Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[WinterBorn]

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.

Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.

They are, in fact, amendments to the US Constitution. That makes them part of the US Constitutions.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.

Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.

OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.

You have to understand how delusional Daniel actually is. He insists that out individual rights come from the state constitutions, and that the US Constitution is largely powerless.

 

[Pop23]

The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

Actually, I think an armed civilian population could fare reasonably well against our gov't. First of all, you are correct that our military could decimate a population armed with small arms. But would they be able to do so without decimating the entire civilian population? Remember the uproar when our military shot up unarmed civilians in Iraq? Now imagine that being US citizens. The armed population would blend in with the rest of the population. It would not be a matter of defeating the US military, but doing enough damage to force them to engage and then take enough damage to force public opinion into the equation.

Can you imagine England, France, Poland, Canada or the other NATO countries standing by while the United States Military bombed Dallas, Omaha or Cleveland?

Highly unlikely.

 

[WinterBorn]

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

Let's clarify things, shall we?

According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
"Definition of amend
transitive verb
1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (something, such as a text)

• amended the manuscript

2 a : to change or modify (something) for the better : improve

• amend the situation

b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition

• amend a constitution"

This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document. This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution. And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.

Then, why does the right wing imply, our Second Article of Amendment is a Constitution unto itself; instead of merely the the second Article which happens to amend a point about the security needs of a free State.

No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind. Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.

 

[danielpalos]

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.

Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.

OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.

You have to understand how delusional Daniel actually is. He insists that out individual rights come from the state constitutions, and that the US Constitution is largely powerless.

lol. You don't know what you are talking about. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric concerning natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.

Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.

They are, in fact, amendments to the US Constitution. That makes them part of the US Constitutions.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Here is what our Second Amendment, amends:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

Let's clarify things, shall we?

According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
"Definition of amend
transitive verb
1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (something, such as a text)

• amended the manuscript

2 a : to change or modify (something) for the better : improve

• amend the situation

b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition

• amend a constitution"

This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document. This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution. And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.

Then, why does the right wing imply, our Second Article of Amendment is a Constitution unto itself; instead of merely the the second Article which happens to amend a point about the security needs of a free State.

No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind. Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.

 

[Pop23]

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.

Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.

They are, in fact, amendments to the US Constitution. That makes them part of the US Constitutions.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Here is what our Second Amendment, amends:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

Opinion noted


and rejected

 

[WinterBorn]

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.

Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.

OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.

You have to understand how delusional Daniel actually is. He insists that out individual rights come from the state constitutions, and that the US Constitution is largely powerless.

lol. You don't know what you are talking about. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric concerning natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

I understand quite well.

Between the US Constitution and any state constitutions, you only have to look at which one is the standard and which one has to follow that standard.

The US Constitution is the standard and the law of the land.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.

Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.

They are, in fact, amendments to the US Constitution. That makes them part of the US Constitutions.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Here is what our Second Amendment, amends:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

Opinion noted


and rejected

lol. simple rejection is not a valid refutation.

fallacy, is all the right wing can muster, apparently.

 

[danielpalos]

It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.

Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.

OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.

You have to understand how delusional Daniel actually is. He insists that out individual rights come from the state constitutions, and that the US Constitution is largely powerless.

lol. You don't know what you are talking about. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric concerning natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

I understand quite well.

Between the US Constitution and any state constitutions, you only have to look at which one is the standard and which one has to follow that standard.

The US Constitution is the standard and the law of the land.

yet, the right wing claims, the second clause of the second article, is what really really matters, regardless of what the rest of our Constitution says.

 

[WinterBorn]

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

Let's clarify things, shall we?

According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
"Definition of amend
transitive verb
1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (something, such as a text)

• amended the manuscript

2 a : to change or modify (something) for the better : improve

• amend the situation

b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition

• amend a constitution"

This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document. This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution. And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.

Then, why does the right wing imply, our Second Article of Amendment is a Constitution unto itself; instead of merely the the second Article which happens to amend a point about the security needs of a free State.

No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind. Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.

Your reply has little or no content.

I have no appealed to ignorance at all. I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions. And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.

The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.

 

[WinterBorn]

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.

OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.

You have to understand how delusional Daniel actually is. He insists that out individual rights come from the state constitutions, and that the US Constitution is largely powerless.

lol. You don't know what you are talking about. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric concerning natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

I understand quite well.

