The Right To Bear Arms

[Oddball]

How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?

View attachment 479345

Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?

The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.

www.foxnews.com

How could an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?

She made a mistake. Mistakes happen. Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake. The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.

I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.

The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser. So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.

Even in a high stress situation, if you can't tell the difference between a Taser and a firearm, you probably shouldn't be issued either.

Have you ever been in such a high stress situation?...I haven't and am not in any position to make such a pronouncement.

 

[WinterBorn]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Oddball]

One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!

Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.

Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags. You're argument is a typical libtard argument, stupid and wrong.

As was reported today on TV - their DMV is running way behind because of COVID-19 in issuing new stickers for license plates. They said many people are driving with expired stickers.

How is an officer to determine whether the owner of the car had attempted to apply for a renewal sticker? Since many people do not mail their applications for tag renewal, a check with the DMV computer files may result in a waste of time.

The logical way to determine this is to stop the car and ask the driver.

The cops should have been aware of the DMV slowdown and the sticker delays because of COVID-19.

Doesn't mean that you just let everyone drive around with expired tags, fool.

 

[Lakhota]

Minnesota Officer Who Killed Daunte Wright Resigns

Brooklyn Center police officer Kim Potter fatally shot the 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop, sparking protests against racial injustice and police brutality.

www.huffpost.com

Now she must be held accountable!

 

[WinterBorn]

How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?

View attachment 479345

Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?

The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.

www.foxnews.com

How could an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?

She made a mistake. Mistakes happen. Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake. The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.

I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.

The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser. So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.

Even in a high stress situation, if you can't tell the difference between a Taser and a firearm, you probably shouldn't be issued either.

Have you ever been in such a high stress situation?...I haven't and am not in any position to make such a pronouncement.

I have been in high stress situations. And there was no threat to the officer, hence her using her Taser.

 

[danielpalos]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

I'm trying to think of ANY "collective right" enshrined in the Constitution, and I'm drawing a blank. Even the right to assemble is an INDIVIDUAL right, the right of individuals to meet with other individuals.

Show us the Individual terms, right wingers; don't merely proclaim it and insist you must be Right, simply because you are on the right wing.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If it were an Individual right, it would clearly enumerate so.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[danielpalos]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

That is just right wingers appealing to ignorance, like usual. Context means everything and is why you cannot ignore or appeal to ignorance of the first clause wiithout resorting to a fallacy of composition. I resort to the fewest fallacies. Any questions?

Not rightwingers. Constitutional scholars, including members of the US Supreme Court.

In fact, the SCOTUS addressed that in their ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller.

"Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

Show us the Individual terms, right wingers.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Oddball]

How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?

View attachment 479345

Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?

The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.

www.foxnews.com

How could an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?

She made a mistake. Mistakes happen. Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake. The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.

I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.

The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser. So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.

Even in a high stress situation, if you can't tell the difference between a Taser and a firearm, you probably shouldn't be issued either.

Have you ever been in such a high stress situation?...I haven't and am not in any position to make such a pronouncement.

I have been in high stress situations. And there was no threat to the officer, hence her using her Taser.

The perp jumped into the driver seat and was preparing to pull away....If you don't think that's a life threatening situation, maybe we should check in with that poor Paki dude who got carjacked a couple weeks ago.

 

[WinterBorn]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

I'm trying to think of ANY "collective right" enshrined in the Constitution, and I'm drawing a blank. Even the right to assemble is an INDIVIDUAL right, the right of individuals to meet with other individuals.

Show us the Individual terms, right wingers; don't merely proclaim it and insist you must be Right, simply because you are on the right wing.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If it were an Individual right, it would clearly enumerate so.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

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

 

[danielpalos]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[danielpalos]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

I'm trying to think of ANY "collective right" enshrined in the Constitution, and I'm drawing a blank. Even the right to assemble is an INDIVIDUAL right, the right of individuals to meet with other individuals.

