federal government shall not interfere with interstate commerce or transportation.

That means the federal government can't start setting speed limits on interstate highways.
But that does not imply that states of municipalities can't set some reasonable speed limits on local roads or interstate highways.

I would use a real example, except that the 2nd amendment is the only one that bothers to give any reason at all.
But again, no reasons are necesssary, and the existence of one does not in any way imply there are not also many more.

 

[danielpalos]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

lol so you believe only the government should have access to firearms?
FYI why doesn't that militia you keep referencing allowed to keep their weapons on them and at their homes?
3....2.....1....
DODGE AWAY

I know how to read.

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.

evidently, you don't and stop acting as if you've have lost this argument many times
lol so you believe only the government should have access to firearms?
FYI why doesn't that militia you keep referencing allowed to keep their weapons on them and at their homes?

How did I lose? Simply because a false witness bearing right-winger says so. You need valid arguments not merely gossip, hearsay, or soothsay.

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

you keep repeating this same stuff and I ask you "DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN?"

You can't or you would present actual valid arguments for rebuttal instead of nonsequiturs which are usually considered fallacies.

Dude, you act as if all your post are forgotten from other threads they don't go away
You say don't regulate guns regulate gun lovers
You don't like the unorganized militia you believe the only militia is the national guard
You believe the only group that should have access to firearms is the government
So tell me do you know the meaning of George Mason's words?

Mason's quote supports my argument more than yours. Do You understand Mason's quote?

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.

You notice it does not claim the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

How do the words of George Mason support your position when you disliked pknopp post?
"It's really irrelevant. The Supreme Court ruled the 2nd applied to the people and that's unlikely to change for a long time."
pknopp and I have gone toe to toe a few times but he seems to understand what George Mason was saying you on the other hand not so much.

States are welcome to challenge that ruling whenever it is convenient. Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any judiciary who cannot explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means. Any legal error can be easily challenged.

Just as I said you do not know what you quote means
Do you believe George Mason would agree with you that a state can have restrictive gun laws?
Interesting you believe a state can suspend the 13th Amendment since the states have a tenth amendment right to do so?

Dude, you have nothing but appeals to ignorance and claiming that of me.

The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

BUT DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS? EXPLAIN IT TO ME

You explain it to Me. I am not the one appealing to ignorance, straw man fallacies or ad hominems. Ask (relevant) questions on where you don't understand the concept.

It is very easy.
The fact the 2nd amendment implies there is one reason why the federal government is to have no jurisdiction over firearms, does not at all imply there are not many other reasons of equal or even greater importance.

Here is an analogy.

Commerce and and transportation being important to the national economy, the federal government shall not interfere with interstate commerce or transportation.

That means the federal government can't start setting speed limits on interstate highways.
But that does not imply that states of municipalities can't set some reasonable speed limits on local roads or interstate highways.

I would use a real example, except that the 2nd amendment is the only one that bothers to give any reason at all.
But again, no reasons are necesssary, and the existence of one does not in any way imply there are not also many more.

I agree to disagree. Our Second Amendment is clear and unambiguous in any way. And, our supreme law of the land is express not implied in any way.

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.

Our Second Amendment clearly states what is necessary to the security of a free State.

And, our federal Congress is delegated this authority regarding federal districts:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-And

 

[Leviticus]

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

There are limits on any and all rights.

For example, the second amendment only applies to public property. You do not have the right to bring weapons onto private property without permission from the owner.

I've done it countless times
When your concealed carry no one should see your firearm.
But to address your query I have every right to enter
since jo believe rights are not absolute he could start and demand we have a state run religion

Bars in Indiana are allowed to require customers to submit to a weapon search before being allowed in. So concealed or not, you can't brings weapon in.

 

[DJT for Life]

He's correct.

Well, this could get interesting...

Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn&#821…

nypost.com

View attachment 478215

He's correct.

However no amendment can be removed from the constitution without a constitutional vote.
Let-s see... 2/3's of the House, 2/3's of the Senate and 3/4"s of the states.

Good Luck, Joe.

that would mean the government can mandate a state-controlled religion

IF it would pass a constitutional convention. It would.

Passing a consitutional convention is no easy task. Even getting a constitutional convention to be held
is becoming almost impossible.

Anything in the constitution can be changed, but it damn well is going to have to be a no-brainer, in advance.

incorrect if amendments are not absolute then any can be changed at any given time. Therefore if a president says we need a state religion we can have one according to jo "no amendment is absolute" Biden

BUT an Amendment to the Constitution can be amended or replace with a new amendment, if it follows the
constitutional formula.