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

[Pogo]

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..."

And you can't explain what it's doing there.

Neither can I.

 

[kaz]

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

You mean you hillbillied a post and proved you didn't understand it when you tried to read it and failed

 

[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..."

And you can't explain what it's doing there.

Neither can I.

Well, can you explain what this is doing there:

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

What could possibly have been the intent????

 

[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..."

And you can't explain what it's doing there.

Neither can I.

Well, can you explain what this is doing there:

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

What could possibly have been the intent????

Hmmm. Still no response to this, eh, Pogo?

All that pettifogging and the result is still the same.

 

[Pogo]

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..."

And you can't explain what it's doing there.

Neither can I.

Well, can you explain what this is doing there:

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

What could possibly have been the intent????

Hmmm. Still no response to this, eh, Pogo?

All that pettifogging and the result is still the same.y

This may come as a complete mindfuck but my world doesn't revolve around whatever inane posts you're plopping while I'm doing something elsewhere.

What you have there is the actual meat of the Amendment, all the necessary parts. It could stand all by itself if it had been intended to. You know, like literally every other Amendment does.

But it doesn't, does it.

As for my original still-unanswered question I accept your concession. To be fair, you never had a chance.

 

[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..."

And you can't explain what it's doing there.

Neither can I.

Well, can you explain what this is doing there:

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

What could possibly have been the intent????

Hmmm. Still no response to this, eh, Pogo?

All that pettifogging and the result is still the same.y

This may come as a complete mindfuck but my world doesn't revolve around whatever inane posts you're plopping while I'm doing something elsewhere.

What you have there is the actual meat of the Amendment, all the necessary parts. It could stand all by itself if it had been intended to. You know, like literally every other Amendment does.

But it doesn't, does it.

As for my original still-unanswered question I accept your concession.

....and so, it is your pathetic, ridiculous argument that the right somehow does not belong to the people and that it indeed shall be infringed.


But, tell me what your stupid question is, and I will try to answer you.

 

[kaz]

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..."

And you can't explain what it's doing there.

Neither can I.

Well, can you explain what this is doing there:

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

What could possibly have been the intent????

Hmmm. Still no response to this, eh, Pogo?

All that pettifogging and the result is still the same.y

This may come as a complete mindfuck but my world doesn't revolve around whatever inane posts you're plopping while I'm doing something elsewhere.

What you have there is the actual meat of the Amendment, all the necessary parts. It could stand all by itself if it had been intended to. You know, like literally every other Amendment does.

But it doesn't, does it.

As for my original still-unanswered question I accept your concession. To be fair, you never had a chance.

Saying you don't know why it's there is irrelevant. If you could read big city instead of hillbilly, you'd know that it still is an explanation. The right is clear, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That was supposed to be clear even to someone who plays the banjo better than you read even for you

 

[skye]

3) Why haven't any of the lawsuits filed by the Trump administration been successful? Even in the face of republican-appointed Judges in republican states?

Cases are still being put together and some are on appeal....

Exactly right!

This is not over by a long shot.

 

[BlackSand]

Once again --- "Democrats" didn't count votes. "Democrats" have never counted votes, nor have "Republicans", "Greens", "Libertarians", "Whigs", "Federalists", "Know Nothings", "Free Soilers" or "Democratic Republicans".
POLL WORKERS count votes.

And they do so under the transparent observation of parties involved.

At least that's how it works here on Planet Reality.

And if a department like the FDA was investigating this past election, there would be a stack of 483's that would reach halfway to the moon.

.

 

[Pogo]

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..."

And you can't explain what it's doing there.

Neither can I.

Well, can you explain what this is doing there:

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

What could possibly have been the intent????

Hmmm. Still no response to this, eh, Pogo?

All that pettifogging and the result is still the same.y

This may come as a complete mindfuck but my world doesn't revolve around whatever inane posts you're plopping while I'm doing something elsewhere.

What you have there is the actual meat of the Amendment, all the necessary parts. It could stand all by itself if it had been intended to. You know, like literally every other Amendment does.