Show us the Individual terms, right wingers; don't merely proclaim it and insist you must be Right, simply because you are on the right wing.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If it were an Individual right, it would clearly enumerate so.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

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

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control laws for those too lazy to get organized and well regulated.

 

[hadit]

One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!

Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.

I've never had the police want to search my vehicle or even ask me to get out of it. Of course, they never saw a gun laying on the back seat, or an open container of alcohol, or a cloud of marijuana smoke coming out of my window either. Nor have I ever gotten in their face and basically dared them to restrain me. Sounds like someone gave you some bad advice about how to deal with cops.

You're also white

Nor have I ever resembled the guy who just held up 3 liquor stores in the last week.

Let's see. White guy, black guy. Both have a gun laying in the back seat of the car in plain sight, both are stopped because they ran a stop sign. Both are asked to step out of the vehicle. Black guy calmly and slowly complies, keeping his hands in plain sight the whole time, also making no sudden or hostile moves, assuring the officers he will do whatever they tell him to. White guy jumps out of the car, flings open the back door and dives for the gun. Who's going to live to see another day? Let's face reality, when a guy with a gun who can legally shoot you tells you to do something, it behooves you to do it. If it's something they're not authorized to tell you to do, go for the big payday later on. At least you'll be alive to collect it. Not so smart to mouth off at a cop or try to fight him.

 

[Concerned American]

How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?

View attachment 479345

Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?

The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.

www.foxnews.com

How could an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?

She made a mistake. Mistakes happen. Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake. The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.

I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.

The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser. So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.

Even in a high stress situation, if you can't tell the difference between a Taser and a firearm, you probably shouldn't be issued either.

While I agree with your point, I can see where, in the heat of the moment, any person could make a mistake. Reminds me of the old saw, "when you're up to your ass in alligators, it is hard to remember that your original intention was to drain the swamp." LOL

 

[WinterBorn]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

 

[Concerned American]

One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!

Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.

Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags. You're argument is a typical libtard argument, stupid and wrong.

As was reported today on TV - their DMV is running way behind because of COVID-19 in issuing new stickers for license plates. They said many people are driving with expired stickers.

How is an officer to determine whether the owner of the car had attempted to apply for a renewal sticker? Since many people do not mail their applications for tag renewal, a check with the DMV computer files may result in a waste of time.

The logical way to determine this is to stop the car and ask the driver.

The cops should have been aware of the DMV slowdown and the sticker delays because of COVID-19.

Cops are tasked with enforcing the law. The law says you should have current tags and registration on your car, so they enforced the law. Criminals also steal cars and plates, what if he had stolen your car and put out of date plates on it in order to escape detection. You would be singing the cop's praises because he recovered your car. Next time engage your brain before you engage your mouth.

 

[asaratis]

One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!

Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.

Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags. You're argument is a typical libtard argument, stupid and wrong.

As was reported today on TV - their DMV is running way behind because of COVID-19 in issuing new stickers for license plates. They said many people are driving with expired stickers.

How is an officer to determine whether the owner of the car had attempted to apply for a renewal sticker? Since many people do not mail their applications for tag renewal, a check with the DMV computer files may result in a waste of time.

The logical way to determine this is to stop the car and ask the driver.

The cops should have been aware of the DMV slowdown and the sticker delays because of COVID-19.

I haven't said they were not. What they are justified in determining is whether the application for that car's sticker had been applied for or attempted to be obtained in person. More importantly, they are justified in confirming that the vehicle was properly insured.

Vehicles with expired tag may also be be uninsured. This presents a danger to other cars owners in denying them compensation for damage to their own vehicle and compensation for medical bills caused by personal injury.

The stopping of the car was justified.

 

[danielpalos]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

 

[WinterBorn]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

 

[Concerned American]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.

As in Minutemen? Thank you!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?

Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.

Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.

Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.

That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.

There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.

You are very confused.

Who has a right to assemble? Is that a right held individually or by a group?

You don't know the answer.