The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

it also, Literally, does not say Anything about the whole and entire concept of natural rights.

It does, LITERALLY state the following:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

That statement necessarily PRESUMES that the right exists. Otherwise, it would say something different.

where does it say that? not in the first clause.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't mind open discussion but when outright bullying starts by either side, I take offense.

Snowflake, nobody gives a fuck what you do or don’t mind or what you do or don’t take offense to. Walking into this thread like you matter and like you think we care about your views is as arrogant as it is ignorant.

The militia of the United States believes in superiority, not equality.

 

[P@triot]

I am saying, our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not the concept of natural rights of individuals.

So basically you're saying you are illiterate? Because the 2nd Amendment couldn't possibly be more clear that it is about the rights of individual citizens.

Where?

Right here:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I discussed the laws as they are written and as they are ruled on. I don't express any personal opinion. But that seems to get in both fringe groups way. Just because you disagree with the law and the rulings doesn't make you right. It's just means that you are not right. Maybe not wrong but certainly not right. You want things changed to suit yourself then do it at the ballot box. I actually like the way the laws and the rulings are done today. And I don't see any changes as long as the Higher Courts continue to rule on the whole of the Constitution of the United States instead of some small part like you want them to. And that is their job.

I have never advocated for a parsed reading of the Constitution. I support a 4-corners reading and interpretation, just like a statutory or contractual interpretation.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The militia of the United States believes in superiority, not equality.

The above statement has no meaning. Neither superiority nor equality is at issue in this discussion.

This is par for the course with you.

 

[danielpalos]

I am saying, our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not the concept of natural rights of individuals.

So basically you're saying you are illiterate? Because the 2nd Amendment couldn't possibly be more clear that it is about the rights of individual citizens.

Where?

Right here:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

lousy right wing reading comprehension or right wing religious forms of dogma?

our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not the concept of natural rights of individuals.

 

[danielpalos]

The militia of the United States believes in superiority, not equality.

The above statement has no meaning. Neither superiority nor equality are at issue in this discussion.

This is par for the course with you.

The South claimed the same thing.

They are still looking for their, lost clue and their lost Cause.

 

[P@triot]

The militia of the United States believes in superiority, not equality.

The kerfuffle of the auspice has, in retrospect, resulted in an infinite commitment to the sanguine.

 

[danielpalos]

The militia of the United States believes in superiority, not equality.

The kerfuffle of the auspice has, in retrospect, resulted in an infinite commitment to the sanguine.

The South should have claimed; get it handled And lower our Tax burden; That's real Yankee Ingenuity!

 

[P@triot]

our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not the concept of natural rights of individuals.

The 2nd Amendment says otherwise.

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

In addition, the 2nd Amendment was specifically made a part of the “Bill of Rights” which are exclusively about the individual rights of citizens and not “security” of “free states”. Oops. Illiterate much?

 

[P@triot]

our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not the concept of natural rights of individuals.

That statement is so astoundingly ignorant that it need only a simple picture to defeat it:

 

[P@triot]

No, it doesn't. Only those who are declared Necessary may not be Infringed.

It doesn't "declare" anyone to be "necessary", idiot. What the prefatory clause states is that a well regulated militia is "necessary to the security of a free State". That is the why.

But the what (the operative clause) is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It could not be more clear. Even a nitwit such as yourself understands it. Sadly, you're just too disingenuous to accept it.

Contraception, being necessary to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy, the right of the people to have sex with condoms shall not be in infringed.

According to Dan, the above statement means that only the right of contraception deemed necessary shall not be infringed.

In other words, according to Dan, necessary contraception has the right to have sex with condoms.

He will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever,

ever,

ever,

explain that shit. He will just repeat it over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, again.

This will get nowhere.

Dan makes no arguments....ever.....ever!!!

Dude...you win the internet today.

 

[P@triot]

A big penis, being necessary to porn film casting, the right of the people to get enlargement surgeries shall not be infringed.

So, the big penis has the right to the enlargement surgery, correct? Not the people?

Only the right of necessary big dongs shall not be infringed?

 

[danielpalos]

our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not the concept of natural rights of individuals.

The 2nd Amendment says otherwise.

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

In addition, the 2nd Amendment was specifically made a part of the “Bill of Rights” which are exclusively about the individual rights of citizens and not “security” of “free states”. Oops. Illiterate much?

lol.

Dear Persons on the right wing,

the first clause is Express, not Implied.

 

[P@triot]

The militia of the United States believes in superiority, not equality.

The kerfuffle of the auspice has, in retrospect, resulted in an infinite commitment to the sanguine.

The South should have claimed; get it handled And lower our Tax burden; That's real Yankee Ingenuity!

If, for a while, the ruse of desire is calculable for the uses of discipline soon the repetition of guilt, justification, pseudo-scientific theories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be seen as the desperate effort to "normalize" formally the disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates the rational, enlightened claims of its enunciatory modality

 

[danielpalos]

our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not the concept of natural rights of individuals.

That statement is so astoundingly ignorant that it need only a simple picture to defeat it:

View attachment 210611

Our Second Article of Amendment, is not a Constitution Unto itself.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is a much clearer example of why you commies are fucking wrong:

Neighborhood watch groups, being necessary for the security of homes, the right of the people to keep and use camera drones shall not be infringed.

So, only a neighborhood watch group has the non-infringed right to keep and use camera drones? Why not just say "the right of neighborhood watch groups to keep and use.." etc?

EVERY WORD must be given meaning. You cannot ignore the word "people." You cannot assume that "people" is used interchangeably with "watch group." You must assume that it is something separate and different. A watch group is made up of people. But, the watch group does not have the right to use drones. People have the right.

Rights cannot be separated from the individual. A group or collective has no rights unless the individuals that make up that group have those rights. Again, the right is tied to the person, not the group.

A group cannot have more rights that the individual.

 

[P@triot]

the first clause is Express, not Implied.

The prefatory clause is the why. It is not the what. Uh buh-bye!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Article of Amendment, is not a Constitution Unto itself.

This also has no meaning unless you are arguing that the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is ambiguous and in conflict with some other part of the Constitution.

Is that what you are arguing?

 

[danielpalos]

the first clause is Express, not Implied.

The prefatory clause is the why. It is not the what. Uh buh-bye!

The why is the security of a free State, the what is the militia of the people. Only well regulated militia of the People are Necessary.