"Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment"

I also don't appeal to the masses instead of reason since it is a fallacy.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. It really is that simple, except to gun lovers and the Right.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you don't. Since you admit that our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself, it must work with this clause: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

It is the Reason why well regulated Militia may not be Infringed.

 

Wrong since the bill of rights is law which protects the rights of individual citizens which is fact you keep ignoring.

It does not say well regulated militias may not be infringed it says the right of the people. The people are individual citizens.


Your appeal to ignorance willfully refuses to acknowledge that proven fact

 

Dude, you already admitted that our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself; so, stop with the hearsay and soothsay.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Why do you believe gun lovers and Insurrectionists of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms? What happened to Shays rebellion or the South; were they not Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms.

 

It does not say gun lovers.

The bill of rights is about individual rights of citizens. The people are individual citizens.

You keep ignoring those facts and they destroy your intellectual weak and idiotic argument.

It is you and only you using logical fallacies and appeals to ignorance.

You got your head handed back to you.

 

And the militia is every able bodied male citizen.

 

So what; are you claiming gun lovers are not Individuals of the People who may be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms by well regulated militia in order: to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections? If not, then I must be right.

 

I don't think you realise how good it feels to have SCOTUS on our side for once. We can tell you tough (*)(*)(*)(*), as you're always telling us when they have an absurdly permissive interpretation of the commerce clause, etc. So let me be the first to say: tough s***!

The body which makes the decisions disagrees with you. Deal with it.

Mmm, feels good I could get used to this!

 

Yes, but (only) well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.

- - - Updated - - -

So what; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law, and, we have a Ninth Amendment.

 

I am saying you bait and switch and dodge and weave to avoid reading the second amendment in its entirety. You do this out of inferior proven intellectual weakness and cowardice as it proves you wrong.

And that is proven fact, Your vacuous deliberate spin has been folded spindled crushed mutilated and flushed

 

Are criminals of the People not also Individuals? They get Infringed in the keeping and bearing of not Only Arms, but also ammunition, all the time.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no "bait and switch"; I am citing our Constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

Only silly gun lovers with Only silly arguments claim even Individuals of the People who rob banks may not be Infringed due to our Second Amendment.

 

You are ignoring the constitution and willfully so as it proves you wrong.

The second amendment states in clear plain language that the right of the people ( which clearly means individual citizens ) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Your laughably weak argument which has never and would never work in court willfully ignores that fact.

Because it destroys you.

You need to run along home you are beaten and it just keeps getting worse

 

The 2nd amendment is not a hiding place; it's an effectively defendable position.

 

So what. In order to have any type of militia they must be armed. The government back then did not want to have to supply arms for everyone in the militia you brought your own. It does not say only those in a well regulated militia have the right to bare arms. If thats what they meant they would have simply stated it that way. It says the right of the people not the militia shall not be infringed.

 

Which Persons of the People? Only well regulated militia of Individuals of the People are expressly declared necessary.

- - - Updated - - -

The Only ones hiding are gun lovers by appealing to ignorance of the first clause.

 

Yes, well regulated militia enjoy the use of socialized Arms not private Arms to execute the laws of the Union and suppress insurrections.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

The people does not mean only those necessary the people means individual citizens.

No it is you hiding.

There are no gun lovers as you keep describing the fact it the entire second amendment proves you wrong.

Nothing in it restricts the right to militia members. The fact is that such members need no such protection from infringement because they work for the government and are under government control which is why it protects the peoples right

 

I am not hiding Anything or appealing to ignorance of Any clause in our Second Article of Amendment and that limitation on Government: 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 Second Amendment clearly States which body of the People may not be Infringed if a choice must be made.

 

I don't love my gun anymore than I love my dog or I love my government.

My gun, my dog and my government are tools to aid in my defense; but if I handle any of them too loosely,
they can easily become the immanent threat themselves.

Keep your gun on safe, your dog on a short leash, and your government in a constitutional box.

 

No it does not and you are willfully ignoring that it does not you are hiding behind the fact that it is about rights which belong to people not selective militia.

Your entire argument is absolutely dependent on ignoring that simple fact

 

I am not ignoring anything, like you are; how well did what you claim, work for Shays and his rebels or the South?

 

Here is how it should work whenever there is perceived injustice on the part of unresponsive politicians:

On September 2 Governor Bowdoin issued a proclamation denouncing such mob action, but took no military measures beyond planning militia response to future actions.[18][20] When the court in Worcester was shut down by similar action on September 5, the county militia (composed mainly of men sympathetic to the protestors) refused to turn out, much to Bowdoin's amazement.[--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion

 

only those without cause would gainsay due process as intrinsic to the People's freedoms to keep and bear arms, only the soothsaying and gainsaying of the Left would promote the infidel purpose of removal of due process for the purposes of the abolishment of the right of the States. To infringe on the amendments to our constitution to this purpose assures those of use who know what is right and true that supporting your opinion would be without clue or cause.

 

A whole lot of good.Have you ever stood up for yourself against overwhelming odds,ever?
I'm guessing not.

 

Yes you absolutely are ignoring it and those examples refute nothing

 

why even respond to what is jumble of words, mixed up in a blender and then voided upon this board? Six boards, the same stuff from that poster-always stilted English that has no relevance to the second amendment

the second Amendment is a NEGATIVE restriction preventing the federal government from interfering on a pre-existing right that the federal government was NEVER given any authority to act upon anyway