The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

Defense of self and property is a natural right.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

Oh man...this poor little boys IQ is so low he doesn’t even realize he contradicts himself in the same sentence.

He states “defense of self” is a “natural right”. Then turns around and immediately says in the next sentence “the 2nd Amendment is not a natural right”.

Uh...how is one supposed to DEFEND themselves if they are denied the right to a firearm?

What an idiot.

Our Second Amendment is about the militia, and what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

...and the PEOPLE are the militia, so, it’s about the people.

No, it isn't. Only the right wing doesn't comprehend the first clause.

 

[hadit]

So, to revisit your previous blunder, which you won't address, how do you have First Amendment rights without belonging to a licensed and regulated advocacy group? You claimed none of the amendments protected individuals, only groups. If that is the case, you don't have protected free speech rights unless you belong to a regulated group, so which one do you belong to?

Now you know I'm not going to let this go, so you might as well fire off one of your dozen or so canned phrases.

I know how to read.

Each Amendment covers a specific topic.

The Words, actually mean what they say.

No, you said none of the amendments apply to individuals, only to groups. Now explain how you have free speech rights without belonging to a regulated group. You know you're on a losing path here, because once you admit the first amendment applies to individuals, you'll have a much harder time insisting that the second only applies to regulated groups. So explain away. No canned phrases allowed.

lol. nice story, story teller.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment. It is about the security of a free State and the Means necessary to achieve that End.

Again, you fail to read what's written. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, so I'm talking about the first. We'll get to the second in a bit, but before that you have to explain why and how the first only applies to groups and why you're not subject to arrest for posting without being a member of a regulated group.

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

It must be so, simply Because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it merely follows our federal Constitution,

like the second clause must follow the first clause of our Second Amendment.

Order over Chaos.

I know this is difficult for you to follow, but try. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, remember? Let's start at the beginning with the first amendment and you convince me that it only protects you if you're a member of a regulated group. Go.

 

[hadit]

We have left it up to the courts to make these rulings when, in fact, Legislation should have been doing it all along.

What do you think the 2nd Amendment was?!? It was legislation.

And it was dead on in 1791 when it was adopted by the States which made it part of the Constitution. Since then, it hasn't kept up with the changes made and is no longer current. It needs to be rewritten to stay with the times. It's been chopped up so badly that there isn't much of it left. Care to tell me what parts are still current and specific and are not ambiguous? And please don't use the same old tired cliches.

As long as it's not repealed, it's still the law of the land and law abiding citizens will obey it.

 

[danielpalos]

I know how to read.

Each Amendment covers a specific topic.

The Words, actually mean what they say.

No, you said none of the amendments apply to individuals, only to groups. Now explain how you have free speech rights without belonging to a regulated group. You know you're on a losing path here, because once you admit the first amendment applies to individuals, you'll have a much harder time insisting that the second only applies to regulated groups. So explain away. No canned phrases allowed.

lol. nice story, story teller.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment. It is about the security of a free State and the Means necessary to achieve that End.

Again, you fail to read what's written. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, so I'm talking about the first. We'll get to the second in a bit, but before that you have to explain why and how the first only applies to groups and why you're not subject to arrest for posting without being a member of a regulated group.

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

It must be so, simply Because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it merely follows our federal Constitution,

like the second clause must follow the first clause of our Second Amendment.

Order over Chaos.

I know this is difficult for you to follow, but try. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, remember? Let's start at the beginning with the first amendment and you convince me that it only protects you if you're a member of a regulated group. Go.

nice story, story teller. I gave you my story.

 

[hadit]

No, you said none of the amendments apply to individuals, only to groups. Now explain how you have free speech rights without belonging to a regulated group. You know you're on a losing path here, because once you admit the first amendment applies to individuals, you'll have a much harder time insisting that the second only applies to regulated groups. So explain away. No canned phrases allowed.

lol. nice story, story teller.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment. It is about the security of a free State and the Means necessary to achieve that End.

Again, you fail to read what's written. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, so I'm talking about the first. We'll get to the second in a bit, but before that you have to explain why and how the first only applies to groups and why you're not subject to arrest for posting without being a member of a regulated group.

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

It must be so, simply Because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it merely follows our federal Constitution,

like the second clause must follow the first clause of our Second Amendment.

Order over Chaos.

I know this is difficult for you to follow, but try. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, remember? Let's start at the beginning with the first amendment and you convince me that it only protects you if you're a member of a regulated group. Go.

nice story, story teller. I gave you my story.

You have failed, monumentally. When you're ready to explain how the first doesn't protect individuals, let me know. Until then, you've failed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Defense of self and property is a natural right.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

Oh man...this poor little boys IQ is so low he doesn’t even realize he contradicts himself in the same sentence.

He states “defense of self” is a “natural right”. Then turns around and immediately says in the next sentence “the 2nd Amendment is not a natural right”.

Uh...how is one supposed to DEFEND themselves if they are denied the right to a firearm?

What an idiot.

Our Second Amendment is about the militia, and what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

...and the PEOPLE are the militia, so, it’s about the people.

No, it isn't. Only the right wing doesn't comprehend the first clause.

No, motherfucker. YOU said the people are the militia. If our 2nd Amendment is about the militia, it is about the people. Don’t back away from your own statement, puta.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. nice story, story teller.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment. It is about the security of a free State and the Means necessary to achieve that End.

Again, you fail to read what's written. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, so I'm talking about the first. We'll get to the second in a bit, but before that you have to explain why and how the first only applies to groups and why you're not subject to arrest for posting without being a member of a regulated group.

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

It must be so, simply Because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it merely follows our federal Constitution,

like the second clause must follow the first clause of our Second Amendment.

Order over Chaos.

