Universal background checks... really?

[Rustic]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "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."

The way that I read it, the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is predicated on, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." This tells me that people who want to "keep and bear arms" must be a part of a "well regulated militia" if they want to claim Second Amendment rights.

What we have now with most, if not all, civilian ownership of "arms" is basically a free-for-all where there are few, if any, rules and regulations, and no organization. For sure, there is nothing "well regulated" and there is no "militia" in current civilian gun ownership. And this free-for-all is not protected by the Second Amendment.

What the Second Amendment really says

Read in the context of the Era... The second amendment all about stopping the controlling nature of any said federal government.
Washington said it best...

 

[Brain357]

Not from the constitution.

So, what does the 2nd do????????

LIMITS THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!

So, you agree that all federal gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, right?

.

Not at all. They have the right to regulate individual ownership of guns.

Then WHAT is the real purpose of the 2nd? What the **** did it actually do?

Can you even explain that?

.

It is the right for states to have a well regulated militia. That militia has the right to bear arms. Many would say that role is filled by the national guard.

So, when it says "the right of the people shall not be infringed" it means that the federal government will not ... WHAT??

.

In regards to them being in a well regulated militia.

 

[Brain357]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "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."

The way that I read it, the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is predicated on, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." This tells me that people who want to "keep and bear arms" must be a part of a "well regulated militia" if they want to claim Second Amendment rights.

What we have now with most, if not all, civilian ownership of "arms" is basically a free-for-all where there are few, if any, rules and regulations, and no organization. For sure, there is nothing "well regulated" and there is no "militia" in current civilian gun ownership. And this free-for-all is not protected by the Second Amendment.

What the Second Amendment really says

But, no reasonable person could possibly interpret it that way.

Let's take your fucked up logic and apply it to a different scenario:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

People ONLY have the right to keep and eat food if they are eating a well-balanced breakfast?

What about dinner?

.

No reasonable person would ignore well regulated militia or that bear arms is a military reference.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "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."

The way that I read it, the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is predicated on, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." This tells me that people who want to "keep and bear arms" must be a part of a "well regulated militia" if they want to claim Second Amendment rights.

What we have now with most, if not all, civilian ownership of "arms" is basically a free-for-all where there are few, if any, rules and regulations, and no organization. For sure, there is nothing "well regulated" and there is no "militia" in current civilian gun ownership. And this free-for-all is not protected by the Second Amendment.

What the Second Amendment really says

But, no reasonable person could possibly interpret it that way.

Let's take your fucked up logic and apply it to a different scenario:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

People ONLY have the right to keep and eat food if they are eating a well-balanced breakfast?

What about dinner?

.

No reasonable person would ignore well regulated militia or that bear arms is a military reference.

BULLSHIT.

You dodged the question AGAIN.

Only people who eat a well-balanced breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

That's what that statement means?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, what does the 2nd do????????

LIMITS THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!

So, you agree that all federal gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, right?

.

Not at all. They have the right to regulate individual ownership of guns.

Then WHAT is the real purpose of the 2nd? What the **** did it actually do?

Can you even explain that?

.

It is the right for states to have a well regulated militia. That militia has the right to bear arms. Many would say that role is filled by the national guard.

So, when it says "the right of the people shall not be infringed" it means that the federal government will not ... WHAT??

.

In regards to them being in a well regulated militia.

Will not WHAT???

.

 

[Brain357]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "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."

The way that I read it, the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is predicated on, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." This tells me that people who want to "keep and bear arms" must be a part of a "well regulated militia" if they want to claim Second Amendment rights.

What we have now with most, if not all, civilian ownership of "arms" is basically a free-for-all where there are few, if any, rules and regulations, and no organization. For sure, there is nothing "well regulated" and there is no "militia" in current civilian gun ownership. And this free-for-all is not protected by the Second Amendment.

What the Second Amendment really says

But, no reasonable person could possibly interpret it that way.

