Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[Cecilie1200]

Basically what I'm proposing is that enlistment in your local SDF be made part of the process for buying or owning a firearm.

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.
I therefore do not accept your proposed compromise because I receive nothing in return for giving up part of my rights.

Which is why an argument over the meaning broke out. The proposal entailed an amendment to clarify that.

The meaning of the amendment has been clear for sometime now -- there's no need for your suggestion in order to clarity it.

You're gaining permanent victory over those who would remove the right altogether and your community is gaining a guarantee that you'll be capable of using your guns safely for lawful purposes.

No one honestly believes that agreeing to your proposal will prevent further erosion of the right to arms - and so, I receive nothing in return for giving up part of my right.

Your compromise fails because it offers us nothing in return for something.

And it offers no reason why we should compromise and offer anything at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

which ignorance is that, dears: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

Yup, every one of us.

why do you believe you are a well regulated militia of the People instead of a non-well regulated militia of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?

Why do you believe that the right to bear arms requires membership in a militia? Is it because you don't understand English, or you just don't want to understand it in this case?

And no, Mensa Boy, before you even go there: mentioning the word "militia" in a separate clause is not the same as making the right dependent on militia membership. If you weren't illiterate, this wouldn't need explaining.

 

[saveliberty]

Could be the Founders assumed all citizens were militia. I mean who wouldn't want to defend their homes and country against all enemies foreign and domestic?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yup, every one of us.

why do you believe you are a well regulated militia of the People instead of a non-well regulated militia of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?

I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.

Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.

Which right is that? acquiring and possessing Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.

The individual right to keep and bear arms.

simple possession is already secured in State Constitutions, dears.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And given how much leftists have always respected state law and state sovereignty, we'll get RIGHT on trusting you disingenuous sacks of crap on this one. Yeah, and hold your breath waiting for us to do so.

 

[danielpalos]

which ignorance is that, dears: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

Yup, every one of us.

why do you believe you are a well regulated militia of the People instead of a non-well regulated militia of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?

Why do you believe that the right to bear arms requires membership in a militia? Is it because you don't understand English, or you just don't want to understand it in this case?

And no, Mensa Boy, before you even go there: mentioning the word "militia" in a separate clause is not the same as making the right dependent on militia membership. If you weren't illiterate, this wouldn't need explaining.

dear, you are confused as to the meaning of the term militia, as it relates to the militia of the United States.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

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.​

This is what I was talking about.

The liberal reading: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
The conservative reading: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The actual text: 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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.

True. Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.

Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises. No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear: the right of the people shall not be infringed. The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people": the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

which ignorance is that, dears: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

Yup, every one of us.

why do you believe you are a well regulated militia of the People instead of a non-well regulated militia of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?

Why do you believe that the right to bear arms requires membership in a militia? Is it because you don't understand English, or you just don't want to understand it in this case?

And no, Mensa Boy, before you even go there: mentioning the word "militia" in a separate clause is not the same as making the right dependent on militia membership. If you weren't illiterate, this wouldn't need explaining.

dear, you are confused as to the meaning of the term militia, as it relates to the militia of the United States.

No, "dear", you're confused on the plain English grammar that makes the right to bear arms independent of militia membership.

I don't blame you for the shoddy education you received through leftist-controlled public schools, but I do blame you for being content to be an illiterate ignoramus.

 

[danielpalos]

why do you believe you are a well regulated militia of the People instead of a non-well regulated militia of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?

I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.

Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.

Which right is that? acquiring and possessing Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.

The individual right to keep and bear arms.

simple possession is already secured in State Constitutions, dears.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And given how much leftists have always respected state law and state sovereignty, we'll get RIGHT on trusting you disingenuous sacks of crap on this one. Yeah, and hold your breath waiting for us to do so.

It is the right that has no problem with trampling States Rights through a nationalized and socialized, war on durgs.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

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.​

This is what I was talking about.

The liberal reading: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
The conservative reading: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The actual text: 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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.

True. Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.

Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises. No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear: the right of the people shall not be infringed. The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people": the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.

dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.

 

[danielpalos]

which ignorance is that, dears: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

Yup, every one of us.

why do you believe you are a well regulated militia of the People instead of a non-well regulated militia of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?

Why do you believe that the right to bear arms requires membership in a militia? Is it because you don't understand English, or you just don't want to understand it in this case?

And no, Mensa Boy, before you even go there: mentioning the word "militia" in a separate clause is not the same as making the right dependent on militia membership. If you weren't illiterate, this wouldn't need explaining.

dear, you are confused as to the meaning of the term militia, as it relates to the militia of the United States.

