Nope; I Only claim I am the Truest Witness bearer in any given needful building of Government, usually; thus, it could be considered a moral turpitude for me to deliberately and willfully, appeal to ignorance of the law. It can be what happens when you rile "us" up and we go "honest Injuen" on you.
Must be hard to be the only person on the planet that thinks the Bill of Rights isn't about individual rights. I want to feel bad for you, but I don't.
Our Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, but the actual Terms refer to a collective of the People. It is Only gun lovers and the Right that resort to "collusion and conspiracy" to subvert the actual meaning of the law.
It's not my argument that the Bill of Rights is there to preserve individual rights and liberties. It's everyone's argument, except yours.
It is a lack of authority to Do some Thing; well regulated Militias of the United States get their wellness of regulation directly from our federal Congress via Article 1, Section 8. Gun lovers of the People do not.
Then you have nothing left to say here. You have run your course. The only thing left for you to do is sign off.
no clue and no Cause? It is a lack of authority to Do some Thing; well regulated Militias of the United States get their wellness of regulation directly from our federal Congress via Article 1, Section 8. Gun lovers of the People do not. It really is that simple except to gun lovers and the Right.
that is a simple fallacy; Militias of the People have written instructions should there be Any need to quibble, in the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.
It is a limitation on government; that express instruction gives well regulated militias of the United States explicit authorization to suppress insurrections and rebellions of Individuals of the People.
The BOR does no such thing. There is no 'authorization' of militias in the BOR, just a statement. States 'authorize' militias. The right to bear arms in America came from English law as the long-established natural right of self defense.
It authorizes Only well regulated militias of the People should there be any need to quibble about who gets to keep and bear Arms.
Wrong again. The first clause is a statement, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' it is not authorization of militias, that authorization or lack of authorization comes from the States.
Well regulated militia is specifically enumerated as necessary; should there be Any need to quibble who is Boss, with insurrectionists or rebels of the People.
Why are you the only person on earth the thinks the BOR authorizes anything? It's only purpose is to restrict government.
that is the Only interpretation there is; any Thing to the contrary is merely appealing to ignorance of the law by appealing to Any ignorance of the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.
