Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[LOki]

It's all going so well in the US! Excellent!

You must be thrilled, man.

And THIS is what you are celebtrating:

No. What's your point?

You think your "gun related" tautology makes a meaningful point? Or is it just your hysteria informing your position?

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.

 

[LOki]

PredFan -

Please try to stay on topic. You did start this thread, afterall.

Let me ask - looking at the graph, would you say that US gun laws are performing well when compared to other countries?

They most certainly are--from a total rate of violent crime perspective. You see, rational people don't validate the dopey notion that "gun-related" things are extra bad.

 

[LOki]

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.

Nonsense.

"The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.

That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.

Nonsense.

"The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.

That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.

Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.

 

[LOki]

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.

Nonsense.

"The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.

That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.

Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.

Nonsense.

1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.

2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.

3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.

If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.

The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.

Nonsense.

"The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.

That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.

Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.

Nonsense.

1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.

2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.

3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.

If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.

The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.

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.

 

[LOki]

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.

Nonsense.

"The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.

That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.

Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.

Nonsense.

1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.

2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.

3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.

If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.

The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.

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.

"Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.

It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.

Nonsense.

"The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.

That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.

Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.

Nonsense.

1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.

2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.

3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.

If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.

The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.

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.

"Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.

It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.

Yes, it does. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law. Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.

 

[Gunman]

A gun is only a tool... Most Dumb Ass, Stupid folks.. Never learn how to use tools... Most can't drive very good also... But CAN smoke Dope & get Knocked-Up ... and look for a Hand Out.... !!!!! You Say...?????

 

[LOki]

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.

Nonsense.

"The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.

That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.

Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.

Nonsense.

1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.

2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.

3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.

If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.

The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.

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.

"Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.

It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.

Yes, it does.

No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.

Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.

I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.

I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.

Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.

I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.

Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?

 

[Ringel05]

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.

Nonsense.

"The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.

That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.

Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.

Nonsense.

1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.

2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.

3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.

If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.

The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.

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.

"Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.

It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.

Yes, it does.

No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.

Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.

I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.

I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.

Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.

I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.

Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?

I tried logic, reason and fact all to no avail, what we have here is a doctrinaire, committed in its belief the repeating of a lie often enough will ultimately convince people of its "truth".........
The best approach with such a fanatic is to ostracize by exclusion or by derision.

 

[LOki]

Nonsense.

"The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.

That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.

Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.

Nonsense.

1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.

2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.

3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.

If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.

The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.

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.

"Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.

It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.

Yes, it does.

No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.

Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.

I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.

I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.

Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.

I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.

Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?

I tried logic, reason and fact all to no avail, what we have here is a doctrinaire, committed in its belief the repeating of a lie often enough will ultimately convince people of its "truth".........
The best approach with such a fanatic is to ostracize by exclusion or by derision.

More easily done than said.

More amusing too.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.

Nonsense.

"The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.

That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.

Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.

Nonsense.

1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.

2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.

3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.

If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.

The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.

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.

"Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.

It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.

Yes, it does.

No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.

Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.

I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.

I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.

Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.

I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.

Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?

Ok, How are rights in private property secured for the entirety of the Militia of the United States when Only well regulated Militias (of the several United States) are declared Necessary to the security of a free State and therefore, not to be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Our Second Article of Amendment is Not a Constitution unto itself.

Dudes and Esquires,

Should we wager that those of the opposing view have nothing but fallacy for their Cause and that form of Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.

 

[LOki]

Nonsense.

"The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.

That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.

Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.

Nonsense.

1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.

2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.

3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.

If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.

The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.

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.

"Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.

It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.

Yes, it does.

No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.

Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.

I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.

I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.

Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.

I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.

Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?

Ok, How are rights in private property secured for the entirety of the Militia of the United States ...

While arms are certainly property, the issue is not property rights, but rather the explicit assertion that the right of the people (NOT militias) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The "well regulated militia" and "security of a free state" referenced are dependent upon the "right" explicitly and unambiguously identified--the "right" is in no way premised or dependent upon belonging to a militia or action to preserve the security of a free state.

Your premise is both irrelevant and faulty.

...when Only well regulated Militias (of the several United States) are declared Necessary to the security of a free State ...

But not exclusively so.

...and therefore, not to be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Again, you insist upon putting the cart before the horse.

The security of a free state is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent (NOT a constraint) upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Thus the positive assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Our Second Article of Amendment is Not a Constitution unto itself.

I didn't declare that it was.

Dudes and Esquires,

Should we wager that those of the opposing view have nothing but fallacy for their Cause and that form of Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.

I suspect that you were once painfully delivered a full course of butthurt having your own Appeal to Ignorance exposed. This would neatly explain why you repeatedly invoke Appeal to Ignorance like a magic talisman whenever you have no substantive rebuttal or logically valid argument.

I am incapable of breaking it to you any more gently than this, Pumpkin: You clearly have no idea what "Appeal to Ignorance" means, as evidenced by your improper use of the term. You should really look it up before you use it again.

Or demonstrate how I have made such an appeal.