But it doesn't, does it.

As for my original still-unanswered question I accept your concession.

....and so, it is your pathetic, ridiculous argument that the right somehow does not belong to the people and that it indeed shall be infringed.


But, tell me what your stupid question is, and I will try to answer you.

The question was, and still is, sitting back there in post 112, unmolested.

You can (and should) consider it a rhetorical question since it has no possible answer. All it needs is for you to admit that.

I'll check back for that in a thousand years.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

If you disagree, entertain the class explaining what that function is.

I answered this fucking bullshit.

Let me do it again for your retarded ass.

The function is to state the purpose of the amendment and to assure the people that they would not be trading one tyrant for another.

The brits tried to disarm the colonists. Remember the Intolerable Acts of 1774? The entire bill of rights was a direct response to THAT SHIT!!!

The people of the states would not allow their representatives to ratify a constitution without assurances that this new government would not become the very same tyrant they had just thrown off. Look at the Federalist Papers. Those were written to convince the colonists to accept the constitution. Look at the quotes of the founders. The intent is IN-FUCKING-DISPUTABLE!!!


"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778



"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789






Now.


Does that answer your fucking question?

 

[Pogo]

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

If you disagree, entertain the class explaining what that function is.

I answered this fucking bullshit.

Let me do it again for your retarded ass.

The function is to state the purpose of the amendment and to assure the people that they would not be trading one tyrant for another.
/snip

Stop right there, because that is not an answer at all and you know it.

Once AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN *NO* Amendment or any part of the constitution --- ANY constitution --- has any need whatsoever to explain itself. That's not what a constitution does. That's what an argument does. No constitution needs an argument and no Amendment needs one. It doesn't need to explain, vindicate, justify or present any basis. NONE. And indeed no other Amendment does either, because it has no function in a constitution, because that is not what a constitution does.

So again, the rhetorical unanswerable question was, is, and ever shall be --- what the fuck is it DOING there?

/offtopic

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

If you disagree, entertain the class explaining what that function is.

I answered this fucking bullshit.

Let me do it again for your retarded ass.

The function is to state the purpose of the amendment and to assure the people that they would not be trading one tyrant for another.
/snip

Stop right there, because that is not an answer at all and you know it.

Once AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN *NO* Amendment or any part of the constitution --- ANY constitution --- has any need whatsoever to explain itself. That's not what a constitution does. That's what an argument does. No constitution needs an argument and no Amendment needs one. It doesn't need to explain, vindicate, justify or present any basis. NONE. And indeed no other Amendment does either, because it has no function in a constitution. And you'll notice that ZERO other Amendments have one either.

So again, the rhetorical unanswerable question was, is, and ever shall be --- why the fuck is it there?

/offtopic

How many times do I need to fucking explain it?

THAT ANSWERS YOUR FUCKING QUESTION

It's there because the people were afraid of a standing fucking army and they didn't want to ratify the constitution because they were afraid.

How many different fucking ways do you want me to explain it?

Read the quotes. They make it VERY clear.

 

[Pogo]

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

If you disagree, entertain the class explaining what that function is.

I answered this fucking bullshit.

Let me do it again for your retarded ass.

The function is to state the purpose of the amendment and to assure the people that they would not be trading one tyrant for another.
/snip

Stop right there, because that is not an answer at all and you know it.

Once AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN *NO* Amendment or any part of the constitution --- ANY constitution --- has any need whatsoever to explain itself. That's not what a constitution does. That's what an argument does. No constitution needs an argument and no Amendment needs one. It doesn't need to explain, vindicate, justify or present any basis. NONE. And indeed no other Amendment does either, because it has no function in a constitution. And you'll notice that ZERO other Amendments have one either.

So again, the rhetorical unanswerable question was, is, and ever shall be --- why the fuck is it there?

/offtopic

How many times do I need to fucking explain it?

