Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[PredFan]

The left wing butthurt never abates.

 

[danielpalos]

You seem to be missing the point about the Militia of the United States.

No. I have demonstrated that your point regarding militias is irrelevant, and your conclusion from that irrelvant point is patently wrong--I have missed NOTHING.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; especially, this one--10USC311.

I warned you about this. From this point forward I will treat like the mendaciously obtuse retard you have demanded I regard you as.

1) Before you use "Appeal to Ignorance", like the complete imbecile you are, ever again, CLICK HERE.

2) Without ever looking at 10 USC 311 (Militia: composition and classes), even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

For the profoundly retarded, such as yourself, the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 you moron, is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

3) Even so, considering that 10 USC 311 make no mention at all of a well regulated milita, your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.

Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

So what? Really. Explain the significance of this idiotic non-sequitur.

Only well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State,...

No one is contesting this, you retard. No one.

And since a well regulated Militia is necessary (but not exclusively so) to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is because a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.

You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

Infringement upon the right of the people--the individual soverigns of the United States--to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to the security of a free state, BECAUSE the condition of having a well regulated militia explicitly requrires that the right of the people--those individual soverigns of the United States upon whom a well relgulated milita depends--to keep and bear arms not be infringed.

Dude; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law, that includes 10US311.

 

[danielpalos]

The gun grabbing nutters have been getting bitch slapped by the NRA, the SCOTUS, and freedom a lot lately. Being left wing nut jobs they cannot ever admit when they are wrong so they resort to more and more insane nonsense.

Don't know what you are referring; it is gun lovers that refuse to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns who are the ones complaining about a lack of literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

“Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”
― G.K. Chesterton

 

[LOki]

You seem to be missing the point about the Militia of the United States.

No. I have demonstrated that your point regarding militias is irrelevant, and your conclusion from that irrelvant point is patently wrong--I have missed NOTHING.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; especially, this one--10USC311.

I warned you about this. From this point forward I will treat like the mendaciously obtuse retard you have demanded I regard you as.

1) Before you use "Appeal to Ignorance", like the complete imbecile you are, ever again, CLICK HERE.

2) Without ever looking at 10 USC 311 (Militia: composition and classes), even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

For the profoundly retarded, such as yourself, the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 you moron, is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

3) Even so, considering that 10 USC 311 make no mention at all of a well regulated milita, your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.

Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

So what? Really. Explain the significance of this idiotic non-sequitur.

Only well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State,...

No one is contesting this, you retard. No one.

And since a well regulated Militia is necessary (but not exclusively so) to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is because a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.

You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

Infringement upon the right of the people--the individual soverigns of the United States--to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to the security of a free state, BECAUSE the condition of having a well regulated militia explicitly requrires that the right of the people--those individual soverigns of the United States upon whom a well relgulated milita depends--to keep and bear arms not be infringed.

Dude; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law, that includes 10US311.

Ah. You're not just an unrepentantly mendacious retard... you're mendaciously retarded and proud of it!

BRAVO! BRAVO, SIR! BRAVO!

 

[danielpalos]

Still say how you gonna get all the 600,000,000 guns in the USA.... ? ? ?

Not trying to; remember, it was only the States with the Southern Cause (to get the Union involved) that were Infringed; and, it Had to be that way, simply Because; Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

Still say how you gonna get all the 600,000,000 guns in the USA.... ? ? ?

It would be easy. There are a couple of ways:
1. Make them illegal to own. Most people won't turn theirs in right away, but without the ability to take them with you, or shoot them ever, eventually people will give them up. They will have to.
2. Tax ammo to the point where it will
be unaffordable.
3. Shut down all gun manufacturers and gun stores. Again eventually they will all be gone.
4. Any combination of the above.

Just because gun confiscation doesn't happen all in one fell swoop doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.

How long has paranoia been a problem for you?

He must not have enough Faith in the wisdom of our Founding Fathers regarding our supreme law of the land.

 

[danielpalos]

That is not the underlying social dilemma we are being presented with.

The problem is simply and merely, that gun lovers refuse to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.

“Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”
― G.K. Chesterton

If only, we could goad, cajole, or enjoin gun lovers to get more serious about a really really serious relationship with their republic.

So you're implying that people who have a different idea of what the second amendment means don't love their 'country"..........?

You're kidding, right?

What different idea can you mean?

This is the only idea that matters:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Hate to tell ya this but that isn't the second amendment.......... Just thought you'd like to know.........

Hate to tell ya, but our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Wow! You figured that out all on your own??!!!! I'm impressed, surprised but impressed.

Tell that to gun lovers who believe it is and can operate in a vacuum of special pleading.

 

[danielpalos]

The left wing butthurt never abates.

the right wing diversion is like a river.

 

[danielpalos]

You seem to be missing the point about the Militia of the United States.

No. I have demonstrated that your point regarding militias is irrelevant, and your conclusion from that irrelvant point is patently wrong--I have missed NOTHING.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; especially, this one--10USC311.

