The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[P@triot]

So the First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. Got it.

That is Your red herring.

That is your extremely immature way of avoiding his question. Grow up and address it head on. Be an adult. Discuss the issue.

 

[danielpalos]

So the First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. Got it.

That is Your red herring. the People and the Militia are Both, plural and collective, not singular or individual, every time we have to quibble.

Yes...people is plural because there is more than one U.S. citizen, chief. And the right belongs to each and every individual citizen.

Our Second Amendment is about what is, plurally and collectively, the security need of a free State, not natural rights; because, those are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[danielpalos]

So the First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. Got it.

That is Your red herring.

That is your extremely immature way of avoiding his question. Grow up and address it head on. Be an adult. Discuss the issue.

apples and oranges. words mean something.

 

[Thinker101]

So the First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. Got it.

That is Your red herring.

That is your extremely immature way of avoiding his question. Grow up and address it head on. Be an adult. Discuss the issue.

apples and oranges. words mean something.

They sure do, and we're still waiting for your words to mean something intelligible.

 

[P@triot]

So the First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. Got it.

That is Your red herring.

That is your extremely immature way of avoiding his question. Grow up and address it head on. Be an adult. Discuss the issue.

apples and oranges. words mean something.

You’re right - words do mean something. Progressives such as yourself attempt to pretend that they don’t. Like Bill Clinton famously asking “what is ‘is’ ”?

And comparing rights to rights is apples to apples my confused little snowflake.

 

[P@triot]

Our Second Amendment is about what is, plurally and collectively, the security need of a free State

Well that is idiotic. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 2nd Amendment was exclusively about protection against tyranny from one’s own government. The founders were very clear on that.

Why do you refuse to read the U.S. Constitution?

 

[hadit]

You ignored the question.

It is your fantasy, why don't You, run with it? You are simply, begging the question, as far as I am concerned.

I'm well aware that you operate on a completely different wavelength from most of the world.

The People is plural not Individual; they could have used, Persons, like in most State Constitutions, where natural and individual rights, are recognized and secured via Due Process.

So the First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. Got it.

That is Your red herring.

the People and the Militia are Both, plural and collective, not singular or individual, every time we have to quibble.

That's what I said. You believe the First doesn't apply to you as an individual.

 

[danielpalos]

So the First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. Got it.

That is Your red herring.

That is your extremely immature way of avoiding his question. Grow up and address it head on. Be an adult. Discuss the issue.

apples and oranges. words mean something.

They sure do, and we're still waiting for your words to mean something intelligible.

lol. the words i read make more sense. words have specific meaning; and the meaning inferred by the right wing, is not supported by the actual words, themselves.

 

[danielpalos]

So the First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. Got it.

That is Your red herring.

That is your extremely immature way of avoiding his question. Grow up and address it head on. Be an adult. Discuss the issue.

apples and oranges. words mean something.

You’re right - words do mean something. Progressives such as yourself attempt to pretend that they don’t. Like Bill Clinton famously asking “what is ‘is’ ”?

And comparing rights to rights is apples to apples my confused little snowflake.

Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about what is, plurally and collectively, the security need of a free State

Well that is idiotic. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 2nd Amendment was exclusively about protection against tyranny from one’s own government. The founders were very clear on that.

Why do you refuse to read the U.S. Constitution?

only the right wing claims anything they want.

Each amendment means something. Our Second Amendment is a States' sovereign right.

 

[danielpalos]

It is your fantasy, why don't You, run with it? You are simply, begging the question, as far as I am concerned.

I'm well aware that you operate on a completely different wavelength from most of the world.

The People is plural not Individual; they could have used, Persons, like in most State Constitutions, where natural and individual rights, are recognized and secured via Due Process.

So the First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. Got it.

That is Your red herring.

the People and the Militia are Both, plural and collective, not singular or individual, every time we have to quibble.

That's what I said. You believe the First doesn't apply to you as an individual.

It applies to the People. The People have a right to petition for redress of grievances.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So if it is ignorance of firearms that causes the fear, and if the American people were forced to take a course or two on firearms they would not fear them anymore, right?

Ah yes....force. The recurring theme of any progressive narrative. So just curious here - you advocate forcing anyone over the age of 18 to (and I quote) “take a course or two on firearms”? Including all progressives?

How do you think that will go over with your fellow fascists?

Actually, I would have no problem with every high school graduate having gone through a course on how to render a found gun harmless instead of being taught to run screaming away. IOW, let's take a page from sex Ed and demystify guns to remove the terror.

Do they actually teach teenagers to run away screaming? I mean, elementary school, sure.

That's a sarcastic way of describing the general terror that the new presence of a gun seems to strike.

Wasn't meant to be. I was just pointing out that "leave the area and tell someone" is, in fact, what elementary school children are taught to do when they encounter a gun in an unsupervised situation. One would expect high school students to have already learned this in elementary school, and thus not need to be taught it.

 

[P@triot]

Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.

Right. It expressly gives the people the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[P@triot]

only the right wing claims anything they want.

Only the left-wing fails to read the U.S. Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

It applies to the People. The People have a right to petition for redress of grievances.

So your claim is that a person doesn't though?

 

[Cecilie1200]

only the right wing claims anything they want.

Only the left-wing fails to read the U.S. Constitution.

It's not that they fail to read it; it's that they fail to comprehend English.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

only the right wing claims anything they want.

Only the left-wing fails to read the U.S. Constitution.

It's not that they fail to read it; it's that they fail to comprehend English.

What you mean is that "They" (whomever the hell they are) don't agree with your interpretation and that should get them locked up and disarmed. "they" must be imbalanced. "They" must never be in charge. "They" must be put down as frequently as possible. "They" are a danger to Society. I believe what you are really saying is, anyone that disagrees with your narrow idea of how things should be should be lumped into the category of "They". Like MOST people, I am quite comfortable in that Category. I get to meet the most diverse bunch of people one could ever wish to meet and freely exchange ideas. Wow, imagine that happening on a daily basis. Why it's a danger to your way of life. You know, the free exchange of differing ideas done with respect. "They" should be arrested.

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[danielpalos]

It applies to the People. The People have a right to petition for redress of grievances.

So your claim is that a person doesn't though?

Our federal Constitution enumerates our civil rights as Persons in our Republic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

only the right wing claims anything they want.

Only the left-wing fails to read the U.S. Constitution.

It's not that they fail to read it; it's that they fail to comprehend English.

What you mean is that "They" (whomever the hell they are) don't agree with your interpretation and that should get them locked up and disarmed. "they" must be imbalanced. "They" must never be in charge. "They" must be put down as frequently as possible. "They" are a danger to Society. I believe what you are really saying is, anyone that disagrees with your narrow idea of how things should be should be lumped into the category of "They". Like MOST people, I am quite comfortable in that Category. I get to meet the most diverse bunch of people one could ever wish to meet and freely exchange ideas. Wow, imagine that happening on a daily basis. Why it's a danger to your way of life. You know, the free exchange of differing ideas done with respect. "They" should be arrested.

Yes, my one simple sentence about reading the Constitution but not comprehending it EXACTLY meant your multi-line paranoid screed about locking people up and disarming them, whoever the "them" you think I was attacking actually is. It is so brilliantly perceptive of you to read all that subtle shading and nuance of hatred woven carefully into the seemingly innocuous "they read but don't comprehend".

That, or you're a fucking lunatic retard who desperately wanted to believe someone, ANYONE thought he mattered enough to plot against him, and you just vomited your insanity all over the first handy person. Y'know, whichever.