Let's take your fucked up logic and apply it to a different scenario:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

People ONLY have the right to keep and eat food if they are eating a well-balanced breakfast?

What about dinner?

.

No reasonable person would ignore well regulated militia or that bear arms is a military reference.

BULLSHIT.

You dodged the question AGAIN.

Only people who eat a well-balanced breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

That's what that statement means?

.

Bear arms is a military reference. It means the people’s right to join a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. Why are you talking breakfast?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "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."

The way that I read it, the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is predicated on, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." This tells me that people who want to "keep and bear arms" must be a part of a "well regulated militia" if they want to claim Second Amendment rights.

What we have now with most, if not all, civilian ownership of "arms" is basically a free-for-all where there are few, if any, rules and regulations, and no organization. For sure, there is nothing "well regulated" and there is no "militia" in current civilian gun ownership. And this free-for-all is not protected by the Second Amendment.

What the Second Amendment really says

But, no reasonable person could possibly interpret it that way.

Let's take your fucked up logic and apply it to a different scenario:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

People ONLY have the right to keep and eat food if they are eating a well-balanced breakfast?

What about dinner?

.

No reasonable person would ignore well regulated militia or that bear arms is a military reference.

BULLSHIT.

You dodged the question AGAIN.

Only people who eat a well-balanced breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

That's what that statement means?

.

Bear arms is a military reference. It means the people’s right to join a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. Why are you talking breakfast?

That is completely retarded.

I am talking about breakfast to show you how ******* stupid your bullshit interpretation is.

You KEEP forgetting the word "KEEP" don't you?

AGAIN, only the people who eat breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "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."

The way that I read it, the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is predicated on, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." This tells me that people who want to "keep and bear arms" must be a part of a "well regulated militia" if they want to claim Second Amendment rights.

What we have now with most, if not all, civilian ownership of "arms" is basically a free-for-all where there are few, if any, rules and regulations, and no organization. For sure, there is nothing "well regulated" and there is no "militia" in current civilian gun ownership. And this free-for-all is not protected by the Second Amendment.

What the Second Amendment really says

But, no reasonable person could possibly interpret it that way.

Let's take your fucked up logic and apply it to a different scenario:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

People ONLY have the right to keep and eat food if they are eating a well-balanced breakfast?

What about dinner?

.

No reasonable person would ignore well regulated militia or that bear arms is a military reference.

BULLSHIT.

You dodged the question AGAIN.

Only people who eat a well-balanced breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

That's what that statement means?

.

Bear arms is a military reference. It means the people’s right to join a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. Why are you talking breakfast?

Here is a reasonable, non-bullshit interpretation of the 2nd:

The federal government has no authority over arms. That's it. That's all it means. The reason is because militias are necessary, and still are today. But, the operative affect is ZERO federal authority.

Spin that.

.

 

[Brain357]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "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."

The way that I read it, the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is predicated on, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." This tells me that people who want to "keep and bear arms" must be a part of a "well regulated militia" if they want to claim Second Amendment rights.

What we have now with most, if not all, civilian ownership of "arms" is basically a free-for-all where there are few, if any, rules and regulations, and no organization. For sure, there is nothing "well regulated" and there is no "militia" in current civilian gun ownership. And this free-for-all is not protected by the Second Amendment.

What the Second Amendment really says

But, no reasonable person could possibly interpret it that way.

Let's take your fucked up logic and apply it to a different scenario:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

People ONLY have the right to keep and eat food if they are eating a well-balanced breakfast?

What about dinner?

.

No reasonable person would ignore well regulated militia or that bear arms is a military reference.

BULLSHIT.

You dodged the question AGAIN.

Only people who eat a well-balanced breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

That's what that statement means?

.

Bear arms is a military reference. It means the people’s right to join a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. Why are you talking breakfast?

That is completely retarded.

I am talking about breakfast to show you how ******* stupid your bullshit interpretation is.

