Do you notice how RWs never establish a line on their 2nd amendment rights?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions, not in our Second Amendment.

...and?

The Constitution and Bill of Rights is a limitation on the federal government.

What point are you failing to make?

 

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions, not in our Second Amendment.

...and?

The Constitution and Bill of Rights is a limitation no the federal government.

What point are you failing to make?

Our federal Constitution is about Due Process, not Natural Rights. that is the point gun lovers always fail to grasp.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

yes, dear. Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia are not. Only one subset of the militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

What the ****? What is "well regulated" you motherfucking idiot. It has NOTHING to do with organization. You are making shit up AGAIN.

Nobody (most importantly the SCOTUS) buys your stupid argument.

Give it up. You are a stupid ****.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our federal Constitution is about Due Process, not Natural Rights. that is the point gun lovers always fail to grasp.

Who gives a rat ****? That does not help your stupid argument.

The Constitution is a limit on federal government. What the **** is your idiotic point. It makes no goddamn difference.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, dear. Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia are not. Only one subset of the militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

What the ****? What is "well regulated" you motherfucking idiot. It has NOTHING to do with organization. You are making shit up AGAIN.

Nobody (most importantly the SCOTUS) buys your stupid argument.

Give it up. You are a stupid ****.

You are simply clueless and Causeless.

Only one subset of the militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It is not, gun lovers with no clue and no Cause.

 

[danielpalos]

Our federal Constitution is about Due Process, not Natural Rights. that is the point gun lovers always fail to grasp.

Who gives a rat ****? That does not help your stupid argument.

The Constitution is a limit on federal government. What the **** is your idiotic point. It makes no goddamn difference.

Our federal Constitution is about Due Process, not Natural Rights. that is the point gun lovers always fail to grasp.

Who gives a rat ****? That does not help your stupid argument.

The Constitution is a limit on federal government. What the **** is your idiotic point. It makes no goddamn difference.

Yes, one limit is the necessity of well regulated militia, not gun lovers who are without clue and without Cause.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, one limit is the necessity of well regulated militia, not gun lovers who are without clue and without Cause.

The limit is on THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Not the people.


You don't know what the **** you are arguing, do you?

without clue and without Cause.

What communist organization gave you this stupid phrase to parrot around like it means something?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only one subset of the militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Tell me, when you read "shall not be infringed" who do you think the founders were concerned about doing the infringing?

You don't know what your arguments are. Some other idiot told you what to say and you are ******* it up.


No cause or clue? Who told you to say that?

Cause = maintaining liberty

Is that enough of a cause for you, cocksmoke?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, one limit is the necessity of well regulated militia, not gun lovers who are without clue and without Cause.

The limit is on THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Not the people.


You don't know what the **** you are arguing, do you?

without clue and without Cause.

What communist organization gave you this stupid phrase to parrot around like it means something?

nope; it is about what is necessary to the security of a free State. It does not condone, Anarchy.

 

[danielpalos]

Only one subset of the militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Tell me, when you read "shall not be infringed" who do you think the founders were concerned about doing the infringing?

You don't know what your arguments are. Some other idiot told you what to say and you are ******* it up.


No cause or clue? Who told you to say that?

Cause = maintaining liberty

Is that enough of a cause for you, cocksmoke?

Only well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

For You and the clueless and Causeless right wing to be correct, the first clause would have been omitted.

 

[sakinago]

RWs have a child-like fantasy when it comes to guns. They delude themselves into dreaming of one day being an armed hero. This can range from taking down a home intruder to shooting fascist thugs trying to steal their liberty! The truth of the matter is that when it comes to pulling the trigger, many wouid puss out in such situations. The idea of it just gives them the feels so they insist on no gun control whatsoever.

Of course, what question they can’t answer is where they draw the line.

Do they want ANYONE to be able to carry fully automatic weapons anywhere, anytime? If that hypothetical is answered as a “no”, then what does that say about their 2nd amendment rights? It’s fallacious thinking, but these are republicans afterall.

A. Do you really claim to know the entire mindset of every single gun owner in America? Your statement is an absolute gross, and completely delusional generalization. I remember when we were taught it’s both morally and intellectually wrong to make generalizations, boy how I miss those days.

B. Many who do understand the meaning and intention of the 2nd amendment will tell you yes, owning automatics is not only fine, but the regulation on them is unconstitutional (which even Ivy League anti-gun constitutional law professors agree with). The 2nd is not about self defense, but making sure that the state does not have a monopoly of force against its citizens. Even with the good intentions of increasing “security” the state will eventually use that monopoly and turn on its people. As we’ve seen over and over and over throughout history, not only before the constitution, but since. “Those who wish to trade liberty with security deserve and get neither.”

After all the Swiss have a full auto in every closet, and if they decide that their full auto assault rifle goes really well with their outfit that day, they can take it with them to run errands. No one is scared, nobody runs for the hills, the cops aren’t on edge. And Switzerland has consistently top 3 safest countries on the planet, for a long time. So do citizens with full autos really make the world around us more dangerous? The Swiss are ISSUED full auto assault rifles should they choose to keep them. Where is all of their crime and mass shootings?

Clearly guns are not the issue.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

But, it said, the right of the people shall not be infringed, not the right of the militia.

You love to ignore that part.

******* commie.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

But, it said, the right of the people shall not be infringed, not the right of the militia.

You love to ignore that part.

******* commie.

I don't ignore anything, unlike the clueless and Causeless wonders on the right wing.

