CDZ The 2nd Amendment

[bigrebnc1775]

pisss OVER HERE HERE.... THE SECOND AMENDMENT DISCUSSION IS OVER HERE.
You're drifting.

Our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

You merely appeal to ignorance.

So what is the constitution for?

Is is our supreme law of the land.

and the second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary, not the unorganized militia, expressly.

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

You merely appeal to ignorance.

So what is the constitution for?

Is is our supreme law of the land.

and the second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary, not the unorganized militia, expressly.

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

Of course it does. Only the right wing, appeals to ignorance of the law by custom and habit, until it is indistinguishable from any moral.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ignorant of your Constitutional, standing Orders?

huh? are you drunk?

I am not the one who Only has appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land.

Can right wing Bakers, be any more moral.

pisss OVER HERE HERE.... THE SECOND AMENDMENT DISCUSSION IS OVER HERE.
You're drifting.

Our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

You merely appeal to ignorance.

So what is the constitution for?

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The purpose of the Constitution and its case law is to instruct the people as they enact laws through their elected representatives what measures are consistent with that case law and what measures are not, where the people are to refrain from enacting laws and measures repugnant to Constitutional case law.

And when the people err, and enact laws and measures that violate Constitutional jurisprudence, citizens disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to seek relief in the courts, and have those laws and measures invalidated, regardless the ‘will of the people.’

Although inalienable, our rights are not unlimited, the people have the authority to place limits and restrictions on our rights through government action provided those limits and restriction comport with Constitutional case law; it is the responsibility of the people to act in accordance with that case law, consistent with the rule of law.

That’s what the Constitution is for.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

You merely appeal to ignorance.

So what is the constitution for?

Is is our supreme law of the land.

and the second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary, not the unorganized militia, expressly.

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

 

[danielpalos]

huh? are you drunk?

I am not the one who Only has appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land.

Can right wing Bakers, be any more moral.

pisss OVER HERE HERE.... THE SECOND AMENDMENT DISCUSSION IS OVER HERE.
You're drifting.

Our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

You merely appeal to ignorance.

So what is the constitution for?

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The purpose of the Constitution and its case law is to instruct the people as they enact laws through their elected representatives what measures are consistent with that case law and what measures are not, where the people are to refrain from enacting laws and measures repugnant to Constitutional case law.

And when the people err, and enact laws and measures that violate Constitutional jurisprudence, citizens disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to seek relief in the courts, and have those laws and measures invalidated, regardless the ‘will of the people.’

Although inalienable, our rights are not unlimited, the people have the authority to place limits and restrictions on our rights through government action provided those limits and restriction comport with Constitutional case law; it is the responsibility of the people to act in accordance with that case law, consistent with the rule of law.

That’s what the Constitution is for.

Our Constitutions are our supreme Code laws of the land, not Case laws of the land.

 

[danielpalos]

So what is the constitution for?

Is is our supreme law of the land.

and the second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary, not the unorganized militia, expressly.

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

No, it doesn't. Well regulated means what Congress prescribes it to mean, for the Militia of the United States.

 

[2aguy]

So what is the constitution for?

Is is our supreme law of the land.

and the second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary, not the unorganized militia, expressly.

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

Your quote doesn't touch on the Heller Point...this is the quote that deals with the "well-regulate" adjective....

Page 23 of D.C. v Heller....

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So what is the constitution for?

Is is our supreme law of the land.

and the second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary, not the unorganized militia, expressly.

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

See below quote

Your quote doesn't touch on the Heller Point...this is the quote that deals with the "well-regulate" adjective....

Page 23 of D.C. v Heller....

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Thank you

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Is is our supreme law of the land.

and the second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary, not the unorganized militia, expressly.

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

No, it doesn't. Well regulated means what Congress prescribes it to mean, for the Militia of the United States.

Nope that's why they didn't want a standing army

 

[danielpalos]

and the second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary, not the unorganized militia, expressly.

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

No, it doesn't. Well regulated means what Congress prescribes it to mean, for the Militia of the United States.

Nope that's why they didn't want a standing army

You only appeal to ignorance. Why not actually read our Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary, not the unorganized militia, expressly.

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

No, it doesn't. Well regulated means what Congress prescribes it to mean, for the Militia of the United States.

Nope that's why they didn't want a standing army

You only appeal to ignorance. Why not actually read our Constitution.

I know more about it than you, it does appear you've shown that you know very little about the subject. But don't feel bad most liberals thinks it's a living breathing document. lol

 

[danielpalos]

The words well regulated does not mean what you think it means

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

No, it doesn't. Well regulated means what Congress prescribes it to mean, for the Militia of the United States.

