Please answer these questions - without insult, innuendo, and emotion.

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Can you imagine doing an in-person voter canvas in that county, just as a test case to show clear fraud.

Canvasser: Are you one of the 13 people who voted for Trump?

My guess is that at least 3000 would be one of those 13, but that's just me.

 

[progressive hunter]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

its function is to tell morons that would infringe on that right why its there,,,

Once AGAIN for the slow readers, there is no reason to explain why it's there. And I already pointed this out.
ZERO Amendments other than this one "explain why they're there". Because they don't have to.

If that were necessary we'd be starting with "A well balanced "Discourse being necessary to the vitality of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.... etc"

But they don't say that, do they.

Nor do they need to.

there might be no reason for you,, guess what???

youre not the only mother fucker in the world, and as we see with other morons they need an explanation of why,,,

Here's a yahoo who wants to take a Constitutional Amendment and make it personal

STILL waiting for anyone to come up with an explanation. Still nothing.

so now you want an explanation why theres an explanation in the 2nd A,,,

is that irony or an example of stupid???

 

[Pogo]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

its function is to tell morons that would infringe on that right why its there,,,

Once AGAIN for the slow readers, there is no reason to explain why it's there. And I already pointed this out.
ZERO Amendments other than this one "explain why they're there". Because they don't have to.

If that were necessary we'd be starting with "A well balanced "Discourse being necessary to the vitality of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.... etc"

But they don't say that, do they.

Nor do they need to.

there might be no reason for you,, guess what???

youre not the only mother fucker in the world, and as we see with other morons they need an explanation of why,,,

Here's a yahoo who wants to take a Constitutional Amendment and make it personal

STILL waiting for anyone to come up with an explanation. Still nothing.

so now you want an explanation why theres an explanation in the 2nd A,,,

is that irony or an example of stupid???

See what I mean? It can't be answered. Thanks for the sparkling illustration of that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here's a yahoo who wants to take a Constitutional Amendment and make it personal

What's that supposed to mean?

Rights can only effectively be held by individuals, not collectively.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

There are times when I think Pogo simply refuses to make sense, just to be defiant.


its function is to tell morons that would infringe on that right why its there,,,

Once AGAIN for the slow readers, there is no reason to explain why it's there. And I already pointed this out.
ZERO Amendments other than this one "explain why they're there". Because they don't have to.

If that were necessary we'd be starting with "A well balanced "Discourse being necessary to the vitality of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.... etc"

But they don't say that, do they.

Nor do they need to.

there might be no reason for you,, guess what???

youre not the only mother fucker in the world, and as we see with other morons they need an explanation of why,,,

Here's a yahoo who wants to take a Constitutional Amendment and make it personal

STILL waiting for anyone to come up with an explanation. Still nothing.

so now you want an explanation why theres an explanation in the 2nd A,,,

is that irony or an example of stupid???

There are times when I think Pogo refuses to make sense, just to be defiant.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

its function is to tell morons that would infringe on that right why its there,,,

Once AGAIN for the slow readers, there is no reason to explain why it's there. And I already pointed this out.
ZERO Amendments other than this one "explain why they're there". Because they don't have to.

If that were necessary we'd be starting with "A well balanced "Discourse being necessary to the vitality of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.... etc"

But they don't say that, do they.

Nor do they need to.

there might be no reason for you,, guess what???

youre not the only mother fucker in the world, and as we see with other morons they need an explanation of why,,,

Here's a yahoo who wants to take a Constitutional Amendment and make it personal

STILL waiting for anyone to come up with an explanation. Still nothing.

so now you want an explanation why theres an explanation in the 2nd A,,,

is that irony or an example of stupid???

See what I mean? It can't be answered. Thanks for the sparkling illustration of that.

The explanation cannot be explained?

And here I was under the false impression that explanations needed no explanation.

 

[Pogo]

Here's a yahoo who wants to take a Constitutional Amendment and make it personal

What's that supposed to mean?

Rights can only effectively be held by individuals, not collectively.

If you hadn't CUT HIS POST OUT it would be obvious what it means.

Here, since you can't do it I'll put it back:

there might be no reason for you,, guess what???

youre [sic] not the only mother fucker [sic] in the world, and as we see with other morons they need an explanation of why,,,

I sort of highlighted the personal pronouns. See if you can spot 'em.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because A, we will not do B.

Because Pogo is deliberately an obtuse jackass, the right of the rest of us to ignore him shall not be infringed.

Do I need to explain that?

 

[Pogo]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

There are times when I think Pogo simply refuses to make sense, just to be defiant.


its function is to tell morons that would infringe on that right why its there,,,

Once AGAIN for the slow readers, there is no reason to explain why it's there. And I already pointed this out.
ZERO Amendments other than this one "explain why they're there". Because they don't have to.