I know this is difficult for you to follow, but try. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, remember? Let's start at the beginning with the first amendment and you convince me that it only protects you if you're a member of a regulated group. Go.

nice story, story teller. I gave you my story.

You have failed, monumentally. When you're ready to explain how the first doesn't protect individuals, let me know. Until then, you've failed.

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

It must be so, simply Because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it merely follows our federal Constitution,

like the second clause must follow the first clause of our Second Amendment.

Order over Chaos.

Defense of self and property is a natural right, covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process;

we should need frivolous tax rates from the right wing, if they should continue.

 

[danielpalos]

Defense of self and property is a natural right.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

Oh man...this poor little boys IQ is so low he doesn’t even realize he contradicts himself in the same sentence.

He states “defense of self” is a “natural right”. Then turns around and immediately says in the next sentence “the 2nd Amendment is not a natural right”.

Uh...how is one supposed to DEFEND themselves if they are denied the right to a firearm?

What an idiot.

Our Second Amendment is about the militia, and what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

...and the PEOPLE are the militia, so, it’s about the people.

No, it isn't. Only the right wing doesn't comprehend the first clause.

No, motherfucker. YOU said the people are the militia. If our 2nd Amendment is about the militia, it is about the people. Don’t back away from your own statement, puta.

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

It must be so, simply Because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it merely follows our federal Constitution,

like the second clause must follow the first clause of our Second Amendment.

Order over Chaos.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

I thiught you just said that it’s about the militia? Now it’s about the security of a free state?

MAKE UP YOU MIND, PUTA!

 

[danielpalos]

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

I thiught you just said that it’s about the militia? Now it’s about the security of a free state?

MAKE UP YOU MIND, PUTA!

stop appealing to ignorance. Only wo-men, do that. Men have arguments, not excuses.

Our Second Amendment has Always been about what the First Clause orders the Second Clause, to do.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Defense of self and property is a natural right, covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process;

This statement is so motherfucking wrong that you should have your fake citizenship revoked for even stating it.

Ask any constitutional lawyer or professor if that statement is correct. 100% of them will tell you that you’re a fucking moron.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

stop appealing to ignorance. Only wo-men, do that. Men have arguments, not excuses.

Inigo Montoya has something to say about your repeated missuse of that phrase.

 

[hadit]

Again, you fail to read what's written. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, so I'm talking about the first. We'll get to the second in a bit, but before that you have to explain why and how the first only applies to groups and why you're not subject to arrest for posting without being a member of a regulated group.

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

It must be so, simply Because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it merely follows our federal Constitution,

like the second clause must follow the first clause of our Second Amendment.

Order over Chaos.

I know this is difficult for you to follow, but try. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, remember? Let's start at the beginning with the first amendment and you convince me that it only protects you if you're a member of a regulated group. Go.

nice story, story teller. I gave you my story.

You have failed, monumentally. When you're ready to explain how the first doesn't protect individuals, let me know. Until then, you've failed.

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

It must be so, simply Because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it merely follows our federal Constitution,

like the second clause must follow the first clause of our Second Amendment.

Order over Chaos.

Defense of self and property is a natural right, covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process;

we should need frivolous tax rates from the right wing, if they should continue.

The first, the first. Focus on the first. You said it didn't protect individuals. Explain why.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Amendment has Always been about what the First Clause orders the Second Clause, to do.

So, the first clause orders the second clause?

The purpose of the constitution is to define and limit the power of the federal government.

Thus, the second amendment tells the federal government not infringe on the peoples right to keep and bear arms because states need a militia.

There can be no other reasonable interpretation of that entire amendment. All other attempts to make it mean something else are attempt to limit the rights of people. It is the tactic of the communist, which you are.

 

[danielpalos]

Defense of self and property is a natural right, covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process;

This statement is so motherfucking wrong that you should have your fake citizenship revoked for even stating it.

Ask any constitutional lawyer or professor if that statement is correct. 100% of them will tell you that you’re a fucking moron.

stop spamming with your appeals to Ignorance, right wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

stop appealing to ignorance. Only wo-men, do that. Men have arguments, not excuses.

Inigo Montoya has something to say about your repeated missuse of that phrase.

any more diversions, my good man?

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

It must be so, simply Because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it merely follows our federal Constitution,

like the second clause must follow the first clause of our Second Amendment.

Order over Chaos.

 

[danielpalos]

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

It must be so, simply Because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it merely follows our federal Constitution,

like the second clause must follow the first clause of our Second Amendment.

Order over Chaos.

I know this is difficult for you to follow, but try. You said none of the amendments protect individuals, remember? Let's start at the beginning with the first amendment and you convince me that it only protects you if you're a member of a regulated group. Go.

nice story, story teller. I gave you my story.

You have failed, monumentally. When you're ready to explain how the first doesn't protect individuals, let me know. Until then, you've failed.

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

It must be so, simply Because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it merely follows our federal Constitution,

like the second clause must follow the first clause of our Second Amendment.

Order over Chaos.

Defense of self and property is a natural right, covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process;

we should need frivolous tax rates from the right wing, if they should continue.

The first, the first. Focus on the first. You said it didn't protect individuals. Explain why.

I said it is not about natural rights; only the clueless, Causeless, and therefore frivolous right wing who should pay taxes for their frivolocity in public venues, say that.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment has Always been about what the First Clause orders the Second Clause, to do.

So, the first clause orders the second clause?

Yes, it does.

 

[P@triot]

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, and what is necessary to achieve that End.

Even if that were true (and it’s not), what is “necessary to achieve that end” is for people to be armed.

 

[P@triot]

Our Second Amendment has Always been about what the First Clause orders the Second Clause, to do.

So, the first clause orders the second clause?

Yes, it does.

Uh...no it doesn’t junior.