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

The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause, not the second clause. It really is that simple, except to gun lovers and the right.

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.

 

False analogy; and, simply appealing to alleged expert authority on the Internet is also a fallacy. Why not acquire a clue and a Cause and then formulate a response?

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.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.

 

The guy is not a supposed expert authority if you actually read the article his credentials are listed in detail. He is THE authority. Quoting James Madison Federalist NO 40 to me means nothing to the subject at hand.

 

nope; just his unsubstantiated opinion based on his interpretation.

 

And again, the rules of the language itself, nor the rules you cite are contradicted by the fact that a prefactory clause does not alter an operative clause.

 

wrong answer. are you willing to "harass the Judicature" about it in open court?

 

Have fun on your knees

- - - Updated - - -

And again: Prefactory clauses do not alter operative clauses or effect them. You still avoid the question: Is english your native language such that I should castigate you for not knowing how your own language works, or should I point you toward a primer since its a foreign tongue to you?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't NEED to see DC v Heller

 

You need a better clue and Cause; it is that waste of the Peoples' tax monies that I am referring to, about overturning.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of Any law.

 

Nor is there an appeal to those who possess a greater level of intelligence and understanding of facts than yourself. Your constant spiel of "there is no appeal to ignorance of the law" is not a valid answer in these discussions. It is merely an indicator that you do not properly comprehend what you are attempting to discuss.

 

Yes, it is since that specific issue has not been adjudicated. Simply putting your head in the sand will not work in any legal venue.

 

'My right to own a gun is more important than dead children.'

YES, even with a killing a week or every other day, it does not matter...we need guns.

http://www.islandpolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GunControlWorks.jpg

 

Nope; well regulated militia is what is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not guns.

 

You really don't know what you are talking about when you presume to interpret the intent of liberals or democrats. Don't tell a democrat what he thinks, or who he blames or what he wants, ask him. We are not a shy bunch.

 

Your wasting your time with Daniel. He doesn't understand grammar, the constitution, or federalist 40 which he espouses when he can't argue against your point.

 

O I'm aware. We used to go round and round about this on uspoliticsonline too. I get bored sometimes.

 

Then stop trying to pass legislation banning a rifles

 

And the supreme court of the united states, which has final say on the matter, has ruled that the second amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for matters pertaining to self defense. They have even ruled that possession of firearms is in no way contingent upon service in the militia, military, or any other government-affiliated organization, with the right being absent to those that do not participate.

That is what is currently settled and established law. Disagreeing with it in no ways renders that established fact null and void. All it does it portray yourself as exercising an ignorance of law.

 

Then perhaps the bunch you choose to affiliate with should be committed to what they are actually trying to say, rather than discussing matters in vague ambiguities that leave room for easy misinterpretation.

 

You don't get it. Its not that we are offended when you come across as clueless. Its that if you are clueless, you will stay that way. Its always smarter to know what your political opponent wants to do, and why. Its never smart to exaggerate it in your own mind or misinterpret the goal in your own mind.

 

Of course that is always possible and that is why question marks exist in every language. Their use tends to clear up ambiguities or misinterpretation. I will often ask political opponents to define terms or clear up issues in language.

 

No the problem is I do get it and that is what bothers you. Liberalism is a mental disease. It is the need to control others on steroids. And I and Half of the rest of the country will fight your desire for control of the rest of us for the rest of our lives. *******n your desire to turn this country into another 3rd world dictatorship. Maybe if you had ever fought for something other than your own desires for control you might understand.

 

Why not? A handful of people have accomplished more in history.

If it does happen, you won't be sitting back and watching anything. If you're not armed, you'll be one of the first to fold under the waves of welfare recipients looking for food.

 

It just so happens that you are wrong; very wrong.

 

Oh a man of mystery I can barely contain myself.

 

Just sayin'...