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

[danielpalos]

dude; stories are all right wingers have.

If so, at least they tell the whole story. They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.

whatever story they want. it is just another story, to storytellers.

No. What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are. I think my work here is done. Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously? No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.

y'all have, nothing but fallacy. i like to practice, just for fun.

Yeah, I know you like to practice. But you like to practice with girls who want a friend and you pretend to be that to get practice. Had any takers on the offer of a free massage with happy endings? lol

i like to practice resorting to the fewest fallacies, as well.

 

[WinterBorn]

If so, at least they tell the whole story. They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.

whatever story they want. it is just another story, to storytellers.

No. What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are. I think my work here is done. Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously? No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.

y'all have, nothing but fallacy. i like to practice, just for fun.

As do most gun owners

so what. well regulated militia don't whine about gun control laws; only the unorganized militia, does that.

I am happy to be well regulated when I am in a militia. Until then, my right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

whatever story they want. it is just another story, to storytellers.

No. What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are. I think my work here is done. Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously? No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.

y'all have, nothing but fallacy. i like to practice, just for fun.

As do most gun owners

so what. well regulated militia don't whine about gun control laws; only the unorganized militia, does that.

I am happy to be well regulated when I am in a militia. Until then, my right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural rights are in State Constitutions.

 

[WinterBorn]

If so, at least they tell the whole story. They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.

whatever story they want. it is just another story, to storytellers.

No. What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are. I think my work here is done. Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously? No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.

y'all have, nothing but fallacy. i like to practice, just for fun.

Yeah, I know you like to practice. But you like to practice with girls who want a friend and you pretend to be that to get practice. Had any takers on the offer of a free massage with happy endings? lol

i like to practice resorting to the fewest fallacies, as well.

I'd like for you to start practicing that too. But do it in a way where you are actually using facts. Not in the way you have been doing, namely making a spurious claim and then just spouting nonsense ("nobody takes conservatives seriously" or "Only conservatives resort to appeal to ignorance") instead of clarifying or providing backup for those claims.

 

[WinterBorn]

No. What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are. I think my work here is done. Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously? No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.

y'all have, nothing but fallacy. i like to practice, just for fun.

As do most gun owners

so what. well regulated militia don't whine about gun control laws; only the unorganized militia, does that.

I am happy to be well regulated when I am in a militia. Until then, my right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Yes, it has everything to do with our 2nd amendment (if we use your interpretation).
No, that is bullshit where the "natural rights" are concerned.

 

[danielpalos]

y'all have, nothing but fallacy. i like to practice, just for fun.

As do most gun owners

so what. well regulated militia don't whine about gun control laws; only the unorganized militia, does that.

I am happy to be well regulated when I am in a militia. Until then, my right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Yes, it has everything to do with our 2nd amendment (if we use your interpretation).
No, that is bullshit where the "natural rights" are concerned.

No, it doesn't. Individual rights are in State Constitutions. Our Second Amendment has no individual rights, only expressly declared civil rights.

 

[EGR one]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are absolutely full of crap. The Supreme Court in the Heller decision made that clear. The second amendment is an individual right, and the 14th amendment does apply the second amendment to the states.

 

[WinterBorn]

As do most gun owners

so what. well regulated militia don't whine about gun control laws; only the unorganized militia, does that.

I am happy to be well regulated when I am in a militia. Until then, my right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Yes, it has everything to do with our 2nd amendment (if we use your interpretation).
No, that is bullshit where the "natural rights" are concerned.

No, it doesn't. Individual rights are in State Constitutions. Our Second Amendment has no individual rights, only expressly declared civil rights.

The Bill of Rights was written specifically to preserve and guarantee individual rights. The men who wrote it said that. You keep bouncing back and forth between natural rights and individual rights. And yet, you claim they are not the same thing.

The Bill of Rights is specifically about individual rights.

 

[danielpalos]

so what. well regulated militia don't whine about gun control laws; only the unorganized militia, does that.

I am happy to be well regulated when I am in a militia. Until then, my right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Yes, it has everything to do with our 2nd amendment (if we use your interpretation).
No, that is bullshit where the "natural rights" are concerned.

No, it doesn't. Individual rights are in State Constitutions. Our Second Amendment has no individual rights, only expressly declared civil rights.

The Bill of Rights was written specifically to preserve and guarantee individual rights. The men who wrote it said that. You keep bouncing back and forth between natural rights and individual rights. And yet, you claim they are not the same thing.

The Bill of Rights is specifically about individual rights.

