Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

fallacies are errors in reasoning. telling stories, is said to make up for it.

Errors in English are errors in English. You need to correct them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

10USC246 is federal law, right wingers. Don't be more critical of less fortunate illega

Does not and cannot alter the Constitution. You would know this, if you spoke English.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Are you unaware that driving a car is a privilege and not a right, we have a right to own a gun, it is a privilege to drive a car. Of course the driving laws should be stricter.

You have a right to vote. Doesn’t stop righties from putting up all these voter ID laws .

It doesn't stop the left for wanting all to pay a tax to own a gun.

Isn't gun safety worth the price?

What is the price to pay in Maryland when the drug dealers, gang bangers and criminals don't follow the law?

The law in Maryland that requires you to have training and permits to own and possess firearms.

What is the price to pay to defend yourself from the criminals who do not get permits and training?

What is this price to pay Fauxcohontas?

What is the price we pay to defend ourselves against speeders and motor vehicle violators?

We take away their license, fine them or jail them.

WE DON"T take the rights of every single driver as you wish to do with firearms.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[danielpalos]

10USC246 is federal law, right wingers. Don't be more critical of less fortunate illega

Does not and cannot alter the Constitution. You would know this, if you spoke English.

is it really really that important, right wingers?

enroll the militia, don't whine about less fortunate illegals, practicing their natural rights.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

is it really really that important, right wingers?

enroll the militia, don't whine about less fortunate illegals, practicing their natural rights.

And, there you have it, folks.

Dan palos is a pissed off illegal Mexican trying to deny you your rights to weapons so he and his fellow contrymen can invade and take over.

We need war with Mexico now more than ever. We need to destroy them.

 

[bgrouse]

And your point is? I didn't say the second amendment declared the whole people and/or unorganized militia to be "necessary." Where did you even get that from and how does it relate to our debate?

What it DOES do is guarantee the right of the whole people and/or unorganized militia to bear arms.

Your malfunction seems to be your inability to accept that the people in the second amendment is unmodified and unlimited (it simply says, "the people," NOT "the ORGANIZED people" or "the GOVERNMENT people") and therefore guarantees the right to bear arms for the whole people, organized, regulated, unregulated, deregulated, and disorganized.

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary and shall not be Infringed

You think it says this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

When it actually says this:

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.

That's your problem. You're skipping over that blue part. Get it you fucking moron?

all you have, is a fallacy of false cause via a fallacy of composition.

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or unorganized.

Which subset of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.

Only the right wing, is full of fallacy instead of any reason.

Wonderful.

But what does it have to do with the right to bear arms? I wasn't aware this was a thread concerning the necessity and regulation of the militia. I could have sworn it was about gun laws and gun rights.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People

No, dumbass, that's not what it says.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

It references "the right of the people," not the right of the well regulated militia. You're seeing something that isn't there you stupid piece of shit!

 

[bgrouse]

You think it says this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

When it actually says this:

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.

That's your problem. You're skipping over that blue part. Get it you fucking moron?

all you have, is a fallacy of false cause via a fallacy of composition.

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or unorganized.

Which subset of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.

Only the right wing, is full of fallacy instead of any reason.

Wonderful.

But what does it have to do with the right to bear arms? I wasn't aware this was a thread concerning the necessity and regulation of the militia. I could have sworn it was about gun laws and gun rights.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; the unorganized militia may be infringed, when Only for the cause of natural rights, not the security of our free States, or the Union.

Well since the Constitution doesn’t say or has ever been interpreted the way you just claimed, your point is mute. Nice try.

lol. it is standard practice in our Republic.

And it's standard practice for you to be completely retarded. But how does any of this change the language of the second amendment?

Please stay on topic. If you want to start a thread on standard practice (you know, things like your consistent stupidity), go ahead and do so.

 

[bgrouse]

only well regulated militia may not be infringed

You failed at English.

It does not say that, coño.

daniel is just a waste-of-time troll who repeats the same failed arguments on every thread he jumps in, eventhough those arguments fail every time he trots them out...he's not worth reading or responding to.

only well regulated militia may not be infringed

You should amend the second amendment to say that.

 

[bgrouse]

is it really really that important, right wingers?

enroll the militia, don't whine about less fortunate illegals, practicing their natural rights.

And, there you have it, folks.

Dan palos is a pissed off illegal Mexican trying to deny you your rights to weapons so he and his fellow contrymen can invade and take over.

We need war with Mexico now more than ever. We need to destroy them.

No, he can't bear arms because of his repeat felony convictions for molesting his kids so he doesn't want us to have them either.

 

[Pop23]

i guess i don't need to; i don't have to resort to fallacy, either.

AKA you surrender. We accept.

Agreed. Move on from this putz

 

[Ridgerunner]

Our Second Amendment, secures that States' sovereign right.

One thing for sure... Ole DanielPelosi can't be a militia member... He couldn't regulate a soup sandwich...

 

[Yousaidwhat]

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary and shall not be Infringed

You think it says this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

When it actually says this:

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.

That's your problem. You're skipping over that blue part. Get it you fucking moron?

all you have, is a fallacy of false cause via a fallacy of composition.

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or unorganized.

Which subset of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.

Only the right wing, is full of fallacy instead of any reason.

Wonderful.

