Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Exactly.
State governors can ONLY legally call out the militia to handle emergencies like to repel invasion.
It is not up to the whim of the governor.
And the main point of any militia at all is the unorganized militia for individual defense.

Link? We know right wingers only know how to appeal to ignorance instead of the law.

Here are some examples of the appeal to ignorance fallacy:

• “You cannot prove that God does not exist; therefore God exists.”
• “If someone is guilty, they always try to deny their guilt. ...
• “No one has ever proven that UFOs haven't visited earth yet, so I believe that they have.”
• “You can't prove that you are innocent, therefore you are guilty to me.”

Please identify the example above that is most similar to the arguments you allege are appeals to ignorance.

You don't understand that fallacy. You think it means that someone IS ignorant, not that they are arguing from a "can't-prove" perspective. It makes you look so fucking stupid when you continually repeat that same stupid statement over and over. Just stop. You are ignorant about the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Exactly.
State governors can ONLY legally call out the militia to handle emergencies like to repel invasion.
It is not up to the whim of the governor.
And the main point of any militia at all is the unorganized militia for individual defense.

Link? We know right wingers only know how to appeal to ignorance instead of the law.

Here are some examples of the appeal to ignorance fallacy:

• “You cannot prove that God does not exist; therefore God exists.”
• “If someone is guilty, they always try to deny their guilt. ...
• “No one has ever proven that UFOs haven't visited earth yet, so I believe that they have.”
• “You can't prove that you are innocent, therefore you are guilty to me.”

Please identify the example above that is most similar to the arguments you allege are appeals to ignorance.

You don't understand that fallacy. You think it means that someone IS ignorant, not that they are arguing from a "can't-prove" perspective. It makes you look so fucking stupid when you continually repeat that same stupid statement over and over. Just stop. You are ignorant about the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

...by the way, to address one of the appeal to ignorance fallacy examples, only the dumbest of dumb fucks calls "appeal to ignorance fallacy, I win" and leaves it at that. You would get laughed off the debate stage for that juvenile shit.

 

[danielpalos]

If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all.

This is further proof that you don't understand fallacy and should shut the fuck up until you do.

ALL argument.....repeat.....ALL ARGUMENT is fallacy. If arguments were not fallacious, they wouldn't be called arguments. They would be called TRUTH!!!

Identifying the fallacy ONLY helps to formulate a rebuttal. NOTHING MORE. Identifying fallacy does NOTHING to further one's own arguments. NOR does it act to rebut the allegedly fallacious argument.

GET IT????

Where do you come up with your right wing fantasy? Fallacies are errors in reasoning. Right wingers have no reason and may believe their right wing fantasy is the "gospel Truth".

 

[danielpalos]

Exactly.
State governors can ONLY legally call out the militia to handle emergencies like to repel invasion.
It is not up to the whim of the governor.
And the main point of any militia at all is the unorganized militia for individual defense.

Link? We know right wingers only know how to appeal to ignorance instead of the law.

Here are some examples of the appeal to ignorance fallacy:

• “You cannot prove that God does not exist; therefore God exists.”
• “If someone is guilty, they always try to deny their guilt. ...
• “No one has ever proven that UFOs haven't visited earth yet, so I believe that they have.”
• “You can't prove that you are innocent, therefore you are guilty to me.”

Please identify the example above that is most similar to the arguments you allege are appeals to ignorance.

You don't understand that fallacy. You think it means that someone IS ignorant, not that they are arguing from a "can't-prove" perspective. It makes you look so fucking stupid when you continually repeat that same stupid statement over and over. Just stop. You are ignorant about the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

This is a State's sovereign Right under our Second Amendment and the law for the several States:

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.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

Exactly.
State governors can ONLY legally call out the militia to handle emergencies like to repel invasion.
It is not up to the whim of the governor.
And the main point of any militia at all is the unorganized militia for individual defense.

Link? We know right wingers only know how to appeal to ignorance instead of the law.

Here are some examples of the appeal to ignorance fallacy:

• “You cannot prove that God does not exist; therefore God exists.”
• “If someone is guilty, they always try to deny their guilt. ...
• “No one has ever proven that UFOs haven't visited earth yet, so I believe that they have.”
• “You can't prove that you are innocent, therefore you are guilty to me.”

Please identify the example above that is most similar to the arguments you allege are appeals to ignorance.

You don't understand that fallacy. You think it means that someone IS ignorant, not that they are arguing from a "can't-prove" perspective. It makes you look so fucking stupid when you continually repeat that same stupid statement over and over. Just stop. You are ignorant about the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

...by the way, to address one of the appeal to ignorance fallacy examples, only the dumbest of dumb fucks calls "appeal to ignorance fallacy, I win" and leaves it at that. You would get laughed off the debate stage for that juvenile shit.