I have no apprehensions that you'll even try.

 

[danielpalos]

dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.

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.

"Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.

It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.

Yes, it does.

No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.

Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.

I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.

I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.

Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.

I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.

Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?

Ok, How are rights in private property secured for the entirety of the Militia of the United States ...

While arms are certainly property, the issue is not property rights, but rather the explicit assertion that the right of the people (NOT militias) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You may be missing the point and that composition; our Second Article of Amendment specifically declares what is necessary to the security of a free State and it is clearly not the People as private citizens, but as that Body politic known as the Militia of the United States. Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

 

[LOki]

"Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.

It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.

Yes, it does.

No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.

Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.

I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.

I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.

Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.

I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.

Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?

Ok, How are rights in private property secured for the entirety of the Militia of the United States ...

While arms are certainly property, the issue is not property rights, but rather the explicit assertion that the right of the people (NOT militias) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You may be missing the point and that composition;...

While I don't understand your reference to "composition" (I am beginning to suspect you translate your posts into English from another language), I'm not missing your point.

...our Second Article of Amendment specifically declares what is necessary to the security of a free State and it is clearly not the People as private citizens, but as that Body politic known as the Militia of the United States. Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

All of this is irrelevant, and none of this constrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is unambiguously clear on this point. It is made clear by the phrase, "shall not be infringed"; which refers only to the right to keep and bear arms (not state security, not regulating militias), and that right is unquestionably the right of the people--NOT well regulated militias, NOT free states.

I will put it to you plainly again: The security of a free state is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is DEPEPENENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does.

No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.

Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.

I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.

I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.

Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.

I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.

Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?

Ok, How are rights in private property secured for the entirety of the Militia of the United States ...

While arms are certainly property, the issue is not property rights, but rather the explicit assertion that the right of the people (NOT militias) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You may be missing the point and that composition;...

While I don't understand your reference to "composition" (I am beginning to suspect you translate your posts into English from another language), I'm not missing your point.

...our Second Article of Amendment specifically declares what is necessary to the security of a free State and it is clearly not the People as private citizens, but as that Body politic known as the Militia of the United States. Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

All of this is irrelevant, and none of this constrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is unambiguously clear on this point. It is made clear by the phrase, "shall not be infringed"; which refers only to the right to keep and bear arms (not state security, not regulating militias), and that right is unquestionably the right of the people--NOT well regulated militias, NOT free states.

I will put it to you plainly again: The security of a free state is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is DEPEPENENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, our Second Amendment is clear as to which Part of the Militia of the United States necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[LOki]

No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.

Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.

I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.

I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.

Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.

Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?

Ok, How are rights in private property secured for the entirety of the Militia of the United States ...

While arms are certainly property, the issue is not property rights, but rather the explicit assertion that the right of the people (NOT militias) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You may be missing the point and that composition;...

While I don't understand your reference to "composition" (I am beginning to suspect you translate your posts into English from another language), I'm not missing your point.

...our Second Article of Amendment specifically declares what is necessary to the security of a free State and it is clearly not the People as private citizens, but as that Body politic known as the Militia of the United States. Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

All of this is irrelevant, and none of this constrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is unambiguously clear on this point. It is made clear by the phrase, "shall not be infringed"; which refers only to the right to keep and bear arms (not state security, not regulating militias), and that right is unquestionably the right of the people--NOT well regulated militias, NOT free states.

I will put it to you plainly again: The security of a free state is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is DEPEPENENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, our Second Amendment is clear as to which Part of the Militia of the United States necessary to the security of a free State.

No. It makes clear what KIND of militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Regardless, membership in the militia is no prerequisite for, or constraint upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[danielpalos]

Ok, How are rights in private property secured for the entirety of the Militia of the United States ...

While arms are certainly property, the issue is not property rights, but rather the explicit assertion that the right of the people (NOT militias) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You may be missing the point and that composition;...

While I don't understand your reference to "composition" (I am beginning to suspect you translate your posts into English from another language), I'm not missing your point.

...our Second Article of Amendment specifically declares what is necessary to the security of a free State and it is clearly not the People as private citizens, but as that Body politic known as the Militia of the United States. Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

All of this is irrelevant, and none of this constrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is unambiguously clear on this point. It is made clear by the phrase, "shall not be infringed"; which refers only to the right to keep and bear arms (not state security, not regulating militias), and that right is unquestionably the right of the people--NOT well regulated militias, NOT free states.

I will put it to you plainly again: The security of a free state is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is DEPEPENENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, our Second Amendment is clear as to which Part of the Militia of the United States necessary to the security of a free State.

No. It makes clear what KIND of militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Regardless, membership in the militia is no prerequisite for, or constraint upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Yes, there must be a difference since Only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. That has nothing to do with the natural right to acquire and posses private property, which is secured in State Constitutions. Simply claiming that is simple fallacy of composition and false Cause, since those rights are already secured in State Constitutions and available via due process, for the several citizens in the several States. Only one Body politic is enumerated as Necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the other ones; and, Only that Body politic may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.