And, how do they "conspire" to any common End?
Examples from the online dictionary of the use of the word "persons."
What's your point? You haven't proved the words are synonyms You just substituted one for the other. And even if you could show the words frequently are interchanged now, you'd still have to prove they mean the same thing in the Constitution. Can you do that?
another complete abomination to the English Language.
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.
Nothing but non sequiturs for your Cause?
Only a well regulated Militia of the People is expressly enumerated as necessary in our Second Amendment.
how many times are you going to spam the 2A
IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CRAP YOU VOID ON THIS BOARD.
Look, we get the fact that English appears to be a foreign language for you but your posts are outright idiotic
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.
part of being a gun banners is to engage in strange and obscure attempts to change the plain meaning of obvious words
how many times are you going to spam the 2A
IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CRAP YOU VOID ON THIS BOARD.
Look, we get the fact that English appears to be a foreign language for you but your posts are outright idiotic
part of being a gun banners is to engage in strange and obscure attempts to change the plain meaning of obvious words
Strange? What's "strange" about demanding some effort to find the appropriate meaning of a word. The Constitution is nothing but words. If we want to understand it, don't you think we should its words?
understand it yes, but the anti gunners UNDERSTAND the 2A blocks their disgusting schemes so they engage in obfuscation and mutation of the words to pretend the 2A says something that the founders never intended. Look at this thread.
Nothing but non sequiturs for your Cause?
Only a well regulated Militia of the People is expressly enumerated as necessary in our Second Amendment.
Only a well regulated Militia of the People is expressly enumerated as necessary in our Second Amendment.
understand it yes, but the anti gunners UNDERSTAND the 2A blocks their disgusting schemes so they engage in obfuscation and mutation of the words to pretend the 2A says something that the founders never intended. Look at this thread.
Nobody denies that the 2nd amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. However, how does that negate "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
The militia is organized by the state for its security. It consists of ordinary citizens of a particular state.
"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. A perfectly understandable idea.
Rules of construction demand the text be regarded as a comprehensive whole and that each part be interpreted in a manner consistent with the other parts. We can't ignore anything and everything has to be used. That means the right to keep and bear arms must be understood in conjunction with a well regulated militia.
Yes, it's a comprehensive whole. It tells us that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and it forbids the gov't from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. This whole is perfectly consistent, for how could the people possibly for a militia is they don't have the appropriate arms?
A militia is defined by the nature of its members not the ownership of its weapons. It is a army of common citizens not a bunch of guys with their own guns. The Second Amendment, then, is to be understood as promoting a citizen army not gun ownership. That understanding best reflects the words of the text.
understand it yes, but the anti gunners UNDERSTAND the 2A blocks their disgusting schemes so they engage in obfuscation and mutation of the words to pretend the 2A says something that the founders never intended. Look at this thread.
"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. A perfectly understandable idea.
The militia is organized by the state for its security. It consists of ordinary citizens of a particular state.
the only ones doing what you claim are those of your point of view. every time the going gets tough, your side merely resorts to fallacy.
Nobody denies that the 2nd amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. However, how does that negate "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?