How The NRA Enables Massacres

[Wry Catcher]

The COTUS speaks to "arms" within the meaning of what that meant in the 18th Century, guns available today are much different.

I see you aren't up on current law:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

And so, your statement is meaningless.

Either my argument is meaningless or Original Intent is bull shit - what say you?

 

[Ringel05]

You ought not use words you don't understand, especially when framed within an idiotgram. I guess when the truth of my comment overwhelms the lies or spins you can formulate such a foolish response is all you've got.

Actually it's your ludicrous, anfractuous, solecistic logic indicative of fallacious cognition that is at issue here.
The only truth anent your asseveration abides solely within some apocryphal psychosis.

Hence my appropriate and authoritative response, regardless of the bucolic delivery.

Nice try, clever or creative you're not, nor are you able to comport Original Intent with 30-round magazines, quick releases and the rapid rate of fire in modern semi automatics firearms.

Sooooo, your argument is the "since it didn't exist at the time" fallacy, eh? Cool, now let's apply that reasoning to the Amendments in total........

 

[Wry Catcher]

Actually it's your ludicrous, anfractuous, solecistic logic indicative of fallacious cognition that is at issue here.
The only truth anent your asseveration abides solely within some apocryphal psychosis.

Hence my appropriate and authoritative response, regardless of the bucolic delivery.

Nice try, clever or creative you're not, nor are you able to comport Original Intent with 30-round magazines, quick releases and the rapid rate of fire in modern semi automatics firearms.

Sooooo, your argument is the "since it didn't exist at the time" fallacy, eh? Cool, now let's apply that reasoning to the Amendments in total........

Another piss poor effort to deflect? Shall we start with your favorite, the Second? All Amendments when ratified are part of the COTUS.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The COTUS speaks to "arms" within the meaning of what that meant in the 18th Century, guns available today are much different.

I see you aren't up on current law:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

And so, your statement is meaningless.

Either my argument is meaningless or Original Intent is bull shit - what say you?

I say you've deliberarely laid out a false dichotomy, which you must resort to as you know your statement has been shown meaningless.

 

[Peach]

The k00ks continue with their fantasies of banning guns........

Unfortunately, the American people are all in on guns in 2014 >>>

3 out of every 4 Americans concur......ammo up s0ns!!!


Gallup Poll: Support for gun control is waning, opposition to handgun ban at all-time high



Fringe gonna fringe!!!


All the fags of the world want to ban guns.....the social oddballs......the gays.....the intellectual weenies.....the bulldogs.....the uber-progressives.



losing

"Ammo up"? You go beyond defense of the 2nd Amendment into an odd affection for inanimate objects.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I see you aren't up on current law:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

And so, your statement is meaningless.

Either my argument is meaningless or Original Intent is bull shit - what say you?

I say you're deliberatellt laid out a false dichotomy, which you must resrot to as your statement has been shown meaningless.

No it has not been "shown meaningless" and you've painted yourself into a corner if you support Original Intent; citing decisions which expand the meaning in the 2nd and 4th confirm your support for Marbury v. Madison and thus the principle of Judicial Review. Careful now, someone may call you a RINO or a CINO.

 

[Ringel05]

Nice try, clever or creative you're not, nor are you able to comport Original Intent with 30-round magazines, quick releases and the rapid rate of fire in modern semi automatics firearms.

Sooooo, your argument is the "since it didn't exist at the time" fallacy, eh? Cool, now let's apply that reasoning to the Amendments in total........

Another piss poor effort to deflect? Shall we start with your favorite, the Second? All Amendments when ratified are part of the COTUS.

Unfortunately you're serious!!!!!!

My favorite??!!
And you're still serious!!

All Amendments when ratified are part of the COTUS.

No shit Sherlock but what does that have to do with what I said?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sooooo, your argument is the "since it didn't exist at the time" fallacy, eh? Cool, now let's apply that reasoning to the Amendments in total........

Another piss poor effort to deflect? Shall we start with your favorite, the Second? All Amendments when ratified are part of the COTUS.

Unfortunately you're serious!!!!!!

My favorite??!!
And you're still serious!!

All Amendments when ratified are part of the COTUS.

No shit Sherlock but what does that have to do with what I said?

What you wrote, and I quote, " "since it didn't exist at the time" fallacy, eh? Cool, now let's apply that reasoning to the Amendments in total........

Let's look at the 16th Amendment. No income tax existed in the 18th Century in the US, correct?

We agree no semi automatic guns with 30-round mags existed in the 18th century. Correct?