The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

There is No Thing concerning the whole and entire concept of Natural Rights, in our Second Article of Amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Libertarian interpretation:
Because an unofficial civilian army is necessary to keep government from enslaving and ass-raping the people, the right of individuals to keep and openly carry arms shall not be infringed by the federal government, and thanks to the 14th Amendment, shall not be infringed by any state or local government.

Retaded asswipe pinko commie interpretation:
Only the non-existent collective may posses any firearm, but only when that mythical collective is organized into a form called a militia, which form can never exist, and only when that militia is the national guard, and only when the planets are aligned on a starless night.

 

[danielpalos]

Libertarian interpretation:
Because an unofficial civilian army is necessary to keep government from enslaving and ass-raping the people, the right of individuals to keep and openly carry arms shall not be infringed by the federal government, and thanks to the 14th Amendment, shall not be infringed by any state or local government.

Retaded asswipe pinko commie interpretation:
Only the non-existent collective may posses any firearm, but only when that mythical collective is organized into a form called a militia, which form can never exist, and only when that militia is the national guard, and only when the planets are aligned on a starless night.

Did you know, it probably took right wing think tanks a long time, to come up with nothing but political Jargon for dictionary definitions of variations of Socialism, with our Mixed-Market economy.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.

Our Second Article of Amendment cannot do what is claimed by the right wing, simply Because, it is not a Constitution unto itself.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Only well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

But, it said, the right of the people shall not be infringed, not the right of the militia.

You love to ignore that part.

******* commie.

I wonder what the opinion of a conservative justice would be on that point. If only there were a way to know. I wonder if that means it's an unlimited right?

 

[sakinago]

yes, dear. Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia are not. Only one subset of the militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

What the ****? What is "well regulated" you motherfucking idiot. It has NOTHING to do with organization. You are making shit up AGAIN.

Nobody (most importantly the SCOTUS) buys your stupid argument.

Give it up. You are a stupid ****.

You are simply clueless and Causeless.

Only one subset of the militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It is not, gun lovers with no clue and no Cause.

Oh god this argument again...So your saying in the context of the BOR, which were all negative rights imposed onto the government. And the context of the times, where the PEOPLE, had to stand up to the STATE, that was trying to DISARM them. So in that context, you’re trying to claim that the founders put in an amendment to insure the right of the government to keep and bear arms, and that the right of the government to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Not to mention the militia is a completely different animal than the government controlled and ran standing army...which the founder were very very wary against, and actually originally banned during peace time. The militia was always locally sourced and CIVILIAN controlled, not controlled by the state. And when they did institute a standing army, they emphasized the importance of the militia as a counterbalance to the fed ran standing army, and the individual state ran national guards.

Anti-gun Ivy League, constitional law professors agree that the 2nd amendment is very clear, and it’s a right to and for the people, and the reason why the militia is necassary is to counterbalance the state. So government does not have a monopoly of force.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

But, it said, the right of the people shall not be infringed, not the right of the militia.

You love to ignore that part.

******* commie.

I wonder what the opinion of a conservative justice would be on that point. If only there were a way to know. I wonder if that means it's an unlimited right?

10USC246 is federal law. The right is willing to indulge the moral turpitude of appealing to ignorance of the law. And, claim we need Ten Commandments in the courtroom.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, dear. Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia are not. Only one subset of the militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

What the ****? What is "well regulated" you motherfucking idiot. It has NOTHING to do with organization. You are making shit up AGAIN.

Nobody (most importantly the SCOTUS) buys your stupid argument.

Give it up. You are a stupid ****.

You are simply clueless and Causeless.

Only one subset of the militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It is not, gun lovers with no clue and no Cause.

Oh god this argument again...So your saying in the context of the BOR, which were all negative rights imposed onto the government. And the context of the times, where the PEOPLE, had to stand up to the STATE, that was trying to DISARM them. So in that context, you’re trying to claim that the founders put in an amendment to insure the right of the government to keep and bear arms, and that the right of the government to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Not to mention the militia is a completely different animal than the government controlled and ran standing army...which the founder were very very wary against, and actually originally banned during peace time. The militia was always locally sourced and CIVILIAN controlled, not controlled by the state. And when they did institute a standing army, they emphasized the importance of the militia as a counterbalance to the fed ran standing army, and the individual state ran national guards.

Anti-gun Ivy League, constitional law professors agree that the 2nd amendment is very clear, and it’s a right to and for the people, and the reason why the militia is necassary is to counterbalance the state. So government does not have a monopoly of force.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Well regulated militia of the People, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be Infringed.

The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State; the unorganized miltia of the people, is not necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

10USC246 is federal law. The right is willing to indulge the moral turpitude of appealing to ignorance of the law. And, claim we need Ten Commandments in the courtroom.

Son, do you even know what "moral turpitude" means? Do you even know what the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy is and how to identify it?

You are rattling off these buzzwords while apparently not understanding their meaning, based on the way you are improperly using them.

Do you even know the purpose of 10 U.S.C. 246?

Here is the TEXT of 10 U.S.C. 246:

§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

No matter what, all are militia of THE UNITED STATES.

AND, no matter what, that does not change the 2nd Amendment.

A (not the) A well regulated militia...and a partrige in a pear tree, because it still has no up or down restriction on the second party of the amendment:

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Are you arguing that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer protected because there is a United States militia (note, not a State militia)? No, I think you have no clue what you are arguing.

You have no point. You have no arguments. You are parroting bullshit you heard from some other ass clown who has no point or argument.

What is the militia (not the codified version you cite in the U.S. Code)?