2nd Amendment should not be infringed upon because of Las Vegas shooter.

[danielpalos]

All you have is appeals to ignorance. I am quoting a State Constitution.

I have quoted several STATE SUPREME COURT RULINGS interpreting state constitutions and you've never stipulated to their holdings as they are 180 degrees of what you preach.

Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "won" by having the last post.

Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.

so what; this is what I cited:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

all you have is diversion.

All you have is absolute B.S. You've been responded to truthfully.

Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "won" by having the last post.

Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong

Dude, I cited a Constitution. You don't know what you are talking about, like most of the right wing.

YOU have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a FREE lesson in the law.

This is a quote from a government site:

"State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You are either, well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.

 

[Humorme]

I have quoted several STATE SUPREME COURT RULINGS interpreting state constitutions and you've never stipulated to their holdings as they are 180 degrees of what you preach.

Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "won" by having the last post.

Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.

so what; this is what I cited:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

all you have is diversion.

All you have is absolute B.S. You've been responded to truthfully.

Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "won" by having the last post.

Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong

Dude, I cited a Constitution. You don't know what you are talking about, like most of the right wing.

YOU have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a FREE lesson in the law.

This is a quote from a government site:

"State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You are either, well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.

Within four minutes of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:

YOU have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a FREE lesson in the law.

This is a quote from a government site:

"State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

All of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned NOT to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled, danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is a States' right.

 

[Humorme]

Our Second Amendment is a States' right.

Still struggling for relevance? We've accepted your concession of defeat. Time to get some new lines, danielpalos.

 

[danielpalos]

Not at all. Our Second Amendment is also about States rights and what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[Humorme]

Not at all. Our Second Amendment is also about States rights and what is necessary to the security of a free State.

We've accepted your concession of defeat. Time to get some new lines, danielpalos.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing but diversion, right wingers?

The first clause has to mean something.

 

[Humorme]

Nothing but diversion, right wingers?

The first clause has to mean something.

Irrelevant. The first clause was explained to you.

We've accepted your concession of defeat. Time to get some new lines, danielpalos


***********************************************************************************************************

AFTER danielpalos tapped out, he comes back again as if the last person that posts wins. Such is the childishness of his posting efforts. So, once again here is the response to his charge... a response he chose not to read NOR provide a different opinion other than his standard canard that has been refuted and proven wrong. Let us repeat:

Within four minutes of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:

YOU have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a FREE lesson in the law.

This is a quote from a government site:

"State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

All of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned NOT to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT! (end of that exchange)

danielpalos tapped out. He refused to deal with the facts, instead of making the same insulting and idiotic charge. We will just have to keep repeating the answer he is ignoring.

 

[danielpalos]

The first clause cannot be irrelevant.

 

[Humorme]

The first clause cannot be irrelevant.

Your nonsensical posts on that point were asked and answered:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

danielpalos the above is a link. You use your mouse, click on it and read it.

We accept your concession of defeat.

 

[danielpalos]

Only in right wing fantasy can the first clause be, irrelevant.

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.--The Federalist Number Forty.

 

[Humorme]

Only in right wing fantasy can the first clause be, irrelevant.

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.--The Federalist Number Forty.

I'm a little perplexed. danielpalos keeps bringing up the same argument over and over and over again as if he isn't being responded to. What more is there to say after he's conceded defeat on his argument?

Let me repeat my applicable post once again. It fairly answers his illogical post:

Within four minutes of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:

YOU have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a FREE lesson in the law.

This is a quote from a government site:

"State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

All of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned NOT to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!

 

[2aguy]

Did you know, nobody on the left takes right wingers seriously about the law or economics, or politics.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Let me fix your post....

Original....

Did you know, nobody on the left takes right wingers seriously about the law or economics, or politics.

Now I will fix it....

Did you know, nobody on the left takes the law, economics or politics seriously, they will just do whatever they want till someone makes them stop.....

There...fixed that....it is now actually accurate....

 

[justinacolmena]

Nothing you posted is relevant.

Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment.

So... The Second Amendment IS NOT relevant to the right to bear arms, but on the other hand the draconian anti-American anti-Civil-Rights gun control laws passed by Congress under foreign influence, namely

• https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf
  
• https://www.congress.gov/103/bills/hr1025/BILLS-103hr1025enr.pdf
• https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ180/PLAW-110publ180.pdf

ARE relevant to "natural rights" so basically anyone with body odor or otherwise persona non grata on some pretext or another in the United States is subject to arbitrary fines and imprisonment "up to" ten years for possessing a firearm....

I think you are overplaying the "natural/native" angle here, because many Native Americans, especially in Alaska, are veterans of the U.S. armed forces and do support the right to bear arms.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

The end justifies the means.

 

[Humorme]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

The end justifies the means.

Absolute rubbish that has been addressed repeatedly on this thread.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

The end justifies the means.

Absolute rubbish that has been addressed repeatedly on this thread.

You don't know what you are talking about.

I cited the rules of construction.

You have nothing but the moral turpitude of willful blindness and that form of appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[Humorme]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

The end justifies the means.

Absolute rubbish that has been addressed repeatedly on this thread.

You don't know what you are talking about.

I cited the rules of construction.

You have nothing but the moral turpitude of willful blindness and that form of appeal to ignorance of the law.

You don't know what YOU'RE talking about. When challenged, you cited NOTHING and you put up the white flag, signifying that YOU TAPPED OUT. Okay, I'll cut and paste the post you ignored that signified you have NOTHING but B.S. behind your posts:

1. Within four minutes of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:
   
   YOU have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a FREE lesson in the law.
   
   This is a quote from a government site:
   
   "State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions."
   
   Comparing Federal & State Courts
   
   When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:
   
   http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
   
   Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)
   
   All of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned NOT to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!
   
   

 

[danielpalos]

You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.

The rules of construction are more valid than your appeal to ignorance.

 

[Humorme]

You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.

The rules of construction are more valid than your appeal to ignorance.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL. NOBODY IS APPEALING TO YOUR IGNORANCE.

You don't know what YOU'RE talking about. When challenged, you cited NOTHING and you put up the white flag, signifying that YOU TAPPED OUT. Okay, I'll cut and paste the post you ignored that signified you have NOTHING but B.S. behind your posts:

1. Within four minutes of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:
   
   YOU have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a FREE lesson in the law.
   
   This is a quote from a government site:
   
   "State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions."
   
   Comparing Federal & State Courts
   
   When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:
   
   http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
   
   Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)
   
   All of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned NOT to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!