Equal Protection Under The Constitution

[Wildman]

Unless the owner of said firearm is a member of "A Well Regulated Militia." which is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states as a requirement to possessing such a weapon

once more you ******* libertards have no understanding of the 2nd Amdt., can you read my avatar ? if not i'll write it so you and all libertards can read it,
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

is that clear ?

 

[Political Junky]

Bigots on the Right just keep repeating the same arguments, but they've lost ... it's the law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bigots on the Right just keep repeating the same arguments, but they've lost ... it's the law.

What's the law?

That the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home?

Yes, that IS the law.

How do you then describe people that refuse to believe this?

 

[bravoactual]

Unless the owner of said firearm is a member of "A Well Regulated Militia." which is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states as a requirement to possessing such a weapon

once more you ******* libertards have no understanding of the 2nd Amdt., can you read my avatar ? if not i'll write it so you and all libertards can read it,
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

is that clear ?

You failed to include the first part of the 2nd Amendment.

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary For The Security of A Free State, The Right of The People To Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed."

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.....

To own a Firearm you must be a member of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA..

 

[bravoactual]

Yes. Unless the owner of said firearm is a member of "A Well Regulated Militia." which is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states as a requirement to possessing such a weapon

Your copy must differ from the one in the national archives.
I've seen that one -- it says no such thing.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home -- no matter how much you wan to believe otherwise.

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary For The Security of A Free State, The Right of The People To Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed".

That is the full text of the 2nd. Amendment.

A Well Regualted Militia....

 

[danielpalos]

Yes. Unless the owner of said firearm is a member of "A Well Regulated Militia." which is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states as a requirement to possessing such a weapon

Your copy must differ from the one in the national archives.
I've seen that one -- it says no such thing.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home -- no matter how much you wan to believe otherwise.

Rights in even controversial forms of private property (declared inalienable or indefeasible in State Constitutions) must be distinguished from a collective right of the militia of the United States to not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their or the Union in order to faithfully execute the laws of the several United States or the general government.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes. Unless the owner of said firearm is a member of "A Well Regulated Militia." which is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states as a requirement to possessing such a weapon

Your copy must differ from the one in the national archives.
I've seen that one -- it says no such thing.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home -- no matter how much you wan to believe otherwise.

Rights in even controversial forms of private property (declared inalienable or indefeasible in State Constitutions) must be distinguished from a collective right of the militia of the United States to not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their or the Union in order to faithfully execute the laws of the several United States or the general government.

Your statement runs afoul of the Volker Rule and the Fibonacci Series.

 

[danielpalos]

Unless the owner of said firearm is a member of "A Well Regulated Militia." which is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states as a requirement to possessing such a weapon

once more you ******* libertards have no understanding of the 2nd Amdt., can you read my avatar ? if not i'll write it so you and all libertards can read it,
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

is that clear ?

Dude, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; our Civil War proved it beyond any shadow of any doubt. Insurrectionists and Rebels of the People may always be Infringed, simply for being Punks to the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

 

[The Rabbi]

Unless the owner of said firearm is a member of "A Well Regulated Militia." which is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states as a requirement to possessing such a weapon

once more you ******* libertards have no understanding of the 2nd Amdt., can you read my avatar ? if not i'll write it so you and all libertards can read it,
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

is that clear ?

Dude, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; our Civil War proved it beyond any shadow of any doubt. Insurrectionists and Rebels of the People may always be Infringed, simply for being Punks to the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

That does not accord with Moore's Law or the Exclusionary Doctrine.

 

[bravoactual]

Unless the owner of said firearm is a member of "A Well Regulated Militia." which is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states as a requirement to possessing such a weapon

once more you ******* libertards have no understanding of the 2nd Amdt., can you read my avatar ? if not i'll write it so you and all libertards can read it,
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

is that clear ?

Dude, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; our Civil War proved it beyond any shadow of any doubt. Insurrectionists and Rebels of the People may always be Infringed, simply for being Punks to the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Dud, I was using the exact, full and complete text of the 2nd. Amendment. You did not.

"A Well Regulated Militia" you neglected that part.

Gun owners is predicated on those 4-words.

 

[Kosh]

Bigots on the Right just keep repeating the same arguments, but they've lost ... it's the law.

The far left does it all the time, yet they keep droning on..

 

[M14 Shooter]

To own a Firearm you must be a member of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA..

^^^
This is a lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary For The Security of A Free State, The Right of The People To Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed".
That is the full text of the 2nd. Amendment.
A Well Regualted Militia....

