Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[WinterBorn]

gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of all of the other ones; as, even the South found out.

Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.

no, it doesn't. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.

There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.

The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.

No, not at all correct. The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed. The founding fathers were quite clear on this. That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did. If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen. But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code. Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.

 

[danielpalos]

gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of all of the other ones; as, even the South found out.

Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.

no, it doesn't. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.

There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.

The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.

No, not at all correct. The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed. The founding fathers were quite clear on this. That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did. If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen. But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code. Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.

No, it wasn't. There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

 

[Doggy]

Gun lovers are not crying..The queers such as Danielpolasie are doing the crying.Go back to your basement and axe your Momma to let you come out,queer.

 

[danielpalos]

Gun lovers are not crying..The queers such as Danielpolasie are doing the crying.Go back to your basement and axe your Momma to let you come out,queer.

Nothing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it.

 

[LOki]

I did not say there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. What I said was that individual citizens enjoy this right and that it is not dependent on membership in a gov't militia.

If you have some evidence to dispute that, feel free to post it.

Did you miss the point about well regulated militias of of the People being exempt from paragraph two (by our Second Amendment), but not gun lovers who can't be bothered to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?

Paragraph 2 where? I do not know which "paragraph (2)" you are referring to. If it is the heller v. Dc decision, paragraph 2 does not refer to any exemption. Link?

Dude, stop being disingenuous; it does not inspire confidence in your sincerity. Have you read the paragraph that follows the paragraph many gun lovers cite?

I am not being disingenuous. You are being intentionally vague.

I understand that you are talking about the second paragraph. But of WHAT?

Is this what you are referring to?
"The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

dude and Esquires; there is no willful appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State. There is also, no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose.

Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[LOki]

gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of all of the other ones; as, even the South found out.

Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.

no, it doesn't. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.

There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.

The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.

Wrong. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[LOki]

gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of all of the other ones; as, even the South found out.

Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.

no, it doesn't. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.

There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.

The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.

No, not at all correct. The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed. The founding fathers were quite clear on this. That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did. If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen. But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code. Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.

No, it wasn't. There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[WinterBorn]

gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of all of the other ones; as, even the South found out.

Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.

no, it doesn't. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.

There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.

The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.

No, not at all correct. The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed. The founding fathers were quite clear on this. That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did. If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen. But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code. Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.

No, it wasn't. There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

I am not appealing to anything. I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.

 

[danielpalos]

gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of all of the other ones; as, even the South found out.

Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.

no, it doesn't. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.

There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.

The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.

Wrong. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

Clueless and Causeless; i got it.

 

[danielpalos]

gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of all of the other ones; as, even the South found out.

Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.

no, it doesn't. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.

There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.

The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.

No, not at all correct. The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed. The founding fathers were quite clear on this. That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did. If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen. But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code. Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.

No, it wasn't. There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

I am not appealing to anything. I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.

To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.

no, it doesn't. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.

There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.

The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.

No, not at all correct. The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed. The founding fathers were quite clear on this. That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did. If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen. But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code. Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.

No, it wasn't. There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

I am not appealing to anything. I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.

To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.

The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed. The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this. In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.

 

[danielpalos]

no, it doesn't. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.

There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.

The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.

No, not at all correct. The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed. The founding fathers were quite clear on this. That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did. If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen. But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code. Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.

No, it wasn't. There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

I am not appealing to anything. I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.

To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.

The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed. The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this. In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.

Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which all of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.

 

[LOki]

gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of all of the other ones; as, even the South found out.

Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.

no, it doesn't. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.

There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.

The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.

Wrong. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

Clueless and Causeless; i got it.

Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[LOki]

Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.

no, it doesn't. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.

There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.

The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.

No, not at all correct. The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed. The founding fathers were quite clear on this. That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did. If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen. But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code. Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.

No, it wasn't. There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

I am not appealing to anything. I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.

To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.

no, it doesn't. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.

There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.

The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.

No, not at all correct. The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed. The founding fathers were quite clear on this. That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did. If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen. But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code. Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.

No, it wasn't. There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

I am not appealing to anything. I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.

To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[LOki]

No, not at all correct. The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed. The founding fathers were quite clear on this. That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did. If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen. But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code. Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.

No, it wasn't. There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

I am not appealing to anything. I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.

To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.

The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed. The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this. In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.

Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which all of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it wasn't. There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

I am not appealing to anything. I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.

To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.

The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed. The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this. In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.

Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which all of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.

 

[LOki]

I am not appealing to anything. I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.

To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.

The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed. The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this. In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.

Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which all of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, not at all correct. The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the citizens could maintain their own arms, and therefore be the militia if needed and revolutionaries if needed. The founding fathers were quite clear on this. That is partly why SCOTUS ruled as it did. If you can name some higher authority in this country, as far as interpreting the US Constitution, I will listen. But so far all you have offered is a spurious claim and the definitions of militia contained in the US Code. Neither overrides the US Constitution or the US Supreme Court.

No, it wasn't. There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment.

I am not appealing to anything. I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.

To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.

The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed. The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this. In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.

Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which all of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.

What?? What basis do you have for bringing a case before the SCOTUS?

And what questions could you ask that have not already been answered by previous rulings?

 

[WinterBorn]

I am not appealing to anything. I am stating what I have read in the founding fathers writings and what the SCOTUS found and how they ruled.

To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.

The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed. The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this. In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.

Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which all of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.

And when would those adults be arriving? Your arguments are simply ridiculous points hidden in vague language and intentionally verbose nonsense.

Big words are nice. But since language is about communication, being more to the point would be far more helpful than showing off your access to a thesaurus,

 

[danielpalos]

To bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Repeating that same phrase does not change anything or make it more accurate.

The founding fathers intended for our citizens to be armed. The SCOTUS has ruled quite clearly on this. In order for your argument to have any validity you would have to ignore the intent of those who wrote the US Constitution and the rulings of the highest court in the land.

Yes, it does; it may mean I could have standing and simply ask the Judicature those questions which all of those of the opposing view have no Thing but fallacy for their Cause.

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

It isn't my fault you are incompetent regarding this issue; why not let adults have an adult conversation instead of indulging your youthful, but moral turpitude.

Meaningless. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

where is your more intelligent argument?