That is Your story bro. Our Tenth Amendment and our Second Amendment, are about States sovereign rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am happy to be well regulated when I am in a militia. Until then, my right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Yes, it has everything to do with our 2nd amendment (if we use your interpretation).
No, that is bullshit where the "natural rights" are concerned.

No, it doesn't. Individual rights are in State Constitutions. Our Second Amendment has no individual rights, only expressly declared civil rights.

The Bill of Rights was written specifically to preserve and guarantee individual rights. The men who wrote it said that. You keep bouncing back and forth between natural rights and individual rights. And yet, you claim they are not the same thing.

The Bill of Rights is specifically about individual rights.

That is Your story bro. Our Tenth Amendment and our Second Amendment, are about States sovereign rights.

The 10th amendment simply says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". The rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not states rights. And the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to the right of the people. So it is not about states sovereign rights.

 

[danielpalos]

has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Yes, it has everything to do with our 2nd amendment (if we use your interpretation).
No, that is bullshit where the "natural rights" are concerned.

No, it doesn't. Individual rights are in State Constitutions. Our Second Amendment has no individual rights, only expressly declared civil rights.

The Bill of Rights was written specifically to preserve and guarantee individual rights. The men who wrote it said that. You keep bouncing back and forth between natural rights and individual rights. And yet, you claim they are not the same thing.

The Bill of Rights is specifically about individual rights.

That is Your story bro. Our Tenth Amendment and our Second Amendment, are about States sovereign rights.

The 10th amendment simply says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". The rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not states rights. And the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to the right of the people. So it is not about states sovereign rights.

Our Second Amendment is a States' sovereign right. It says so in the first clause.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, it has everything to do with our 2nd amendment (if we use your interpretation).
No, that is bullshit where the "natural rights" are concerned.

No, it doesn't. Individual rights are in State Constitutions. Our Second Amendment has no individual rights, only expressly declared civil rights.

The Bill of Rights was written specifically to preserve and guarantee individual rights. The men who wrote it said that. You keep bouncing back and forth between natural rights and individual rights. And yet, you claim they are not the same thing.

The Bill of Rights is specifically about individual rights.

That is Your story bro. Our Tenth Amendment and our Second Amendment, are about States sovereign rights.

The 10th amendment simply says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". The rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not states rights. And the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to the right of the people. So it is not about states sovereign rights.

Our Second Amendment is a States' sovereign right. It says so in the first clause.

No it does not. It says specifically in the second clause that it a right of the people. And the 10 amendment says the states or the people. It is an individual right. The militia is formed when needed to defend the country. The individuals that make up the militia are the people whose rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

 

[Flopper]

If the founders could have seen how many millions of hours were going to be wasted fighting over that silly clause they would have probably shortened the amendment to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Or course the only reason for the amendment was to satisfy those states concerned about the militia having trained armed recruits, so they might have just dropped the whole amendment.

In those days, very few people were worried about the government taking away guns. The damn things were cumbersome, slow loading, expensive, and too often blew in one's face.

The real hot issue in the Bill of Rights was the first amendment because a number of states had state sponsored religions.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. Individual rights are in State Constitutions. Our Second Amendment has no individual rights, only expressly declared civil rights.

The Bill of Rights was written specifically to preserve and guarantee individual rights. The men who wrote it said that. You keep bouncing back and forth between natural rights and individual rights. And yet, you claim they are not the same thing.

The Bill of Rights is specifically about individual rights.

That is Your story bro. Our Tenth Amendment and our Second Amendment, are about States sovereign rights.

The 10th amendment simply says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". The rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not states rights. And the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to the right of the people. So it is not about states sovereign rights.

Our Second Amendment is a States' sovereign right. It says so in the first clause.

No it does not. It says specifically in the second clause that it a right of the people. And the 10 amendment says the states or the people. It is an individual right. The militia is formed when needed to defend the country. The individuals that make up the militia are the people whose rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

so what. the second clause would be that important, if it were a Constitution, Unto Itself. But, alas, it is merely and Only, the Second, not the First, Article of Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

If the founders could have seen how many millions of hours were going to be wasted fighting over that silly clause they would have probably shortened the amendment to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Or course the only reason for the amendment was to satisfy those states concerned about the militia having trained armed recruits, so they might have just dropped the whole amendment.

In those days, very few people were worried about the government taking away guns. The damn things were cumbersome, slow loading, expensive, and too often blew in one's face.

The real hot issue in the Bill of Rights was the first amendment because a number of states had state sponsored religions.

Our Constitution and supreme law of the land, was written, termed and styled such, for a Reason. That reason is Order over Chaos, every time there is a Decision to be made.