Between the US Constitution and any state constitutions, you only have to look at which one is the standard and which one has to follow that standard.

The US Constitution is the standard and the law of the land.

yet, the right wing claims, the second clause of the second article, is what really really matters, regardless of what the rest of our Constitution says.

Who has claimed this? Show me an example. (like THAT will happen)

And what does the rest of our constitution say that contradicts the 2nd amendment?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917. I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US. Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of a chance. Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.

The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850. AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them. Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.

I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment. What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current. Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.

One citizen no

How abut a few million citizens?

How about that ^^^:

Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms able to work well together without trained non commissioned officers for every dozen or so? An LT or above to oversee a company?

A mob is not a military force.

No clue about insurgent warfare, eh? Even after 17 years of it in the ME. Unreal.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

Let's clarify things, shall we?

According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
"Definition of amend
transitive verb
1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (something, such as a text)

• amended the manuscript

2 a : to change or modify (something) for the better : improve

• amend the situation

b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition

• amend a constitution"

This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document. This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution. And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.

Then, why does the right wing imply, our Second Article of Amendment is a Constitution unto itself; instead of merely the the second Article which happens to amend a point about the security needs of a free State.

No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind. Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.

Your reply has little or no content.

I have no appealed to ignorance at all. I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions. And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.

The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.

lol. the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.

 

[danielpalos]

OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.

You have to understand how delusional Daniel actually is. He insists that out individual rights come from the state constitutions, and that the US Constitution is largely powerless.

lol. You don't know what you are talking about. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric concerning natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

I understand quite well.

Between the US Constitution and any state constitutions, you only have to look at which one is the standard and which one has to follow that standard.

The US Constitution is the standard and the law of the land.

yet, the right wing claims, the second clause of the second article, is what really really matters, regardless of what the rest of our Constitution says.

Who has claimed this? Show me an example. (like THAT will happen)

And what does the rest of our constitution say that contradicts the 2nd amendment?

lol. only the right wing is that clueless and that causeless, in the public domain.

 

[WinterBorn]

Let's clarify things, shall we?

According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
"Definition of amend
transitive verb
1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (something, such as a text)

• amended the manuscript

2 a : to change or modify (something) for the better : improve

• amend the situation

b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition

• amend a constitution"

This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document. This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution. And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.

Then, why does the right wing imply, our Second Article of Amendment is a Constitution unto itself; instead of merely the the second Article which happens to amend a point about the security needs of a free State.

No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind. Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.

Your reply has little or no content.

I have no appealed to ignorance at all. I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions. And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.

The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.

lol. the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.

Do they? Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?

 

[WinterBorn]

You have to understand how delusional Daniel actually is. He insists that out individual rights come from the state constitutions, and that the US Constitution is largely powerless.

lol. You don't know what you are talking about. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric concerning natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

I understand quite well.

Between the US Constitution and any state constitutions, you only have to look at which one is the standard and which one has to follow that standard.

The US Constitution is the standard and the law of the land.

yet, the right wing claims, the second clause of the second article, is what really really matters, regardless of what the rest of our Constitution says.

Who has claimed this? Show me an example. (like THAT will happen)

And what does the rest of our constitution say that contradicts the 2nd amendment?

lol. only the right wing is that clueless and that causeless, in the public domain.

You claimed that the right wing claim something, but cannot show any examples.
YOu claim that there is something in the US Constitution that contradicts the 2nd amendment, but you refuse to detail what that is.

You are a waste of time here. Every argument you have presented on this topic has been soundly refuted or is so vague as to be worthless without elaboration or backup. And you steadfastly refuse to provide backup.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions. Those amendments are TO the US Constitution. To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.

Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.

They are, in fact, amendments to the US Constitution. That makes them part of the US Constitutions.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Here is what our Second Amendment, amends:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

They took them seriously enough to give them all 3 keys to Washington DC this time around. You had better start taking them seriously as well. They may not act like they are taking you too seriously, but trust me, they are. They are serious as a heart attack. And will use almost any and all methods.

 

[danielpalos]

Then, why does the right wing imply, our Second Article of Amendment is a Constitution unto itself; instead of merely the the second Article which happens to amend a point about the security needs of a free State.

No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind. Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.

Your reply has little or no content.

I have no appealed to ignorance at all. I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions. And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.

The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.

lol. the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.

Do they? Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?

to be well regulated?