You KEEP forgetting the word "KEEP" don't you?

AGAIN, only the people who eat breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

.

Bearing arms is a military reference. You seem to forget that.

 

[Brain357]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "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."

The way that I read it, the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is predicated on, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." This tells me that people who want to "keep and bear arms" must be a part of a "well regulated militia" if they want to claim Second Amendment rights.

What we have now with most, if not all, civilian ownership of "arms" is basically a free-for-all where there are few, if any, rules and regulations, and no organization. For sure, there is nothing "well regulated" and there is no "militia" in current civilian gun ownership. And this free-for-all is not protected by the Second Amendment.

What the Second Amendment really says

But, no reasonable person could possibly interpret it that way.

Let's take your fucked up logic and apply it to a different scenario:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

People ONLY have the right to keep and eat food if they are eating a well-balanced breakfast?

What about dinner?

.

No reasonable person would ignore well regulated militia or that bear arms is a military reference.

BULLSHIT.

You dodged the question AGAIN.

Only people who eat a well-balanced breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

That's what that statement means?

.

Bear arms is a military reference. It means the people’s right to join a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. Why are you talking breakfast?

Here is a reasonable, non-bullshit interpretation of the 2nd:

The federal government has no authority over arms. That's it. That's all it means. The reason is because militias are necessary, and still are today. But, the operative affect is ZERO federal authority.

Spin that.

.

The feds have no authority over arms used by a states well regulated militia.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But, no reasonable person could possibly interpret it that way.

Let's take your fucked up logic and apply it to a different scenario:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

People ONLY have the right to keep and eat food if they are eating a well-balanced breakfast?

What about dinner?

.

No reasonable person would ignore well regulated militia or that bear arms is a military reference.

BULLSHIT.

You dodged the question AGAIN.

Only people who eat a well-balanced breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

That's what that statement means?

.

Bear arms is a military reference. It means the people’s right to join a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. Why are you talking breakfast?

That is completely retarded.

I am talking about breakfast to show you how ******* stupid your bullshit interpretation is.

You KEEP forgetting the word "KEEP" don't you?

AGAIN, only the people who eat breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

.

Bearing arms is a military reference. You seem to forget that.

What about keeping arms? You seem to IGNORE that.

.

 

[Brain357]

No reasonable person would ignore well regulated militia or that bear arms is a military reference.

BULLSHIT.

You dodged the question AGAIN.

Only people who eat a well-balanced breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

That's what that statement means?

.

Bear arms is a military reference. It means the people’s right to join a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. Why are you talking breakfast?

That is completely retarded.

I am talking about breakfast to show you how ******* stupid your bullshit interpretation is.

You KEEP forgetting the word "KEEP" don't you?

AGAIN, only the people who eat breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

.

Bearing arms is a military reference. You seem to forget that.

What about keeping arms? You seem to IGNORE that.

.

The militia can keep arms. What do you mean?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But, no reasonable person could possibly interpret it that way.

Let's take your fucked up logic and apply it to a different scenario:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

People ONLY have the right to keep and eat food if they are eating a well-balanced breakfast?

What about dinner?

.

No reasonable person would ignore well regulated militia or that bear arms is a military reference.

BULLSHIT.

You dodged the question AGAIN.

Only people who eat a well-balanced breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

That's what that statement means?

.

Bear arms is a military reference. It means the people’s right to join a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. Why are you talking breakfast?

Here is a reasonable, non-bullshit interpretation of the 2nd:

The federal government has no authority over arms. That's it. That's all it means. The reason is because militias are necessary, and still are today. But, the operative affect is ZERO federal authority.

Spin that.

.

The feds have no authority over arms used by a states well regulated militia.

Once again, you trot out this logic fart. Same scenario, but change the items:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

Now, using your bullshit, here is what your dumbass statement would look like:

The feds would have no authority over food used by a healthy day's well-balanced breakfast.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

BULLSHIT.

