The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.

It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU ******* MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!

SHUT THE **** UP, TROLL!!!

.

The People not the Persons. It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The People not the Persons. It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.

Without persons, you would not have people.

How can you argue with a straight face that "People" does not mean "Persons"?

People have the right, but not a person?


You are SUCH a communist.

That's how the communist power brokers defraud the unwashed masses.

"Who owns this food."

"The people."

"I am a person. Can I eat some?"

"No. It belongs to the People. Not you."

 

[hadit]

Where does it say that?

Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It doesn't say that. I know you desperately want it to, because you continually say it does, but it just doesn't.

lol. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

Everyone has recourse to the second amendment. The right of the people and so forth.

LOL. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

The North had to win simply Because, only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Not the unorganized militias.

Given that the Amendment says the right of the people, who then does not have recourse to it?

 

[hadit]

The first clause claims you are simply wrong.

What? All it says is that a well regulated militia is necessary. That is all the first clause tells us.

So the founders intended to tell us that something is necessary and that is all they did in the 2A???

WRONG, YOU ******* ASS!!!

Because it's necessary, what does the rest of the Amendment do?

It protects the right of the PEOPLE, not the ******* militia!!!! THAT IS PLAIN ENGLISH, AS IT IS WRITTEN!!!!

THERE ARE NO COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, YOU DUMB ****!!!

THE MILITIA DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT.

PEOPLE DO.

INDIVIDUALS EXERCISE RIGHTS. GROUPS ONLY EXERCISE RIGHTS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO EXERCISE THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

All you do is repeat shit over and over and over and over and over and never make a ******* point EVER!!!

I am so **** SICK of you

SHUT THE **** UP and GO BACK TO MEXICO!!!

.

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.

That's not what it says.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Given that the Amendment says the right of the people, who then does not have recourse to it?

PROVE IT, YOU PIECE OF TROLLING SHIT!!! CITE A CASE!!! QUOTE A SCHOLAR!!! ANYTHING!!!

Otherwise, your illegal Mexican ass can SHUT THE **** UP!!!

.

 

[hadit]

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.

It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU ******* MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!

SHUT THE **** UP, TROLL!!!

.

The People not the Persons. It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.

Given that the first amendment specifies that the right of the people to assemble is protected, does that mean you have the right to get together with anyone you choose, or must you be a part of an organized group to get together on a street corner?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Given that the first amendment specifies that the right of the people to assemble is protected, does that mean you have the right to get together with anyone you choose, or must you be a part of an organized group to get together on a street corner?

Get ready for more argumentum ad nauseam, off-topic deflection, and/or argumentum ad hominem about the right wing.

His lack of self-awareness is shocking.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What the 2A says..."A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary ...
It BEGINS thst Amendment with that phrase. That's not there by "accident".
Gun rights are protected in the Constitution as required by that "Well Regulated Militia" which no longer exists

This is a lie.
Oh...sorry...
You are fully aware that you opinion runs contrary to established fact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.

It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU ******* MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!
SHUT THE **** UP, TROLL!!!

The board has an ignore function for a reason.

 

[Lesh]

What the 2A says..."A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary ...
It BEGINS thst Amendment with that phrase. That's not there by "accident".
Gun rights are protected in the Constitution as required by that "Well Regulated Militia" which no longer exists

This is a lie.
Oh...sorry...
You are fully aware that you opinion runs contrary to established fact.

Fact and opinion are not the same things. Learn the difference

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Fact and opinion are not the same things. Learn the difference

Look in the mirror.

.

 

[danielpalos]

The People not the Persons. It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.

Without persons, you would not have people.

How can you argue with a straight face that "People" does not mean "Persons"?

People have the right, but not a person?


You are SUCH a communist.

That's how the communist power brokers defraud the unwashed masses.

"Who owns this food."

"The people."

"I am a person. Can I eat some?"

"No. It belongs to the People. Not you."

you have to engage in the special pleading of appealing to ignorance of the difference in, intent and purpose of our Second Article of Amendment.

Our Second Amendment recognizes and secures this State's sovereign 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.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It doesn't say that. I know you desperately want it to, because you continually say it does, but it just doesn't.

lol. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

Everyone has recourse to the second amendment. The right of the people and so forth.

LOL. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

The North had to win simply Because, only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Not the unorganized militias.

Given that the Amendment says the right of the people, who then does not have recourse to it?

Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment, every time the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

 

[danielpalos]

The first clause claims you are simply wrong.

What? All it says is that a well regulated militia is necessary. That is all the first clause tells us.

So the founders intended to tell us that something is necessary and that is all they did in the 2A???

WRONG, YOU ******* ASS!!!

Because it's necessary, what does the rest of the Amendment do?

It protects the right of the PEOPLE, not the ******* militia!!!! THAT IS PLAIN ENGLISH, AS IT IS WRITTEN!!!!

THERE ARE NO COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, YOU DUMB ****!!!

THE MILITIA DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT.

PEOPLE DO.

INDIVIDUALS EXERCISE RIGHTS. GROUPS ONLY EXERCISE RIGHTS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO EXERCISE THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

All you do is repeat shit over and over and over and over and over and never make a ******* point EVER!!!

I am so **** SICK of you

SHUT THE **** UP and GO BACK TO MEXICO!!!

.

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.

That's not what it says.

The first clause expressly declares it to be the "gospel Truth" for the militia of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.

It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU ******* MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!

SHUT THE **** UP, TROLL!!!

.

The People not the Persons. It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.

Given that the first amendment specifies that the right of the people to assemble is protected, does that mean you have the right to get together with anyone you choose, or must you be a part of an organized group to get together on a street corner?

Our Second Amendment declares which subset of the People have literal recourse.

 

[danielpalos]

Given that the first amendment specifies that the right of the people to assemble is protected, does that mean you have the right to get together with anyone you choose, or must you be a part of an organized group to get together on a street corner?

Get ready for more argumentum ad nauseam, off-topic deflection, and/or argumentum ad hominem about the right wing.

His lack of self-awareness is shocking.

in right wing fantasy, you are Always right.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Heller vs DC.

Individual right free from connection with militia service.

 

[Lesh]

According to Scalia...who supposedly was an "originalist" and ....wasn't

 

[Lesh]

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.

It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU ******* MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!

SHUT THE **** UP, TROLL!!!

.

The People not the Persons. It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.

Given that the first amendment specifies that the right of the people to assemble is protected, does that mean you have the right to get together with anyone you choose, or must you be a part of an organized group to get together on a street corner?

Our Second Amendment declares which subset of the People have literal recourse.

Stop trolling

 

[M14 Shooter]

What the 2A says..."A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary ...
It BEGINS thst Amendment with that phrase. That's not there by "accident".
Gun rights are protected in the Constitution as required by that "Well Regulated Militia" which no longer exists

This is a lie.
Oh...sorry...
You are fully aware that you opinion runs contrary to established fact.

Fact and opinion are not the same things. Learn the difference

Yes... and you are fully aware that you opinion runs contrary to established fact.