Only in Right Wing fantasy where you are Alway Right.

 

[BlindBoo]

Intentionally ignoring the right of the people makes you a disingenuous hack. Believing that gun control laws will affect anyone other than law abiding citizens makes you a moron.

Simply having nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments is no better than the immorality of bearing false witness, Right-Wingers. Why should anyone take the right-wing seriously about their alleged moral sincerity in abortion threads?

Our legislators should be doing their job.

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.

The most important threat to be able to handle in any state or country is always a corrupt police and military.
They always tend towards corruption because the wealthy elite always get into positions of political power because they can afford the bribes, threats, and media campaigns that requires.
So there is no legal way any honest democratic republic government can make the police and military have superior arms to the general population.

In a democratic republic, the people are supposed to be and remain supreme.

Your right wing, left wing approach is all wrong.
It is traditionally always the right wing that supports a draconian police and military, and federal gun control.
It is traditionally always the left wing that wants an armed population to offset a police and military corrupted by the wealthy elite.

Our State legislators should be doing their job.

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.

The infrequent or rare need to call up and create an Organized Militia in no way implies there is not even greater need and right for an unorganized militia for state, municipal, and individual needs.

But still in reality, the organized militia today is the mostly states national guard and the unorganized militia is all citizens between 18 and 45 who are eligible for the draft.

The National Guard could be the Organized Militia if you want. I do not care.
The POINT is the 2nd amendment protects the gun rights of the unorganized militia, which as you say is at least all adult males.
It really implies even more than that, since women and children played a role in home defense realistically.

Which is to say the gun rights of everyday ordinary citizen and very limited access to the modern weapons of war.

 

[Leo123]

That, my friend, is gibberish.

Are you claiming that the Constitution is gibberish?

No, it's an example that there can be two separate thoughts in one sentence, I believe I already told you but apparently your memory is bad.

 

[Leo123]

Which is to say the gun rights of everyday ordinary citizen and very limited access to the modern weapons of war.

There is no definition of 'weapons of war' in the Constitution. You just made that up.

 

[danielpalos]

That, my friend, is gibberish.

Are you claiming that the Constitution is gibberish?

No, it's an example that there can be two separate thoughts in one sentence, I believe I already told you but apparently your memory is bad.

So what. You have no valid rebuttal, regardless of how many thoughts are in one sentence. All you have is nothing but diversion which is usually considered a fallacy.

 

[Leo123]

The only ones being disingenuous are right wingers. Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

No, lefties want central government control of everything and they are supporting Marxist principles. They are anti-American.

 

[Leo123]

So what. You have no valid rebuttal, regardless of how many thoughts are in one sentence. All you have is nothing but diversion which is usually considered a fallacy.

I just proved to you that there can be two separate thoughts separated by a comma in one sentence which is the issue that was being discussed in that line in the 2nd amendment that you Marxists would like to re-define so you can confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. You keep avoiding the fact you got your ass handed to you. You fuckers are so desperate you want to pick on a fucking comma......

 

[BlindBoo]

Which is to say the gun rights of everyday ordinary citizen and very limited access to the modern weapons of war.

There is no definition of 'weapons of war' in the Constitution. You just made that up.

Nope that term has been around forever. Let me know where can buy a fully automatic assault rifle without any special licenses and fees! How about a .50 cal. saw? Think we all have access to those?

 

[danielpalos]

So what. You have no valid rebuttal, regardless of how many thoughts are in one sentence. All you have is nothing but diversion which is usually considered a fallacy.

I just proved to you that there can be two separate thoughts separated by a comma in one sentence which is the issue that was being discussed in that line in the 2nd amendment that you Marxists would like to re-define so you can confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. You keep avoiding the fact you got your ass handed to you. You fuckers are so desperate you want to pick on a fucking comma......

They are not that separate, if that is what you mean. Context matters. The first clause is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State. It is the End, not the Means.

 

[danielpalos]

The only ones being disingenuous are right wingers. Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

No, lefties want central government control of everything and they are supporting Marxist principles. They are anti-American.

Maybe in right wing fantasy. Our legislators are supposed to be doing their Job because they get Paid (lucre) for it.

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.

 

[justinacolmena]

They are not that separate, if that is what you mean. Context matters. The first clause is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State. It is the End, not the Means.

AS USUAL the End goal of depriving the citizenry of a once free country of their rights to possess and carry firearms and other weapons justifies any and all Means to Democratic Party Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The universal Hammer-and-Sickle goal of the Democratic Party is to "beat our swords into plowshares" ---

Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 2:4 - King James Version

And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

www.biblegateway.com

--- and even the Bible in the same same passage says peacenik commie Democrats are windbags and child molesters.

Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 2:5-6 - King James Version

O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD. Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[danielpalos]

They are not that separate, if that is what you mean. Context matters. The first clause is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State. It is the End, not the Means.