You dodged the question AGAIN.

Only people who eat a well-balanced breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

That's what that statement means?

.

Bear arms is a military reference. It means the people’s right to join a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. Why are you talking breakfast?

That is completely retarded.

I am talking about breakfast to show you how ******* stupid your bullshit interpretation is.

You KEEP forgetting the word "KEEP" don't you?

AGAIN, only the people who eat breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

.

Bearing arms is a military reference. You seem to forget that.

What about keeping arms? You seem to IGNORE that.

.

The militia can keep arms. What do you mean?

I see the problem.

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

So, breakfast can keep food, not people?


Do you believe rights that are held collectively that are not also held individually? (warning: this is a trap. You're about to walk into it.)

.

 

[Brain357]

Bear arms is a military reference. It means the people’s right to join a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. Why are you talking breakfast?

That is completely retarded.

I am talking about breakfast to show you how ******* stupid your bullshit interpretation is.

You KEEP forgetting the word "KEEP" don't you?

AGAIN, only the people who eat breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

.

Bearing arms is a military reference. You seem to forget that.

What about keeping arms? You seem to IGNORE that.

.

The militia can keep arms. What do you mean?

I see the problem.

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

So, breakfast can keep food, not people?


Do you believe rights that are held collectively that are not also held individually? (warning: this is a trap. You're about to walk into it.)

.

The problem is you keep talking about breakfast. No wonder you are so confused.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That is completely retarded.

I am talking about breakfast to show you how ******* stupid your bullshit interpretation is.

You KEEP forgetting the word "KEEP" don't you?

AGAIN, only the people who eat breakfast have a right to keep and eat food?

.

Bearing arms is a military reference. You seem to forget that.

What about keeping arms? You seem to IGNORE that.

.

The militia can keep arms. What do you mean?

I see the problem.

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

So, breakfast can keep food, not people?


Do you believe rights that are held collectively that are not also held individually? (warning: this is a trap. You're about to walk into it.)

.

The problem is you keep talking about breakfast. No wonder you are so confused.

The problem is that you keep dodging the questions and pretending your argument is sound, when it is clearly NOT.

It demonstrates your improper interpretation of the 2nd. Your interpretation is completely nonsensical when changed to breakfast. You cannot escape it and so you deflect.

So, again:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

So, breakfast can keep food, not people?

 

[Brain357]

Bearing arms is a military reference. You seem to forget that.

What about keeping arms? You seem to IGNORE that.

.

The militia can keep arms. What do you mean?

I see the problem.

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

So, breakfast can keep food, not people?


Do you believe rights that are held collectively that are not also held individually? (warning: this is a trap. You're about to walk into it.)

.

The problem is you keep talking about breakfast. No wonder you are so confused.

The problem is that you keep dodging the questions and pretending your argument is sound, when it is clearly NOT.

It demonstrates your improper interpretation of the 2nd. Your interpretation is completely nonsensical when changed to breakfast. You cannot escape it and so you deflect.

So, again:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

So, breakfast can keep food, not people?

Only an idiot would change it to breakfast. Haha

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Still waiting.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What about keeping arms? You seem to IGNORE that.

.

The militia can keep arms. What do you mean?

I see the problem.

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

So, breakfast can keep food, not people?


Do you believe rights that are held collectively that are not also held individually? (warning: this is a trap. You're about to walk into it.)

.

The problem is you keep talking about breakfast. No wonder you are so confused.

The problem is that you keep dodging the questions and pretending your argument is sound, when it is clearly NOT.

It demonstrates your improper interpretation of the 2nd. Your interpretation is completely nonsensical when changed to breakfast. You cannot escape it and so you deflect.

So, again:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

So, breakfast can keep food, not people?

Only an idiot would change it to breakfast. Haha

Well, let's change it to something else, shall we?

You pick.

.

 

[Brain357]

Still waiting.

.

Waiting on what?