There is No Provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.

 

[WinterBorn]

The Bill of Rights was written specifically to preserve and guarantee individual rights. The men who wrote it said that. You keep bouncing back and forth between natural rights and individual rights. And yet, you claim they are not the same thing.

The Bill of Rights is specifically about individual rights.

That is Your story bro. Our Tenth Amendment and our Second Amendment, are about States sovereign rights.

The 10th amendment simply says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". The rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not states rights. And the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to the right of the people. So it is not about states sovereign rights.

Our Second Amendment is a States' sovereign right. It says so in the first clause.

No it does not. It says specifically in the second clause that it a right of the people. And the 10 amendment says the states or the people. It is an individual right. The militia is formed when needed to defend the country. The individuals that make up the militia are the people whose rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

so what. the second clause would be that important, if it were a Constitution, Unto Itself. But, alas, it is merely and Only, the Second, not the First, Article of Amendment.

Alas, you are wrong again. In addition to the basic rules of the English language, every constitutional scholar worth his salt disagrees with you.

And a militia is not a standing army. They only muster when needed. Plus, the amendment specifically says "the people".

 

[danielpalos]

That is Your story bro. Our Tenth Amendment and our Second Amendment, are about States sovereign rights.

The 10th amendment simply says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". The rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not states rights. And the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to the right of the people. So it is not about states sovereign rights.

Our Second Amendment is a States' sovereign right. It says so in the first clause.

No it does not. It says specifically in the second clause that it a right of the people. And the 10 amendment says the states or the people. It is an individual right. The militia is formed when needed to defend the country. The individuals that make up the militia are the people whose rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

so what. the second clause would be that important, if it were a Constitution, Unto Itself. But, alas, it is merely and Only, the Second, not the First, Article of Amendment.

Alas, you are wrong again. In addition to the basic rules of the English language, every constitutional scholar worth his salt disagrees with you.

And a militia is not a standing army. They only muster when needed. Plus, the amendment specifically says "the people".

that is your straw man story bro. my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.

 

[WinterBorn]

The 10th amendment simply says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". The rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not states rights. And the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to the right of the people. So it is not about states sovereign rights.

Our Second Amendment is a States' sovereign right. It says so in the first clause.

No it does not. It says specifically in the second clause that it a right of the people. And the 10 amendment says the states or the people. It is an individual right. The militia is formed when needed to defend the country. The individuals that make up the militia are the people whose rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

so what. the second clause would be that important, if it were a Constitution, Unto Itself. But, alas, it is merely and Only, the Second, not the First, Article of Amendment.

Alas, you are wrong again. In addition to the basic rules of the English language, every constitutional scholar worth his salt disagrees with you.

And a militia is not a standing army. They only muster when needed. Plus, the amendment specifically says "the people".

that is your straw man story bro. my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.

Definition of Strawman: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".

As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts. So it is a waste of space. But then, it does make up most of your argument.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is a States' sovereign right. It says so in the first clause.

No it does not. It says specifically in the second clause that it a right of the people. And the 10 amendment says the states or the people. It is an individual right. The militia is formed when needed to defend the country. The individuals that make up the militia are the people whose rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

so what. the second clause would be that important, if it were a Constitution, Unto Itself. But, alas, it is merely and Only, the Second, not the First, Article of Amendment.

Alas, you are wrong again. In addition to the basic rules of the English language, every constitutional scholar worth his salt disagrees with you.

And a militia is not a standing army. They only muster when needed. Plus, the amendment specifically says "the people".

that is your straw man story bro. my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.

Definition of Strawman: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".

As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts. So it is a waste of space. But then, it does make up most of your argument.

Muster the militia until crime goes down. It must be cheaper than our war on crime.

 

[WinterBorn]

No it does not. It says specifically in the second clause that it a right of the people. And the 10 amendment says the states or the people. It is an individual right. The militia is formed when needed to defend the country. The individuals that make up the militia are the people whose rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

so what. the second clause would be that important, if it were a Constitution, Unto Itself. But, alas, it is merely and Only, the Second, not the First, Article of Amendment.

Alas, you are wrong again. In addition to the basic rules of the English language, every constitutional scholar worth his salt disagrees with you.

And a militia is not a standing army. They only muster when needed. Plus, the amendment specifically says "the people".

that is your straw man story bro. my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.

Definition of Strawman: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".

As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts. So it is a waste of space. But then, it does make up most of your argument.

Muster the militia until crime goes down. It must be cheaper than our war on crime.

No. THey are completely unqualified.