Biden says “No Amendment to the Constitution is absolute”

[bigrebnc1775]

There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.

Ownership of firearms is a Federal RIGHT per the 2nd amendment, militia participation or not is not a requirement.

Not true. Criminals of the People get Infringed all the time. Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

how many troops in the California national guard keep and take their firearms home with them?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

 

[danielpalos]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

Understand, you will NEVER disarm Americans, you can try

You are right since Americans must form the militia. The no longer Americans of the former Confederacy were disarmed to prove that only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms.

 

[danielpalos]

well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?

Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.

Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.

why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?

We do. You simply appeal to ignorance, like right-wingers are wont to do by custom and habit.

that's not the militia because they can't KEEP and bear arms

So, if I prove you wrong are you going to publicly quit the right-wing and acknowledge you used to be a right-winger and used to have a right-wing problem?

you been proven wrong so many times
THE MILITARY YOU SPAEK OF CAN'T KEEP THEIR WEAPONS AND TAKE THEM HOME

Show us the law, right winger. You seem to have nothing but false witness bearing instead of any valid and rational arguments.

show me where the military in California can keep their firearms and take them home?
the right of the people to KEEP and Bear arms

It has to cost You something, right-winger.

So, if I prove you wrong are you going to publicly quit the right-wing and acknowledge you used to be a right-winger and used to have a right-wing problem?

no dumbass put up or shut the fuck up
Show us where troops in California can keep their weapons and take them home if not they are not part of any militia

Thanks for playing.

still waiting on your results
HOW MANY TROOPS IN CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD KEEP THEIR FIREARMS AND TAKE THEM HOME?

You have no standing anymore.

 

[danielpalos]

The left tells us: We need sensible gun control like Mr. Hitler's Germany. He only disarmed the people he planned on killing

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.

 

[pknopp]

well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?

Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.

Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.

why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?

There are 121,000 law enforcement officers and all these marine and army bases. I'm sure they're all armed and well regulated.

But they are not part of the militia and no one in the military can keep their firearms with them

There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.

yes there is it's called the second amendment 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.

Unfortunately it's many 2nd Amendment supporters that don't seem to understand this.

So only the cops and government should have guns, just like in every otger free country, like um, North Korea, Cuba, China

I have no clue as to why you would reply this way to my reply.

When the cops blast someone because they say they saw a gun, like say Philando Castile you get people cheering the cops. Many of these people support 2nd Amendment rights for themselves.

As long as cops can kill you because they believe they see a gun, we do not have our rights being protected.

You know, Ammon Bundy understood this.

You sound moronic as if the 2A gets people killed

I clearly stated that the cops not respecting your 2nd Amendment rights get you killed.

 

[danielpalos]

well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?

Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.

Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.

why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?

There are 121,000 law enforcement officers and all these marine and army bases. I'm sure they're all armed and well regulated.

But they are not part of the militia and no one in the military can keep their firearms with them

There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.

yes there is it's called the second amendment 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.

Unfortunately it's many 2nd Amendment supporters that don't seem to understand this.

So only the cops and government should have guns, just like in every other free country, like um, North Korea, Cuba, China

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.

 

[pknopp]

well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?

Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.

Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.

why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?

There are 121,000 law enforcement officers and all these marine and army bases. I'm sure they're all armed and well regulated.

But they are not part of the militia and no one in the military can keep their firearms with them

There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.

yes there is it's called the second amendment 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.

Unfortunately it's many 2nd Amendment supporters that don't seem to understand this.

thing is you are clueless
I've gone through many out of state license checks and told the officer I was armed and I've never been shot
When you don't make threatening action against the police you don't get shot.
Change my mind

You are white, right? Philando Castile made NO threatening actions.

 

[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.

The late Antonin Scalia disagreed with you. I suppose he is a liberal.

fyi
the bill of rights is a restriction on the federal government
It dictates what it's supposed to do
it is not a suggestion but a directive

 

[Leo123]

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.

Yeah where is the firearm ownership prohibition?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?

Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.

Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.

why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?

There are 121,000 law enforcement officers and all these marine and army bases. I'm sure they're all armed and well regulated.

But they are not part of the militia and no one in the military can keep their firearms with them

There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.

yes there is it's called the second amendment 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.

Unfortunately it's many 2nd Amendment supporters that don't seem to understand this.

So only the cops and government should have guns, just like in every other free country, like um, North Korea, Cuba, China

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.

if it's an obligation of all persons to defend and protect the state how do you suggest the people do it without firearms of their own?

 

[danielpalos]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

 

[CrusaderFrank]

well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?

Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.

Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.

why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?

There are 121,000 law enforcement officers and all these marine and army bases. I'm sure they're all armed and well regulated.

But they are not part of the militia and no one in the military can keep their firearms with them

There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.

yes there is it's called the second amendment 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.

Unfortunately it's many 2nd Amendment supporters that don't seem to understand this.

So only the cops and government should have guns, just like in every other free country, like um, North Korea, Cuba, China

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.

how would unarmed people defend their State?

 

[danielpalos]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

 

[Leo123]

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Marxist Danny uses 'Rules For Radicals' to make up his own definitions. Thanks for the link....CNN no less

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the fuck is wellness of regulation?

 

[danielpalos]

well then why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?

Danny is trying to conflate rights in individual states with federal rights, he's a marxist tool.

Leo merely has lousy reading, word knowledge, and comprehension skills.

why is it that California does not have a well-regulated militia?

There are 121,000 law enforcement officers and all these marine and army bases. I'm sure they're all armed and well regulated.

But they are not part of the militia and no one in the military can keep their firearms with them

There is no requirement to keep your firearms to be in a militia. A militia is a group of people trained to fight as soldiers, the term can have a range of meanings depending on context.

yes there is it's called the second amendment 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.

Unfortunately it's many 2nd Amendment supporters that don't seem to understand this.

So only the cops and government should have guns, just like in every other free country, like um, North Korea, Cuba, China

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.

how would unarmed people defend their State?

You are the one begging that question. How did reach that conclusion without appealing to ignorance of Constitutional law?

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[Leo123]

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

Then why to you appeal to ignorance? Just STFU Mr. Marxist you've been outed.

 

[Leo123]

what in the fuck is wellness of regulation?

Marxist word salad that's what it is.