THAT ANSWERS YOUR FUCKING QUESTION

It's there because the people were afraid of a standing fucking army and they didn't want to ratify the constitution because they were afraid.

How many different fucking ways do you want me to explain it?

Read the quotes. They make it VERY clear.

How many times are you going to post without touching the question?

WHAT IS IT DOING THERE? Hm?

You do understand the word "doing"? It does not rhyme with "boing". That's why I phrased it as "what is its FUNCTION.

Now I understand the question has no logical answer. Because there is no function. What we need is for you to admit that, and move on back to the topic. You know, instead of lighting all these smokescreens to avoid doing that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

If you disagree, entertain the class explaining what that function is.

I answered this fucking bullshit.

Let me do it again for your retarded ass.

The function is to state the purpose of the amendment and to assure the people that they would not be trading one tyrant for another.
/snip

Stop right there, because that is not an answer at all and you know it.

Once AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN *NO* Amendment or any part of the constitution --- ANY constitution --- has any need whatsoever to explain itself. That's not what a constitution does. That's what an argument does. No constitution needs an argument and no Amendment needs one. It doesn't need to explain, vindicate, justify or present any basis. NONE. And indeed no other Amendment does either, because it has no function in a constitution. And you'll notice that ZERO other Amendments have one either.

So again, the rhetorical unanswerable question was, is, and ever shall be --- why the fuck is it there?

/offtopic

How many times do I need to fucking explain it?

THAT ANSWERS YOUR FUCKING QUESTION

It's there because the people were afraid of a standing fucking army and they didn't want to ratify the constitution because they were afraid.

How many different fucking ways do you want me to explain it?

Read the quotes. They make it VERY clear.

How many times are you going to post without touching the question?

WHAT IS IT DOING THERE? Hm?

You do understand the word "doing"? It does not rhyme with "boing". That's why I phrased it as "what is its FUNCTION.

Now I understand the question has no logical answer. Because there is no function. What we need is for you to admit that, and move on back to the topic. You know, instead of lighting all these smokescreens to avoid doing that.

IT IS THERE TO ASSURE THE PEOPLE THAT NO STANDING ARMY WILL DESTROY THEIR RIGHTS!!!!! THE MILITIA IS NECESSARY. YOU WILL KEEP YOUR GUNS. HOW FUCKING DENSE CAN YOU GET????

 

[Pogo]

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

If you disagree, entertain the class explaining what that function is.

I answered this fucking bullshit.

Let me do it again for your retarded ass.

The function is to state the purpose of the amendment and to assure the people that they would not be trading one tyrant for another.
/snip

Stop right there, because that is not an answer at all and you know it.

Once AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN *NO* Amendment or any part of the constitution --- ANY constitution --- has any need whatsoever to explain itself. That's not what a constitution does. That's what an argument does. No constitution needs an argument and no Amendment needs one. It doesn't need to explain, vindicate, justify or present any basis. NONE. And indeed no other Amendment does either, because it has no function in a constitution. And you'll notice that ZERO other Amendments have one either.

So again, the rhetorical unanswerable question was, is, and ever shall be --- why the fuck is it there?

/offtopic

How many times do I need to fucking explain it?

THAT ANSWERS YOUR FUCKING QUESTION

It's there because the people were afraid of a standing fucking army and they didn't want to ratify the constitution because they were afraid.

How many different fucking ways do you want me to explain it?

Read the quotes. They make it VERY clear.

How many times are you going to post without touching the question?

WHAT IS IT DOING THERE? Hm?

You do understand the word "doing"? It does not rhyme with "boing". That's why I phrased it as "what is its FUNCTION.

Now I understand the question has no logical answer. Because there is no function. What we need is for you to admit that, and move on back to the topic. You know, instead of lighting all these smokescreens to avoid doing that.

IT IS THERE TO ASSURE THE PEOPLE THAT NO STANDING ARMY WILL DESTROY THEIR RIGHTS!!!!! THE MILITIA IS NECESSARY. YOU WILL KEEP YOUR GUNS. HOW FUCKING DENSE CAN YOU GET????