Since no authority was granted to collect an income tax in the enumerated powers, the
16th Amendment cannot be valid, according to those who support the theory of O. I.; thus, those who support O.I. cannot pretend any gun produced today which did not exist in the 18th Century should be protected by the 2nd.

Or if they do they must be hypocrites.

 

[whitehall]

You could make a case that the Daily Beast enables future maniac shooters by blaming the stodgy old NRA.

 

[Ringel05]

Another piss poor effort to deflect? Shall we start with your favorite, the Second? All Amendments when ratified are part of the COTUS.

Unfortunately you're serious!!!!!!

My favorite??!!
And you're still serious!!

All Amendments when ratified are part of the COTUS.

No shit Sherlock but what does that have to do with what I said?

What you wrote, and I quote, " "since it didn't exist at the time" fallacy, eh? Cool, now let's apply that reasoning to the Amendments in total........

Let's look at the 16th Amendment. No income tax existed in the 18th Century in the US, correct?

We agree no semi automatic guns with 30-round mags existed in the 18th century. Correct?

Since no authority was granted to collect an income tax in the enumerated powers, the
16th Amendment cannot be valid, according to those who support the theory of O. I.; thus, those who support O.I. cannot pretend any gun produced today which did not exist in the 18th Century should be protected by the 2nd.

Or if they do they must be hypocrites.

You pretzel logic knows no bounds. The 1st Amendment covers free speech, following your logic the internet, telephone, texting, etc did not exist in the 18th century..........
I am not the one who adheres to that "interpretation".

 

[Wry Catcher]

Unfortunately you're serious!!!!!!

My favorite??!!
And you're still serious!!



No shit Sherlock but what does that have to do with what I said?

What you wrote, and I quote, " "since it didn't exist at the time" fallacy, eh? Cool, now let's apply that reasoning to the Amendments in total........

Let's look at the 16th Amendment. No income tax existed in the 18th Century in the US, correct?

We agree no semi automatic guns with 30-round mags existed in the 18th century. Correct?

Since no authority was granted to collect an income tax in the enumerated powers, the
16th Amendment cannot be valid, according to those who support the theory of O. I.; thus, those who support O.I. cannot pretend any gun produced today which did not exist in the 18th Century should be protected by the 2nd.

Or if they do they must be hypocrites.

You pretzel logic knows no bounds. The 1st Amendment covers free speech, following your logic the internet, telephone, texting, etc did not exist in the 18th century..........
I am not the one who adheres to that "interpretation".

Nor am I, but the pretzel logic is that of Scalia and his band of activists.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Most concise opinion ever.

How the NRA Enables Massacres - The Daily Beast

More bullshit from Howey the cock sucking bitch.

*YAWN*

 

[JimBowie1958]

The COTUS speaks to "arms" within the meaning of what that meant in the 18th Century, guns available today are much different.

I see you aren't up on current law:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

And so, your statement is meaningless.

Either my argument is meaningless or Original Intent is bull shit - what say you?

lol, do you realize how completely and utterly stupid your argument is?

You are implying that original intent is about specific technology and not general functionality.

thank you for the heart warming encouragement that libtards like you are obsolete.

 

[hunarcy]

Another piss poor effort to deflect? Shall we start with your favorite, the Second? All Amendments when ratified are part of the COTUS.

Unfortunately you're serious!!!!!!

My favorite??!!
And you're still serious!!

All Amendments when ratified are part of the COTUS.

No shit Sherlock but what does that have to do with what I said?

What you wrote, and I quote, " "since it didn't exist at the time" fallacy, eh? Cool, now let's apply that reasoning to the Amendments in total........

Let's look at the 16th Amendment. No income tax existed in the 18th Century in the US, correct?

We agree no semi automatic guns with 30-round mags existed in the 18th century. Correct?

Since no authority was granted to collect an income tax in the enumerated powers, the
16th Amendment cannot be valid, according to those who support the theory of O. I.; thus, those who support O.I. cannot pretend any gun produced today which did not exist in the 18th Century should be protected by the 2nd.

Or if they do they must be hypocrites.

Well, the original intent was that the People be as well armed as the regulars, so O.I. would allow everything the military have be available to the People.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Unfortunately you're serious!!!!!!

My favorite??!!
And you're still serious!!



No shit Sherlock but what does that have to do with what I said?

What you wrote, and I quote, " "since it didn't exist at the time" fallacy, eh? Cool, now let's apply that reasoning to the Amendments in total........

Let's look at the 16th Amendment. No income tax existed in the 18th Century in the US, correct?

We agree no semi automatic guns with 30-round mags existed in the 18th century. Correct?