No, "dear", you're confused on the plain English grammar that makes the right to bear arms independent of militia membership.

I don't blame you for the shoddy education you received through leftist-controlled public schools, but I do blame you for being content to be an illiterate ignoramus.

No, dear. The right to acquire and possess Arms is secured in State Constitutions.

 

[Pete7469]

And it offers no reason why we should compromise and offer anything at all.

NEVER "compromise" with bed wetters.

First of all, they're ALWAYS WRONG, so any "compromise" is never better than half wrong.

Secondly they never settle with the compromise and always come back for what was left on the table. You'll have absolute hell trying to get back anything you let the bed wetters get away with. They have been incrementally chipping away our rights for decades and it will be nearly impossible to get them back.

I hold out hope that Ted Cruz is elected though, because he is the only one who will roll back regressive libtard policy as much as possible.

 

[Pete7469]

No, "dear", you're confused on the plain English grammar that makes the right to bear arms independent of militia membership.

I don't blame you for the shoddy education you received through leftist-controlled public schools, but I do blame you for being content to be an illiterate ignoramus.

Have no pity for these moonbats. They are stupid of course but they're deliberately stupid.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That is not what it says at all, and SCOTUS recently corrected that erroneous and short-lived mid-20th Century Leftist notion.

Give it up Democrats. You have been rendered impotent on this issue.

yes, it is what it says; and, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.

Fine. Produce writings from the Founding Fathers indicating it is so. We'll wait.

Our Second Amendment was produced by our Founding Fathers; there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.

That does not produce the requested documentation, so off you go.

Dude; the Intent and Purpose is in the first clause in our Second Article of Amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that Intent and Purpose as a privilege and immunity for Persons in our fine and glorious Republic.

Dude, that's your opinion, and utterly unsubstantiated by 1) the writings of the Founding Fathers, 2) the decisions of the courts since the Founding, 3) practice and application of the law since the Founding, and 4) common English grammar.

You're the only one "appealing to ignorance" here, and frankly, your ignorance is not the least bit appealing.

 

[Pete7469]

Dude, that's your opinion, and utterly unsubstantiated by 1) the writings of the Founding Fathers, 2) the decisions of the courts since the Founding, 3) practice and application of the law since the Founding, and 4) common English grammar.

You're the only one "appealing to ignorance" here, and frankly, your ignorance is not the least bit appealing.

Neither is the odor.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it is what it says; and, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.

Fine. Produce writings from the Founding Fathers indicating it is so. We'll wait.

Our Second Amendment was produced by our Founding Fathers; there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.

That does not produce the requested documentation, so off you go.

Dude; the Intent and Purpose is in the first clause in our Second Article of Amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that Intent and Purpose as a privilege and immunity for Persons in our fine and glorious Republic.

Dude, that's your opinion, and utterly unsubstantisated by 1) the writings of the Founding Fathers, 2) the decisions of the courts since the Founding, 3) practice and application of the law since the Founding, and 4) common English grammar.

You're the only one "appealing to ignorance" here, and frankly, your ignorance is not the least bit appealing.

nope; not my opinion, but legal fact.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

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.​

This is what I was talking about.

The liberal reading: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
The conservative reading: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The actual text: 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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.

True. Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.

Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises. No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear: the right of the people shall not be infringed. The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people": the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.

dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.

only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed

That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.

 

[danielpalos]

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.​

This is what I was talking about.

The liberal reading: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
The conservative reading: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The actual text: 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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.

True. Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.

Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises. No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear: the right of the people shall not be infringed. The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people": the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.

dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.

only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed

That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.

Still nothing but diversion? The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is what I was talking about.

The liberal reading: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
The conservative reading: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The actual text: 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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.

True. Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.

Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises. No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear: the right of the people shall not be infringed. The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people": the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.

dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.

only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed

That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.

Still nothing but diversion? The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.

No one in my state asked for my militia ID either.

 

[danielpalos]

That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.

True. Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.

Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises. No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear: the right of the people shall not be infringed. The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people": the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.

dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.

only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed

That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.

Still nothing but diversion? The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.

No one in my state asked for my militia ID either.

dears, you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

True. Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.

Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises. No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear: the right of the people shall not be infringed. The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people": the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.

dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.

only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed

That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.

Still nothing but diversion? The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.

No one in my state asked for my militia ID either.

dears, you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms.

you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms

Who ever said you did? I mean besides you?