832 empty posts, no answer.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

If you disagree, entertain the class explaining what that function is.

I answered this fucking bullshit.

Let me do it again for your retarded ass.

The function is to state the purpose of the amendment and to assure the people that they would not be trading one tyrant for another.
/snip

Stop right there, because that is not an answer at all and you know it.

Once AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN *NO* Amendment or any part of the constitution --- ANY constitution --- has any need whatsoever to explain itself. That's not what a constitution does. That's what an argument does. No constitution needs an argument and no Amendment needs one. It doesn't need to explain, vindicate, justify or present any basis. NONE. And indeed no other Amendment does either, because it has no function in a constitution. And you'll notice that ZERO other Amendments have one either.

So again, the rhetorical unanswerable question was, is, and ever shall be --- why the fuck is it there?

/offtopic

How many times do I need to fucking explain it?

THAT ANSWERS YOUR FUCKING QUESTION

It's there because the people were afraid of a standing fucking army and they didn't want to ratify the constitution because they were afraid.

How many different fucking ways do you want me to explain it?

Read the quotes. They make it VERY clear.

How many times are you going to post without touching the question?

WHAT IS IT DOING THERE? Hm?

You do understand the word "doing"? It does not rhyme with "boing". That's why I phrased it as "what is its FUNCTION.

Now I understand the question has no logical answer. Because there is no function. What we need is for you to admit that, and move on back to the topic. You know, instead of lighting all these smokescreens to avoid doing that.

IT IS THERE TO ASSURE THE PEOPLE THAT NO STANDING ARMY WILL DESTROY THEIR RIGHTS!!!!! THE MILITIA IS NECESSARY. YOU WILL KEEP YOUR GUNS. HOW FUCKING DENSE CAN YOU GET????

832 empty posts, no answer.

You're ignored. Nice knowing your DUMB ASS!!!

 

[Pogo]

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

If you disagree, entertain the class explaining what that function is.

I answered this fucking bullshit.

Let me do it again for your retarded ass.

The function is to state the purpose of the amendment and to assure the people that they would not be trading one tyrant for another.
/snip

Stop right there, because that is not an answer at all and you know it.

Once AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN *NO* Amendment or any part of the constitution --- ANY constitution --- has any need whatsoever to explain itself. That's not what a constitution does. That's what an argument does. No constitution needs an argument and no Amendment needs one. It doesn't need to explain, vindicate, justify or present any basis. NONE. And indeed no other Amendment does either, because it has no function in a constitution. And you'll notice that ZERO other Amendments have one either.

So again, the rhetorical unanswerable question was, is, and ever shall be --- why the fuck is it there?

/offtopic

How many times do I need to fucking explain it?

THAT ANSWERS YOUR FUCKING QUESTION

It's there because the people were afraid of a standing fucking army and they didn't want to ratify the constitution because they were afraid.

How many different fucking ways do you want me to explain it?

Read the quotes. They make it VERY clear.

How many times are you going to post without touching the question?

WHAT IS IT DOING THERE? Hm?

You do understand the word "doing"? It does not rhyme with "boing". That's why I phrased it as "what is its FUNCTION.

Now I understand the question has no logical answer. Because there is no function. What we need is for you to admit that, and move on back to the topic. You know, instead of lighting all these smokescreens to avoid doing that.

IT IS THERE TO ASSURE THE PEOPLE THAT NO STANDING ARMY WILL DESTROY THEIR RIGHTS!!!!! THE MILITIA IS NECESSARY. YOU WILL KEEP YOUR GUNS. HOW FUCKING DENSE CAN YOU GET????

832 empty posts, no answer.

You're ignored. Nice knowing your DUMB ASS!!!

Chuckles would rather run away than admit he doesn't have an answer.

Good riddance.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yeah, tired of giving the fucking answer and the idiot on the other end ignoring it.

You ignored me. Imma ignore your ADHD ass.

Bu-bye, kuuunt.