Since no authority was granted to collect an income tax in the enumerated powers, the
16th Amendment cannot be valid, according to those who support the theory of O. I.; thus, those who support O.I. cannot pretend any gun produced today which did not exist in the 18th Century should be protected by the 2nd.

Or if they do they must be hypocrites.

Well, the original intent was that the People be as well armed as the regulars, so O.I. would allow everything the military have be available to the People.

Elliot Oliver Robertson Rodger should have had every weapon available to the military? Are you insane?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Either my argument is meaningless or Original Intent is bull shit - what say you?

I say you're deliberatellt laid out a false dichotomy, which you must resrot to as your statement has been shown meaningless.

No it has not been "shown meaningless"...

It has - the court flatly and completely rejected your line of reasoning, with citations.
Why do you refuse to accept this?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not really, it's not moronic to believe the NRA which supports the proliferation of guns throughout society is easily characterized as an organization which enables mass murder. No matter how reasonable an effort might be, the NRA will be opposed any idea which infringes on the right of gun ownership.

Shouldn't everyone who obeys the law be opposed to the infringement on any rights guaranteed in the Constitution?

Of course the NRA and most of its members do not defend mass murderers, but their actions when one of these events occurs is to defend gun ownership from any effort to lessen gun violence in America - it is never focused on the innocent victims, and thus is morally reprehensible.

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of all gun murders or in other words if you could end mass shootings tomorrow the murder rate wouldn't even budge.

The COTUS speaks to "arms" within the meaning of what that meant in the 18th Century, guns available today are much different.

I'll take your word for the 1% figure, but to those parents who lost their child to mass murder - and Americans who have empathy - by the gun it matters not; only callous conservatives believe as do you.

Everything the Cotus speaks of meant something different in the 18th century but reasonable people have interpreted the document to take into account advances of society and technology.

Mass Shootings Fuel Fear, Account for Fraction of Murders - Bloomberg

Criminologist Says Mass Murder In U.S. Is Declining | Here & Now

We don't make laws that affect everyone on emotion. Empathy aside the facts are the facts. No one sane wants to see a young person killed but rational people know that it is going to happen no matter what.

 

[Ringel05]

What you wrote, and I quote, " "since it didn't exist at the time" fallacy, eh? Cool, now let's apply that reasoning to the Amendments in total........

Let's look at the 16th Amendment. No income tax existed in the 18th Century in the US, correct?

We agree no semi automatic guns with 30-round mags existed in the 18th century. Correct?

Since no authority was granted to collect an income tax in the enumerated powers, the
16th Amendment cannot be valid, according to those who support the theory of O. I.; thus, those who support O.I. cannot pretend any gun produced today which did not exist in the 18th Century should be protected by the 2nd.

Or if they do they must be hypocrites.

You pretzel logic knows no bounds. The 1st Amendment covers free speech, following your logic the internet, telephone, texting, etc did not exist in the 18th century..........
I am not the one who adheres to that "interpretation".

Nor am I, but the pretzel logic is that of Scalia and his band of activists.

Good luck with that one as all one needs do is peruse the writings of the founding fathers to discover their Original Intent. They are plain that it does not apply solely to "militia" showing that the previous Justices through out the previous decades who began their assault on the 2nd Amendment were the real activists. Scalia, et al, has started to return the interpretation back to the original intent of the founding fathers.
Your bubble is busted again.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I say you're deliberatellt laid out a false dichotomy, which you must resrot to as your statement has been shown meaningless.

No it has not been "shown meaningless"...

It has - the court flatly and completely rejected your line of reasoning, with citations.
Why do you refuse to accept this?

You missed my point entirely. The Court has made some recent rulings which support a public policy which many citizens are beginning to understand is foolish. As times moves forward and more innocent lives are destroyed by mass murderers using guns I'm not alone in hoping sanity will prevail. As to your assertion, " the court flatly and completely rejected your line of reasoning, with citations", 5-4 decisions do not seem to support your hope that gun control is dead.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No it has not been "shown meaningless"...

It has - the court flatly and completely rejected your line of reasoning, with citations.
Why do you refuse to accept this?

You missed my point entirely. The Court has made some recent rulings which support a public policy which many citizens are beginning to understand is foolish. As times moves forward and more innocent lives are destroyed by mass murderers using guns I'm not alone in hoping sanity will prevail. As to your assertion, " the court flatly and completely rejected your line of reasoning, with citations", 5-4 decisions do not seem to support your hope that gun control is dead.

You think its foolish, stay unarmed

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk