Yes my right to own a gun is more important than dead children.

dear, if it is not null and void from Inception, then, there must be some meaning ascribed. The first clause merely Fixes the context for the second clause, should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues as to the Intent and Purpose which the second clause must follow.

 

Again, you are either disingenuous or ignorant of what being said. It is stating that because there might be a need for a militia, the people(we the people) shall have "the"(existing) right to keep and bear arms. Simply stating that a militia can only exist among an armed populous. This purpose was not for just a militia to defend against foreign threats, but from a tyrannical government as well. Your trolling word play does not change this.

 

dear; you are merely projecting. I am using the exact terms found in our supreme law of the land.

 

That would be an effect on the operative clause. It can have no effect on the operative clause, see the rules of the language the sentence was penned in.

 

There must be an effect on any clause which follows since it is not null and void from Inception.

 

Using the most conservative numbers (given to me by a liberal gun banner in another thread), if only 1 in 5 of gun owners took up arms against the government, they would still outnumber, by over 4 to 1, the combined US Active Military (all branches), State and local Police, and National Guard. And that presumes that a) all those government fighters could be mustered (they can't) and b) that the ones would could be mustered would remain loyal to the despotic government (they won't). This amounts to more than just a 'handful of patriots', as you put it.

But this will never happen as long as there is no despotic unconstitutional government usurpation of power. A busload of good-ole-boys from Alabama that "just don't like Obama" would, of course, meet the fate you describe, and rightfully so. But, in the unlikely event that real tyranny occurs, a despotic government would not stand a chance.

 

This is assuming everything you posted holds true. "If" doesn't mean a guarantee that you'll get 100% turnout/cooperation from the numbers you expect. Some will not be interested; instead choosing to change the system legally (constitutional convention); others will too old or in ill health. You'll no doubt have a core group of believers who'll march in lockstep with the leaders of the band of "patriots" regardless; some might lose interest or become disillusioned as well. Also remember that not all American's would agree with your cause and expect many "patriots" to be turned in by non-supporting citizens as well.

The government has incredible resources at its hand, including drones, missiles, hi-tech weapons and massive manpower who can be dedicated and won't be able to go home if they get tired, disillusioned or miss their loved one's. Remember, some of the presidential candidates support carpet bombing even if it means innocent civilians die in the process and there is no reason why they wouldn't use that strategy under certain circumstances given their rationale. They'll be in it for the long haul (which I daresay won't be as long as Iraq or Afghanistan police actions) and will have, shall we say, staying power.

You obviously have strong convictions on this topic based on your belief's which is understandable. Likewise, I have strong convictions on this topic as well and believe there is always a non-violent way to resolve issues to most everyone's satisfaction. Let's just hope it doesn't come to this since it would no doubt have a bloody outcome and many families would needlessly lose loved one's.

 

Same thing happened to the father of my wife's sister (my s-i-l) in that you both had to attend your daughter's memorials. My s-i-l is dead because of two guys who had no business being anywhere near guns and because there was almost no way to protect her. I don't mean to sound harsh here, but both you and my father-in-law owned guns and the means to protect your daughters. For that matter, I own guns and could have protected my s-i-l. Does it do any good?

 

As long as there is a legal path to resolution, i.e. constitutional convention, there will be no need for armed revolution. Everything I stated is true, using real numbers, but the necessity of such an action presumes that an unconstitutional and despotic government has seized power. For instance, Trump is elected, declares martial law, shreds the constitution, suspends further elections, and executes his opposition. In this case, it's easy to imagine that 20% of The People would take up arms. And it is difficult to believe that the Armed Forces, under such circumstances, would napalm their countrymen.

Something like this CAN NEVER happen, for as long as The People's right to keep and bear arms is not infringed.

 

Its not null and void as in needing to be struck from the page (because that's what that means) it means its a prefactory clause and has the effect and purpose OF a prefactory clause. See the rules of grammar and sentence construction for the english language.

 

25 million is a handful? Wow that's an odd use of that colloquialism. QUICK! Get a linguistics major in here!! They'll get 3 whole papers out of this (*)(*)(*)(*)!

I'll turn over the ones they know of. I'm not a retard who would resist a squad of pro level door kickers. But then I wouldn't need to because they don't know of all the ones I own and I don't keep them all in the same place. Someone does not understand asymmetric warfare.

See Iraq, Nam, Afghanistan. and do note that all those<<< are foreign nationals not american citizens. The entire military and police simply will not go along and that would lead to actual relieving from command and eventually civil war. They'll be far too busy doing that to worry about little old me with some old bolt actions, old handguns, and a nice eastern bloc AK I got from a private to private sale for a steal straight cash which I'd been saving from off the books work in my damn mattress. Which is to say nothing of the fact that you can make an 80% sten gun receiver walking through homedepot or a 12 gauge shotgun 100%. Or 3d printing. Or milling machines. All you need to make an AK receiver 80% is a shovel blade and a hammer. To finish some cnc equipment. They 3d print 5 shot weapons out of PLASTIC (which is to say nothing of the full metals). In WW2 we dropped Liberator pistols (made to fire a single shot and then be pretty dangerous to use for number 2 or already broke. ) it was for partisans in france to cozy up to nazis with guns (generally females actually... you know what I'm saying) and then put it against their temple then STEAL THEIR gun.

You simply have not given this enough thought.

 

IT has the effect of a prefactory clause. That doesn't mean it must effect the operative clause.

Is english your second language? I'm not trying to be rude, just identify why you never learned that

 

dear; why include that clause if it was meant to be null and void from Inception? have you Only spoken one language all of your life to merely be ignorant.

 

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
I think this will put to rest any doubt for you.

 

Interesting.
Does this mean the 4th amendment does not protect your cell phone? Your computer?
That the 1st does not protect MSNBC?

 

I think technical jargon should be avoided at every opportunity.

Here are the rules of construction for the federal doctrine:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

 

Again not null and void, just not that important. It has the function of a prefactory clause which is certainly not to modify in any way the operative clause.

I'm just asking to see if maybe its a language barrier problem that is giving you fits with basic english grammar.

Like all students who took liberal arts I had to take 4 years of foreign language (in addition to the 2 from high school). I speak spanish enough to know when my sister in law is talking (*)(*)(*)(*) about me and enough to compliment the meal my grandmother in law makes after all that.

 

Which isn't contradicted, as we keep telling you. Its not null and void it just doesn't have the POWER you think it should.

 

Just remember, all it takes is one perfectly aimed shot to end your life; then all the guns, the dreams, money you've stashed in your mattress and AK-47's you own will mean nothing. You might give that some serious thought as opposed to sitting there attempting to use ill conceived sarcasm to explain yourself.

 

How could they have better guns? According to Democrats, we already own 'weapons of war'. LOL

BTW: This is a government 'of the people' and we will keep the power thank you.

 

Facts destroy the left's talking points on this. The guns used were not purchased by the shooter. They were stolen. How would additional background checks prevent a stolen gun from being used like this?

 

And why would they shoot me? When they kick the door down I'm compliant. They can take em sure thing mister jackbooted officer!! theys in there they is massa!!

You don't really know what asymmetric warfare is do you? The idea is to blow them up or snipe off a few then bug out before they can figure out where its coming from. Then repeat. ETC.

 

Looks like you got everything figured out right to the "T". Fine, just remember, they may get you first.

 

dude; since it Must mean something, that something should be related to the intent and purpose or the End, and followed by the Means of effecting that End.

are bi-linguists twice as hard working as mono-linguists.

 

I believe I will side with the English Language expert on this matter. He is a legal expert of the meaning of words.
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.' Would you say that this means that only well schooled people can read books or that anyone can read books?