If that were necessary we'd be starting with "A well balanced "Discourse being necessary to the vitality of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.... etc"

But they don't say that, do they.

Nor do they need to.

there might be no reason for you,, guess what???

youre not the only mother fucker in the world, and as we see with other morons they need an explanation of why,,,

Here's a yahoo who wants to take a Constitutional Amendment and make it personal

STILL waiting for anyone to come up with an explanation. Still nothing.

so now you want an explanation why theres an explanation in the 2nd A,,,

is that irony or an example of stupid???

There are times when I think Pogo refuses to make sense, just to be defiant.

Says the asscrack who just took a comment on verbiage and tried to turn it into "rights". SMH

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here's a yahoo who wants to take a Constitutional Amendment and make it personal

What's that supposed to mean?

Rights can only effectively be held by individuals, not collectively.

If you hadn't CUT HIS POST OUT it would be obvious what it means.

Here, since you can't do it I'll put it back:

there might be no reason for you,, guess what???

youre [sic] not the only mother fucker [sic] in the world, and as we see with other morons they need an explanation of why,,,

I sort of highlighted the personal pronouns. See if you can spot 'em.

Oh, I see. You were just arguing nonsense.

Cool.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

There are times when I think Pogo simply refuses to make sense, just to be defiant.


its function is to tell morons that would infringe on that right why its there,,,

Once AGAIN for the slow readers, there is no reason to explain why it's there. And I already pointed this out.
ZERO Amendments other than this one "explain why they're there". Because they don't have to.

If that were necessary we'd be starting with "A well balanced "Discourse being necessary to the vitality of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.... etc"

But they don't say that, do they.

Nor do they need to.

there might be no reason for you,, guess what???

youre not the only mother fucker in the world, and as we see with other morons they need an explanation of why,,,

Here's a yahoo who wants to take a Constitutional Amendment and make it personal

STILL waiting for anyone to come up with an explanation. Still nothing.

so now you want an explanation why theres an explanation in the 2nd A,,,

is that irony or an example of stupid???

There are times when I think Pogo refuses to make sense, just to be defiant.

Says the asscrack who just took a comment on verbiage and tried to turn it into "rights". SMH

How dare I get confused by your wild meandering off topic.

 

[Pogo]

Because A, we will not do B.

Because Pogo is deliberately an obtuse jackass, the right of the rest of us to ignore him shall not be infringed.

Do I need to explain that?

Do I need to RE-explain this?

A fucking constitution has no need of "Because A" ANYWHERE. And in fact nowhere else does it exist. Because, see previous sentence, IT DOESN'T NEED TO.

Yet suddenly, it does exist here. One place and one place alone. Why?

 

[Pogo]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

There are times when I think Pogo simply refuses to make sense, just to be defiant.


its function is to tell morons that would infringe on that right why its there,,,

Once AGAIN for the slow readers, there is no reason to explain why it's there. And I already pointed this out.
ZERO Amendments other than this one "explain why they're there". Because they don't have to.

If that were necessary we'd be starting with "A well balanced "Discourse being necessary to the vitality of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.... etc"

But they don't say that, do they.

Nor do they need to.

there might be no reason for you,, guess what???

youre not the only mother fucker in the world, and as we see with other morons they need an explanation of why,,,

Here's a yahoo who wants to take a Constitutional Amendment and make it personal

STILL waiting for anyone to come up with an explanation. Still nothing.

so now you want an explanation why theres an explanation in the 2nd A,,,

is that irony or an example of stupid???

There are times when I think Pogo refuses to make sense, just to be defiant.

Says the asscrack who just took a comment on verbiage and tried to turn it into "rights". SMH

How dare I get confused by your wild meandering off topic.

I don't know who veered this topic off to the 2A. I just saw a really bad analogy, complete with breakfast illustration, and chewed it to pieces.

burp

 

[progressive hunter]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

There are times when I think Pogo simply refuses to make sense, just to be defiant.


its function is to tell morons that would infringe on that right why its there,,,

Once AGAIN for the slow readers, there is no reason to explain why it's there. And I already pointed this out.
ZERO Amendments other than this one "explain why they're there". Because they don't have to.

If that were necessary we'd be starting with "A well balanced "Discourse being necessary to the vitality of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.... etc"

But they don't say that, do they.

Nor do they need to.

there might be no reason for you,, guess what???

youre not the only mother fucker in the world, and as we see with other morons they need an explanation of why,,,

Here's a yahoo who wants to take a Constitutional Amendment and make it personal

STILL waiting for anyone to come up with an explanation. Still nothing.

so now you want an explanation why theres an explanation in the 2nd A,,,

is that irony or an example of stupid???

There are times when I think Pogo refuses to make sense, just to be defiant.

Says the asscrack who just took a comment on verbiage and tried to turn it into "rights". SMH

How dare I get confused by your wild meandering off topic.