But what does it have to do with the right to bear arms? I wasn't aware this was a thread concerning the necessity and regulation of the militia. I could have sworn it was about gun laws and gun rights.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People

No, dumbass, that's not what it says.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

It references "the right of the people," not the right of the well regulated militia. You're seeing something that isn't there you stupid piece of shit!

He thinks "the right of the people" in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th amendment means the Government militia.

 

[Papageorgio]

You are incorrect, the courts have ruled your interpretation is wrong and has ruled that way for many decades.

Courts have never ruled, well regulated militia may not infringe the unorganized militia.

Here we go again, you keep citing Heller then twist what the ruling meant. Either learn to communicate your thoughts clearly and concisely or we will continue to have this issue on jumping all over the place. I honestly have no idea what you believe or what you are trying to say. You keep quoting DC vs. Heller and continue to go off on tangents that have nothing to do with the case.

Sorry but if you can’t communicate your thoughts, get a six year old to help you.

it doesn't matter. y'all Only have fallacy, not valid rebuttals. stop whining.

I’m not whining at all, the Supreme Court has ruled the way I have interpreted the constitution for over 200 years. They struck down DC in the Heller case and the laws in DC had to conform to the Constitution.

You on the other hand cannot even communicate your simple ideas or expound on them. Then you go off topic to try to prove your point, you are a waste of time. The 2nd Amendment rules and it allows us to own firearms for whatever reason we chose. Thanks for playing.

No, they haven't.

Yes they have, I can still own a hand gun if I choose.

 

[Lakhota]

You have a right to vote. Doesn’t stop righties from putting up all these voter ID laws .

It doesn't stop the left for wanting all to pay a tax to own a gun.

Isn't gun safety worth the price?

What is the price to pay in Maryland when the drug dealers, gang bangers and criminals don't follow the law?

The law in Maryland that requires you to have training and permits to own and possess firearms.

What is the price to pay to defend yourself from the criminals who do not get permits and training?

What is this price to pay Fauxcohontas?

What is the price we pay to defend ourselves against speeders and motor vehicle violators?

We take away their license, fine them or jail them.

WE DON"T take the rights of every single driver as you wish to do with firearms.

Thank you for proving my point.

Who's taking away a person's legal right to own a gun?

 

[Papageorgio]

10USC246 is federal law, right wingers. Don't be more critical of less fortunate illega

Does not and cannot alter the Constitution. You would know this, if you spoke English.

is it really really that important, right wingers?

enroll the militia, don't whine about less fortunate illegals, practicing their natural rights.

We don’t have to we already have that right without joining a militia.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Would be far more effective than the Governments efforts. You don't see the irony in this?

No irony at all.

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've not read all the amendments of the "Bill of Rights" have you?

Our Second Amendment, secures that States' sovereign right.

Then it would appear outside the Bill of Rights.

lol. States' rights are still rights.

States do not have rights

People do

 

[Skull Pilot]

It doesn't stop the left for wanting all to pay a tax to own a gun.

Isn't gun safety worth the price?

What is the price to pay in Maryland when the drug dealers, gang bangers and criminals don't follow the law?

The law in Maryland that requires you to have training and permits to own and possess firearms.

What is the price to pay to defend yourself from the criminals who do not get permits and training?

What is this price to pay Fauxcohontas?

What is the price we pay to defend ourselves against speeders and motor vehicle violators?

We take away their license, fine them or jail them.

WE DON"T take the rights of every single driver as you wish to do with firearms.

Thank you for proving my point.

Who's taking away a person's legal right to own a gun?

if you ban a gun you are taking away a person's right to own that gun

 

[Skull Pilot]

Are you unaware that driving a car is a privilege and not a right, we have a right to own a gun, it is a privilege to drive a car. Of course the driving laws should be stricter.

You have a right to vote. Doesn’t stop righties from putting up all these voter ID laws .

It doesn't stop the left for wanting all to pay a tax to own a gun.

Isn't gun safety worth the price?

What is the price to pay in Maryland when the drug dealers, gang bangers and criminals don't follow the law?

The law in Maryland that requires you to have training and permits to own and possess firearms.

What is the price to pay to defend yourself from the criminals who do not get permits and training?

What is this price to pay Fauxcohontas?

What is the price we pay to defend ourselves against speeders and motor vehicle violators?

Nothing.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A well-balanced diet, being necessary to sustain life, the right of the prople to obtain and eat vegetables shall not be infringed.

What does that mean in danpalos speak?

Only a well-balanced diet cannot have its right to obtain and eat food infringed.

English fail at its finest.

 

[Timmy]

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary and shall not be Infringed

You think it says this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

When it actually says this:

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.

That's your problem. You're skipping over that blue part. Get it you fucking moron?

all you have, is a fallacy of false cause via a fallacy of composition.

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or unorganized.

Which subset of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.

Only the right wing, is full of fallacy instead of any reason.

Wonderful.

But what does it have to do with the right to bear arms? I wasn't aware this was a thread concerning the necessity and regulation of the militia. I could have sworn it was about gun laws and gun rights.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People

No, dumbass, that's not what it says.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

It references "the right of the people," not the right of the well regulated militia. You're seeing something that isn't there you stupid piece of shit!

Then why is milita even mentioned ?

Look. No one is out to BAN ALL GUNS ! You couldn’t anyway . But stuff like background checks, vetting, registering , do not stop law abiding citizens.

All our rights have safety limits .