The Right To Bear Arms

[Auld Phart]

That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.

they must be there, by implication. that is all the right wing knows.

they must be there, by implication.

who's 'implication'?

besides yours?

there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.

immigration?

I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.


What does immigration have to do with it?

implication.

implication.

No...


Deflection

 

[danielpalos]

they must be there, by implication. that is all the right wing knows.

they must be there, by implication.

who's 'implication'?

besides yours?

there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.

immigration?

I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.


What does immigration have to do with it?

implication.

implication.

No...


Deflection

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

 

[Auld Phart]

who's 'implication'?

besides yours?

there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.

immigration?

I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.


What does immigration have to do with it?

implication.

implication.

No...


Deflection

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

No

"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "

The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.

 

[danielpalos]

there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.

immigration?

I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.


What does immigration have to do with it?

implication.

implication.

No...


Deflection

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

No

"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "

The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.

immigration is a Clause not in our Constitution in any form.

 

[Auld Phart]

immigration?

I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.


What does immigration have to do with it?

implication.

implication.

No...


Deflection

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

No

"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "

The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.

immigration is a Clause not in our Constitution in any form.

immigration has nothing to do with the thread.

 

[Rigby5]

Remember there were absolutely NO police back then at all,

And sa very small standing Army. So they needed a militia.

That no longer is true

And sa very small standing Army.

we had a standing army at that time?

Only a very small training nucleus.
I believe we had an academy at Annapolis, a few coastal forts, some naval ships, cannon, etc.

 

[M14 Shooter]

there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.

immigration?

I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.


What does immigration have to do with it?

implication.

implication.

No...


Deflection

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

No
"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.

He's lying to you. He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
Ignore button.

 

[Rigby5]

That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.

they must be there, by implication. that is all the right wing knows.

they must be there, by implication.

who's 'implication'?

besides yours?

there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.

immigration?

I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.


What does immigration have to do with it?

implication.

Implication is not legal according to the 10th amendment.
Has to be expressly granted federal jurisdiction.

Immigration is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
{...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role.
...}
Since the Constitution clearly recognized the need for there to be uniform naturalization rules, then that jurisdiction extends to entry as well. You can't have states doing it because if one state was stricter, immigrant would go to a more lenient state and then cross over to the more strict state once inside. And that would cause states to block interstate commerce then, which is also explicitly covered.

 

[danielpalos]

implication.

implication.

No...


Deflection

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

No

"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "

The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.

immigration is a Clause not in our Constitution in any form.

immigration has nothing to do with the thread.

it has Everything to do with Implication.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

immigration?

I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.


What does immigration have to do with it?

implication.

implication.

No...


Deflection

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

No
"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.

He's lying to you. He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
Ignore button.

i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.

 

[danielpalos]

they must be there, by implication. that is all the right wing knows.

they must be there, by implication.

who's 'implication'?

besides yours?

there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.

immigration?

I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.


What does immigration have to do with it?

implication.

Implication is not legal according to the 10th amendment.
Has to be expressly granted federal jurisdiction.

Immigration is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
{...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role.
...}
Since the Constitution clearly recognized the need for there to be uniform naturalization rules, then that jurisdiction extends to entry as well. You can't have states doing it because if one state was stricter, immigrant would go to a more lenient state and then cross over to the more strict state once inside. And that would cause states to block interstate commerce then, which is also explicitly covered.

no, it isn't. there is no implication for immigration. Our Constitution is express. Naturalization is not immigration.

 

[Auld Phart]

No...


Deflection

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

No

"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "

The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.

immigration is a Clause not in our Constitution in any form.

immigration has nothing to do with the thread.

it has Everything to do with Implication.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Stop derailing the thread

 

[Auld Phart]

who's 'implication'?

besides yours?

there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.

immigration?

I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.


What does immigration have to do with it?

implication.

Implication is not legal according to the 10th amendment.
Has to be expressly granted federal jurisdiction.

Immigration is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
{...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role.
...}
Since the Constitution clearly recognized the need for there to be uniform naturalization rules, then that jurisdiction extends to entry as well. You can't have states doing it because if one state was stricter, immigrant would go to a more lenient state and then cross over to the more strict state once inside. And that would cause states to block interstate commerce then, which is also explicitly covered.

no, it isn't. there is no implication for immigration. Our Constitution is express. Naturalization is not immigration.

Immigration has nothing to do with the thread.

Stop derailing

 

[hadit]

and thats also why they added

" THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

A specific limitation on Government.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.

The several States are the Union.

That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.

they must be there, by implication. that is all the right wing knows.

No, it's all YOU know, because it's simply not in there.

 

[Rigby5]

implication.

implication.

No...


Deflection

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

No
"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.

He's lying to you. He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
Ignore button.

i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.

Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
And no reason at all has to be given.
The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government. The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.

 

[danielpalos]

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

No

"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "

The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.

immigration is a Clause not in our Constitution in any form.

immigration has nothing to do with the thread.

it has Everything to do with Implication.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Stop derailing the thread

They have everything to do with our Second Amendment. There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.

 

[danielpalos]

A specific limitation on Government.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.

The several States are the Union.

That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.

they must be there, by implication. that is all the right wing knows.

No, it's all YOU know, because it's simply not in there.

Yes; it is implied not express.

 

[danielpalos]

No...


Deflection

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.

No
"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.

He's lying to you. He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
Ignore button.

i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.

Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
And no reason at all has to be given.
The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government. The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.

Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Lesh]

Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.

Possibly. But one has to wonder WHY they mentioned ONLY that one right and did so in a way that tied it directly to "the right to bear arms"

They clearly thought that a militia was "necessary". They had just fought a war for Independence in which that militia ws crucial.

The 2A was obviously about that militia and how to make sure it was "armed".

We no longer HAVE a militia

 

[Rigby5]

who's 'implication'?

besides yours?

there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.

immigration?

I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.


What does immigration have to do with it?

implication.

Implication is not legal according to the 10th amendment.
Has to be expressly granted federal jurisdiction.

Immigration is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
{...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role.
...}
Since the Constitution clearly recognized the need for there to be uniform naturalization rules, then that jurisdiction extends to entry as well. You can't have states doing it because if one state was stricter, immigrant would go to a more lenient state and then cross over to the more strict state once inside. And that would cause states to block interstate commerce then, which is also explicitly covered.

no, it isn't. there is no implication for immigration. Our Constitution is express. Naturalization is not immigration.

There is no implication because naturalization is explicitly immigration. Naturalization is the only way a person can be a real immigrant. Otherwise they are just visiting, and can't vote, etc.