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
You can refuse to believe this; it means you choose to be wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unless the owner of said firearm is a member of "A Well Regulated Militia." which is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states as a requirement to possessing such a weapon

once more you ******* libertards have no understanding of the 2nd Amdt., can you read my avatar ? if not i'll write it so you and all libertards can read it,
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

is that clear ?

Dude, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; our Civil War proved it beyond any shadow of any doubt. Insurrectionists and Rebels of the People may always be Infringed, simply for being Punks to the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Dud, I was using the exact, full and complete text of the 2nd. Amendment. You did not.

"A Well Regulated Militia" you neglected that part.

Gun owners is predicated on those 4-words.

We'll add grammar to things you know nothing about. The 2A does not protect a state's right to have a militia.

 

[bravoactual]

Bigots on the Right just keep repeating the same arguments, but they've lost ... it's the law.

The far left does it all the time, yet they keep droning on..

I'm not the one using bigotry as a vechile to deny people The Right To Marry, that totally on the Right.

I love how the far right is all about their Constitutional Rights, but are more than will to deny others their Constitutional Rights.

 

[Kosh]

Bigots on the Right just keep repeating the same arguments, but they've lost ... it's the law.

The far left does it all the time, yet they keep droning on..

I'm not the one using bigotry as a vechile to deny people The Right To Marry, that totally on the Right.

I love how the far right is all about their Constitutional Rights, but are more than will to deny others their Constitutional Rights.

Yes marriage is not a "right", unless you will allow people to marry one or multiple people, but this was not about a "right" is was about punishment on the church and the far left one step closer to making the bible hate speech..

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bigots on the Right just keep repeating the same arguments, but they've lost ... it's the law.

The far left does it all the time, yet they keep droning on..

I'm not the one using bigotry as a vechile to deny people The Right To Marry, that totally on the Right.

I love how the far right is all about their Constitutional Rights, but are more than will to deny others their Constitutional Rights.

Yes marriage is not a "right"

The fact that it is created by the state and does not exist save for the state laws that so created it, it cannot be a right.
Not sure why people do not understand this.

 

[kaz]

So we will see all forms of marriage occur as you can't say no...Right? Brother and sister? Mother and son??? 3 wifes and two husbands??? You're a bigot if you say no as it goes against equal protection.

Ah Yes, the Incest Fallacy.

YOU do not have the Right To Impose YOUR Religious/Personal Morals or Values on others.

Your argument has no sound basis or use of logic in it.

The Right to Marry granted by the State, NOT by the Church.

YOUR a bigot if you believe YOU have the to decided for YOURSELF who can and/or cannot get married.

Marriage is Civil Right, NOT a Religious Right.

YOUR Religious Freedom does not trump the Equal Protection Clause.

YOUR Rights are just as equal as mine, or my younger sister who is a Lesbian.
YOU do not have the Right to decide who can and cannot be married.

As for incest, not exactly valid because as I recall incest was a primary means of procreation after Adam Eve, as their Sons and Daughters did procreate and that would have been through incest.

And that's you losing the argument.

Gays: Equal protection means you can marry who you want.

Except when you can't.

As determined by you...

Shown you never made a logical argument for anything. Either government defines government marriage or the people do. You can pick one, but you can't mix and match and have any intellectual integrity, which of course you have no intellectual integrity, you just want gay government marriage

 

[Derideo_Te]

Bigots on the Right just keep repeating the same arguments, but they've lost ... it's the law.

The far left does it all the time, yet they keep droning on..

I'm not the one using bigotry as a vechile to deny people The Right To Marry, that totally on the Right.

I love how the far right is all about their Constitutional Rights, but are more than will to deny others their Constitutional Rights.

Yes marriage is not a "right"

The fact that it is created by the state and does not exist save for the state laws that so created it, it cannot be a right.
Not sure why people do not understand this.

DOMA was a Federal Law but don't let your ignorance stand in the way of your ranting.

 

[Kosh]

Bigots on the Right just keep repeating the same arguments, but they've lost ... it's the law.

The far left does it all the time, yet they keep droning on..

I'm not the one using bigotry as a vechile to deny people The Right To Marry, that totally on the Right.

I love how the far right is all about their Constitutional Rights, but are more than will to deny others their Constitutional Rights.

Yes marriage is not a "right"

The fact that it is created by the state and does not exist save for the state laws that so created it, it cannot be a right.
Not sure why people do not understand this.

DOMA was a Federal Law but don't let your ignorance stand in the way of your ranting.

Says the far left drone that supports Obama illegal wars and voted twice for Obama.