I don't know who veered this topic off to the 2A. I just saw a really bad analogy, complete with breakfast illustration, and chewed it to pieces.

burp

it was a perfect analogy,, youre just to stupid to get it,,,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because A, we will not do B.

Because Pogo is deliberately an obtuse jackass, the right of the rest of us to ignore him shall not be infringed.

Do I need to explain that?

Do I need to RE-explain this?

A fucking constitution has no need of "Because A" ANYWHERE. And in fact nowhere else does it exist. Because, see previous sentence, IT DOESN'T NEED TO.

Yet suddenly, it does exist here. Why?

Well, SHIT. Somebody should have told those idiots to leave this shit out:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States.."

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

There are times when I think Pogo simply refuses to make sense, just to be defiant.


its function is to tell morons that would infringe on that right why its there,,,

Once AGAIN for the slow readers, there is no reason to explain why it's there. And I already pointed this out.
ZERO Amendments other than this one "explain why they're there". Because they don't have to.

If that were necessary we'd be starting with "A well balanced "Discourse being necessary to the vitality of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.... etc"

But they don't say that, do they.

Nor do they need to.

Chewed it to pieces....


there might be no reason for you,, guess what???

youre not the only mother fucker in the world, and as we see with other morons they need an explanation of why,,,

Here's a yahoo who wants to take a Constitutional Amendment and make it personal

STILL waiting for anyone to come up with an explanation. Still nothing.

so now you want an explanation why theres an explanation in the 2nd A,,,

is that irony or an example of stupid???

There are times when I think Pogo refuses to make sense, just to be defiant.

Says the asscrack who just took a comment on verbiage and tried to turn it into "rights". SMH

How dare I get confused by your wild meandering off topic.

I don't know who veered this topic off to the 2A. I just saw a really bad analogy, complete with breakfast illustration, and chewed it to pieces.

burp

Chewed it to pieces.....

 

[Pogo]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

There are times when I think Pogo simply refuses to make sense, just to be defiant.


its function is to tell morons that would infringe on that right why its there,,,

Once AGAIN for the slow readers, there is no reason to explain why it's there. And I already pointed this out.
ZERO Amendments other than this one "explain why they're there". Because they don't have to.

If that were necessary we'd be starting with "A well balanced "Discourse being necessary to the vitality of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.... etc"

But they don't say that, do they.

Nor do they need to.

there might be no reason for you,, guess what???

youre not the only mother fucker in the world, and as we see with other morons they need an explanation of why,,,

Here's a yahoo who wants to take a Constitutional Amendment and make it personal

STILL waiting for anyone to come up with an explanation. Still nothing.

so now you want an explanation why theres an explanation in the 2nd A,,,

is that irony or an example of stupid???

There are times when I think Pogo refuses to make sense, just to be defiant.

Says the asscrack who just took a comment on verbiage and tried to turn it into "rights". SMH

How dare I get confused by your wild meandering off topic.

I don't know who veered this topic off to the 2A. I just saw a really bad analogy, complete with breakfast illustration, and chewed it to pieces.

burp

it was a perfect analogy,, youre [sic] just to [sic] stupid to get it,,,

"To stupid" huh.

"To stupid, perchance to moron. Ay, there's the rub, for in this post of brain death what illogical dipshittery may come… in the days of youre.... commacommacomma”

Thank you Gertrude Stein.

 

[Papageorgio]

Just like you are entitled to think that Biden will do horrible things when he becomes president. I am entitled to think that Trump is trying to mess up as many things as possible before leaving office, so that we get no peace or break in the insanity. That the senate will make it impossible for us to get anything done, all in the name of keeping power for them self's & not in the best interest of the American people. Good could possibly come if we worked together and put country over party.

Neither the Democrats or Republicans are ready to put country over party.

 

[Pogo]

Because A, we will not do B.

Because Pogo is deliberately an obtuse jackass, the right of the rest of us to ignore him shall not be infringed.

Do I need to explain that?

Do I need to RE-explain this?

A fucking constitution has no need of "Because A" ANYWHERE. And in fact nowhere else does it exist. Because, see previous sentence, IT DOESN'T NEED TO.

Yet suddenly, it does exist here. Why?

Well, SHIT. Somebody should have told those idiots to leave this shit out:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States.."

That's not part of the Constitution. You can kind of tell that because it refers TO the constitution.

Hold on one sec

That's simply setting up the Constitution which follows. Once you get INTO that Constitution you're looking at a direct declaration of the structure of (whatever is being constituted). Declarations NEED NO ARGUMENTS. In making a declaration there is no, literally zero, potential that any of its points can be contradicted. IT'S NOT A FREAKING COURT MOTION. IT'S A DECLARATION.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That's not part of the Constitution. You can kind of tell that because it refers TO the constitution.

And this part is not part of the operative clause, it just points TO the operative clause.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."