AS USUAL the End goal of depriving the citizenry of a once free country of their rights to possess and carry firearms and other weapons justifies any and all Means to Democratic Party Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The universal Hammer-and-Sickle goal of the Democratic Party is to "beat our swords into plowshares" ---

Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 2:4 - King James Version

And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

www.biblegateway.com

--- and even the Bible in the same same passage says peacenik commie Democrats are windbags and child molesters.

Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 2:5-6 - King James Version

O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD. Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers.

www.biblegateway.com

Bearing false witness is worse.

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.

 

[Rigby5]

If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all.

This is further proof that you don't understand fallacy and should shut the fuck up until you do.

ALL argument.....repeat.....ALL ARGUMENT is fallacy. If arguments were not fallacious, they wouldn't be called arguments. They would be called TRUTH!!!

Identifying the fallacy ONLY helps to formulate a rebuttal. NOTHING MORE. Identifying fallacy does NOTHING to further one's own arguments. NOR does it act to rebut the allegedly fallacious argument.

GET IT????

Where do you come up with your right wing fantasy? Fallacies are errors in reasoning. Right wingers have no reason and may believe their right wing fantasy is the "gospel Truth".

Gun rights are NOT a right wing thing at all.
The right wing always buys the government, so always relies on corrupting the police and military.
Gun rights is always a populist thing of the left.
ONLY right wingers want gun control, so they can control the population by force and intimidation.

 

[justinacolmena]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Regular armed forces, national guard, homeland security, U.S. Marshalls, armed state troopers, armed city cops, etc., etc.,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Unquestionably an absolute right pertaining to each and every individual.

We have to say no to your stupidity and to your twisted excuses in a court of law intended only to deny a fundamental constitutional right of the people.

Bearing false witness is worse.

And if I am not a convicted murderer, and the Democrat cops are not intending to murder me on the commission of city hall mafia bosses, then there is no lawful reason -- outside of the ongoing criminal extortion of government and law enforcement employees acting on their own behalf -- that I should not be allowed to possess and carry any firearms or other weapons of my choice without any infringement on that right.

 

[Rigby5]

Intentionally ignoring the right of the people makes you a disingenuous hack. Believing that gun control laws will affect anyone other than law abiding citizens makes you a moron.

Simply having nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments is no better than the immorality of bearing false witness, Right-Wingers. Why should anyone take the right-wing seriously about their alleged moral sincerity in abortion threads?

Our legislators should be doing their job.

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.

The most important threat to be able to handle in any state or country is always a corrupt police and military.
They always tend towards corruption because the wealthy elite always get into positions of political power because they can afford the bribes, threats, and media campaigns that requires.
So there is no legal way any honest democratic republic government can make the police and military have superior arms to the general population.

In a democratic republic, the people are supposed to be and remain supreme.

Your right wing, left wing approach is all wrong.
It is traditionally always the right wing that supports a draconian police and military, and federal gun control.
It is traditionally always the left wing that wants an armed population to offset a police and military corrupted by the wealthy elite.

Our State legislators should be doing their job.

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.

The infrequent or rare need to call up and create an Organized Militia in no way implies there is not even greater need and right for an unorganized militia for state, municipal, and individual needs.

But still in reality, the organized militia today is the mostly states national guard and the unorganized militia is all citizens between 18 and 45 who are eligible for the draft.

The National Guard could be the Organized Militia if you want. I do not care.
The POINT is the 2nd amendment protects the gun rights of the unorganized militia, which as you say is at least all adult males.
It really implies even more than that, since women and children played a role in home defense realistically.

Which is to say the gun rights of everyday ordinary citizen and very limited access to the modern weapons of war.

Wrong.
Since the main threat to any democratic republic always comes from the police and military being corrupted by the wealthy, it is always the ordinary citizens who need the most modern weapons of war.
Give a mercenary military a monopoly on weapons, and you quickly no longer have a democratic republic.
It is reasonable to argue we already have lost the democratic republic, with obvious major violations of law and rights, like murdering 3 million innocent Vietnamese, murdering half a million innocent Iraqis over WMD lies, the illegal War on Drugs, 3 strikes, asset forfeiture, federal gun control, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

So what. You have no valid rebuttal, regardless of how many thoughts are in one sentence. All you have is nothing but diversion which is usually considered a fallacy.

I just proved to you that there can be two separate thoughts separated by a comma in one sentence which is the issue that was being discussed in that line in the 2nd amendment that you Marxists would like to re-define so you can confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. You keep avoiding the fact you got your ass handed to you. You fuckers are so desperate you want to pick on a fucking comma......

They are not that separate, if that is what you mean. Context matters. The first clause is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State. It is the End, not the Means.

One end does not imply there are not other goals as well.
Nor does it matter, because the means is supposed to be no federal gun laws. Period.