The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Snowflake, if natural rights were in our state constitutions, they could be taken away by the federal government. Federal law trumps state and local law.

Additionally, since all 50 states have their own state constitution, we would all have different rights as Americans. But we don’t. Know why? Because all of our rights exist in the U.S. Constitution.

Do you understand now how dumb your sound with your desperate attempts to declare that citizens do not have an unmitigated right to keep and bear arms?

Due Process applies to the federal government.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. only, appealers to ignorance, claim that. I have nothing but the Truth; unlike the whole and entire, right wing.

Oh the irony!!! The guy who fails to capitalize the first word of a sentence, and who, adds a comma where no comma should be, wants to talk about “ignorance”.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Only in the minds of the ignorant, uninformed, and desperate.

you have to understand the concepts, not whine about any given language usage.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. only, appealers to ignorance, claim that. I have nothing but the Truth; unlike the whole and entire, right wing.

The atrocious grammar is how you know one of two things. Either Daniel is a typical uneducated lefty (high school dropout, pot smoker, etc.) or he’s a paid Russian troll. It is unquestionably one of the two.

nothing but spam, from the right wing, like usual.

 

[P@triot]

there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

And yet you keep appealing to ignorance of the U.S. Constitution (the highest law in the land)

 

[P@triot]

fundamentals matter; the first clause must serve some legislative intent and purpose.

It does! It’s purpose was to inform as to why the founders felt that it was so vital for citizens to have a right to keep and bear arms!

 

[danielpalos]

there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

And yet you keep appealing to ignorance of the U.S. Constitution (the highest law in the land)

there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

fundamentals matter; the first clause must serve some legislative intent and purpose.

It does! It’s purpose was to inform as to why the founders felt that it was so vital for citizens to have a right to keep and bear arms!

Yes, it is in the first clause.

 

[P@triot]

lol. only, appealers to ignorance, claim that. I have nothing but the Truth; unlike the whole and entire, right wing.

Oh the irony!!! The guy who fails to capitalize the first word of a sentence, and who, adds a comma where no comma should be, wants to talk about “ignorance”.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Only in the minds of the ignorant, uninformed, and desperate.

you have to understand the concepts, not whine about any given language usage.

And that’s exactly why you’re confused by the U.S. Constituion. Word have meaning, snowflake. You cannot dismiss them in favor of “concepts”.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. only, appealers to ignorance, claim that. I have nothing but the Truth; unlike the whole and entire, right wing.

Oh the irony!!! The guy who fails to capitalize the first word of a sentence, and who, adds a comma where no comma should be, wants to talk about “ignorance”.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Only in the minds of the ignorant, uninformed, and desperate.

you have to understand the concepts, not whine about any given language usage.

And that’s exactly why you’re confused by the U.S. Constituion. Word have meaning, snowflake. You cannot dismiss them in favor of “concepts”.

i understand the concepts; You don't.

 

[P@triot]

The next time you`re stopped and disarmed at a metal detector give the police your little infringement speech. They like a good laugh now and then too.

I will do that!!! Thankfully for me, I don’t live in a nation where police “stop” me, “disarm” me, and then walk me through a “metal detector”.

Where in the hell do you live?

 

[Lesh]

It does! It’s purpose was to inform as to why the founders felt that it was so vital for citizens to have a right to keep and bear arms!

EXACTLY. The phrase you are referring to being "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

We no longer HAVE a "Well regulated Militia" and the unorganized militia is restricted to males between 17 and 45

So by even that tortured definition the 2A ONLY protects gun rights for those people

 

[danielpalos]

It does! It’s purpose was to inform as to why the founders felt that it was so vital for citizens to have a right to keep and bear arms!

EXACTLY. The phrase you are referring to being "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

We no longer HAVE a "Well regulated Militia" and the unorganized militia is restricted to males between 17 and 45

So by even that tortured definition the 2A ONLY protects gun rights for those people

Only those People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[P@triot]

It does! It’s purpose was to inform as to why the founders felt that it was so vital for citizens to have a right to keep and bear arms!

EXACTLY. The phrase you are referring to being "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

We no longer HAVE a "Well regulated Militia" and the unorganized militia is restricted to males between 17 and 45

So by even that tortured definition the 2A ONLY protects gun rights for those people

Uh....no. Again, the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment doesn’t matter. What matters is what it states. And it unequivocally states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say “the right of the militia”.

 

[danielpalos]

It does! It’s purpose was to inform as to why the founders felt that it was so vital for citizens to have a right to keep and bear arms!

EXACTLY. The phrase you are referring to being "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

We no longer HAVE a "Well regulated Militia" and the unorganized militia is restricted to males between 17 and 45

So by even that tortured definition the 2A ONLY protects gun rights for those people

Uh....no. Again, the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment doesn’t matter. What matters is what it states. And it unequivocally states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say “the right of the militia”.

The people are the militia under the common law for the common defense.

 

[Lesh]

It does! It’s purpose was to inform as to why the founders felt that it was so vital for citizens to have a right to keep and bear arms!

EXACTLY. The phrase you are referring to being "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

We no longer HAVE a "Well regulated Militia" and the unorganized militia is restricted to males between 17 and 45

So by even that tortured definition the 2A ONLY protects gun rights for those people

Uh....no. Again, the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment doesn’t matter. What matters is what it states. And it unequivocally states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say “the right of the militia”.

The people are the militia under the common law for the common defense.

We're talking about the Constitution and laws passed by Congress

 

[danielpalos]

It does! It’s purpose was to inform as to why the founders felt that it was so vital for citizens to have a right to keep and bear arms!

EXACTLY. The phrase you are referring to being "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

We no longer HAVE a "Well regulated Militia" and the unorganized militia is restricted to males between 17 and 45

So by even that tortured definition the 2A ONLY protects gun rights for those people

Uh....no. Again, the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment doesn’t matter. What matters is what it states. And it unequivocally states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say “the right of the militia”.

The people are the militia under the common law for the common defense.

We're talking about the Constitution and laws passed by Congress

The common defense operates under the common law, for the Good of the State, when necessary.

 

[Lesh]

Uh....no. Again, the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment doesn’t matter. What matters is what it states. And it unequivocally states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say “the right of the militia”.

As written it concerns the right of the people as related TO that Well Regulated Militia...and only that

 

[danielpalos]

Uh....no. Again, the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment doesn’t matter. What matters is what it states. And it unequivocally states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say “the right of the militia”.

As written it concerns the right of the people as related TO that Well Regulated Militia...and only that

The security of a free State; we should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[hadit]

It does! It’s purpose was to inform as to why the founders felt that it was so vital for citizens to have a right to keep and bear arms!

EXACTLY. The phrase you are referring to being "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

We no longer HAVE a "Well regulated Militia" and the unorganized militia is restricted to males between 17 and 45

So by even that tortured definition the 2A ONLY protects gun rights for those people

Only those People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

As I've said before and you ignored, it says nothing about "for their State or the Union".

 

[P@triot]

The people are the militia under the common law for the common defense.

The people are the people under the U.S. Constitution. And that is all that matters.