Nope that's why they didn't want a standing army

You only appeal to ignorance. Why not actually read our Constitution.

I know more about it than you, it does appear you've shown that you know very little about the subject. But don't feel bad most liberals thinks it's a living breathing document. lol

No, you don't. You merely appeal to ignorance. And, it is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

“Well regulated” means what the Supreme Court says it means:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

ibid

No, it doesn't. Well regulated means what Congress prescribes it to mean, for the Militia of the United States.

Nope that's why they didn't want a standing army

You only appeal to ignorance. Why not actually read our Constitution.

I know more about it than you, it does appear you've shown that you know very little about the subject. But don't feel bad most liberals thinks it's a living breathing document. lol

No, you don't. You merely appeal to ignorance. And, it is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Yes, I do. You give your ignorance away by how you describe the constitution. You have limited comprehension of it.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. Well regulated means what Congress prescribes it to mean, for the Militia of the United States.

Nope that's why they didn't want a standing army

You only appeal to ignorance. Why not actually read our Constitution.

I know more about it than you, it does appear you've shown that you know very little about the subject. But don't feel bad most liberals thinks it's a living breathing document. lol

No, you don't. You merely appeal to ignorance. And, it is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Yes, I do. You give your ignorance away by how you describe the constitution. You have limited comprehension of it.

No, you don't. Why make it up as you go along instead of actually reading our Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope that's why they didn't want a standing army

You only appeal to ignorance. Why not actually read our Constitution.

I know more about it than you, it does appear you've shown that you know very little about the subject. But don't feel bad most liberals thinks it's a living breathing document. lol

No, you don't. You merely appeal to ignorance. And, it is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Yes, I do. You give your ignorance away by how you describe the constitution. You have limited comprehension of it.

No, you don't. Why make it up as you go along instead of actually reading our Constitution.

When I went to law enforcement school I had to take Constitutional law.

 

[danielpalos]

You only appeal to ignorance. Why not actually read our Constitution.

I know more about it than you, it does appear you've shown that you know very little about the subject. But don't feel bad most liberals thinks it's a living breathing document. lol

No, you don't. You merely appeal to ignorance. And, it is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Yes, I do. You give your ignorance away by how you describe the constitution. You have limited comprehension of it.

No, you don't. Why make it up as you go along instead of actually reading our Constitution.

When I went to law enforcement school I had to take Constitutional law.

I actually read our Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I know more about it than you, it does appear you've shown that you know very little about the subject. But don't feel bad most liberals thinks it's a living breathing document. lol

No, you don't. You merely appeal to ignorance. And, it is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Yes, I do. You give your ignorance away by how you describe the constitution. You have limited comprehension of it.

No, you don't. Why make it up as you go along instead of actually reading our Constitution.

When I went to law enforcement school I had to take Constitutional law.

I actually read our Constitution.

I never said you didn't read it. I said you didn't comprehend it.

 

[Flash]

Nope that's why they didn't want a standing army

You only appeal to ignorance. Why not actually read our Constitution.

I know more about it than you, it does appear you've shown that you know very little about the subject. But don't feel bad most liberals thinks it's a living breathing document. lol

No, you don't. You merely appeal to ignorance. And, it is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Yes, I do. You give your ignorance away by how you describe the constitution. You have limited comprehension of it.

No, you don't. Why make it up as you go along instead of actually reading our Constitution.

I have read it.

In regards to the right to keep and bear arms it says very clearly that necessary to the security of the free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Pretty damn straightforward to anyone except a confused Liberal.

 

[danielpalos]

No, you don't. You merely appeal to ignorance. And, it is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Yes, I do. You give your ignorance away by how you describe the constitution. You have limited comprehension of it.

No, you don't. Why make it up as you go along instead of actually reading our Constitution.

When I went to law enforcement school I had to take Constitutional law.

I actually read our Constitution.

I never said you didn't read it. I said you didn't comprehend it.

You are the one appealing to ignorance, not me.

 

[danielpalos]

You only appeal to ignorance. Why not actually read our Constitution.

I know more about it than you, it does appear you've shown that you know very little about the subject. But don't feel bad most liberals thinks it's a living breathing document. lol

No, you don't. You merely appeal to ignorance. And, it is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Yes, I do. You give your ignorance away by how you describe the constitution. You have limited comprehension of it.

No, you don't. Why make it up as you go along instead of actually reading our Constitution.

I have read it.

In regards to the right to keep and bear arms it says very clearly that necessary to the security of the free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Pretty damn straightforward to anyone except a confused Liberal.

why keep spamming with your appeals to ignorance?

it says well regulated militia are necessary.