I warned you about this. From this point forward I will treat like the mendaciously obtuse retard you have demanded I regard you as.

1) Before you use "Appeal to Ignorance", like the complete imbecile you are, ever again, CLICK HERE.

2) Without ever looking at 10 USC 311 (Militia: composition and classes), even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

For the profoundly retarded, such as yourself, the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 you moron, is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

3) Even so, considering that 10 USC 311 make no mention at all of a well regulated milita, your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.

Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

So what? Really. Explain the significance of this idiotic non-sequitur.

Only well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State,...

No one is contesting this, you retard. No one.

And since a well regulated Militia is necessary (but not exclusively so) to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is because a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.

You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

Infringement upon the right of the people--the individual soverigns of the United States--to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to the security of a free state, BECAUSE the condition of having a well regulated militia explicitly requrires that the right of the people--those individual soverigns of the United States upon whom a well relgulated milita depends--to keep and bear arms not be infringed.

Dude; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law, that includes 10US311.

Ah. You're not just an unrepentantly mendacious retard... you're mendaciously retarded and proud of it!

BRAVO! BRAVO, SIR! BRAVO!

Nothing but fallacy for your Cause in public venues; i got it.

 

[LOki]

You seem to be missing the point about the Militia of the United States.

No. I have demonstrated that your point regarding militias is irrelevant, and your conclusion from that irrelvant point is patently wrong--I have missed NOTHING.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; especially, this one--10USC311.

I warned you about this. From this point forward I will treat like the mendaciously obtuse retard you have demanded I regard you as.

1) Before you use "Appeal to Ignorance", like the complete imbecile you are, ever again, CLICK HERE.

2) Without ever looking at 10 USC 311 (Militia: composition and classes), even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

For the profoundly retarded, such as yourself, the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 you moron, is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

3) Even so, considering that 10 USC 311 make no mention at all of a well regulated milita, your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.

Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

So what? Really. Explain the significance of this idiotic non-sequitur.

Only well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State,...

No one is contesting this, you retard. No one.

And since a well regulated Militia is necessary (but not exclusively so) to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is because a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.

You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

Infringement upon the right of the people--the individual soverigns of the United States--to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to the security of a free state, BECAUSE the condition of having a well regulated militia explicitly requrires that the right of the people--those individual soverigns of the United States upon whom a well relgulated milita depends--to keep and bear arms not be infringed.

Dude; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law, that includes 10US311.

Ah. You're not just an unrepentantly mendacious retard... you're mendaciously retarded and proud of it!

BRAVO! BRAVO, SIR! BRAVO!

Nothing but fallacy for your Cause in public venues; i got it.

Literally nothing but meaningless butt noises coming from your head, and posted here in support of your retarded notions.

Nicely played, moron!

 

[Ringel05]

So you're implying that people who have a different idea of what the second amendment means don't love their 'country"..........?

You're kidding, right?

What different idea can you mean?

This is the only idea that matters:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Hate to tell ya this but that isn't the second amendment.......... Just thought you'd like to know.........

Hate to tell ya, but our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Wow! You figured that out all on your own??!!!! I'm impressed, surprised but impressed.

Tell that to gun lovers who believe it is and can operate in a vacuum of special pleading.

Uummmm............

 

[danielpalos]

You seem to be missing the point about the Militia of the United States.

No. I have demonstrated that your point regarding militias is irrelevant, and your conclusion from that irrelvant point is patently wrong--I have missed NOTHING.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; especially, this one--10USC311.

I warned you about this. From this point forward I will treat like the mendaciously obtuse retard you have demanded I regard you as.

1) Before you use "Appeal to Ignorance", like the complete imbecile you are, ever again, CLICK HERE.

2) Without ever looking at 10 USC 311 (Militia: composition and classes), even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

For the profoundly retarded, such as yourself, the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 you moron, is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

3) Even so, considering that 10 USC 311 make no mention at all of a well regulated milita, your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.

Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

So what? Really. Explain the significance of this idiotic non-sequitur.

Only well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State,...

No one is contesting this, you retard. No one.

And since a well regulated Militia is necessary (but not exclusively so) to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is because a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.

You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

Infringement upon the right of the people--the individual soverigns of the United States--to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to the security of a free state, BECAUSE the condition of having a well regulated militia explicitly requrires that the right of the people--those individual soverigns of the United States upon whom a well relgulated milita depends--to keep and bear arms not be infringed.

Dude; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law, that includes 10US311.

Ah. You're not just an unrepentantly mendacious retard... you're mendaciously retarded and proud of it!

BRAVO! BRAVO, SIR! BRAVO!

Nothing but fallacy for your Cause in public venues; i got it.

Literally nothing but meaningless butt noises coming from your head, and posted here in support of your retarded notions.

Nicely played, moron!

The one resorting to the most fallacies, isn't me--projecting much.

 

[PredFan]

The gun grabbing nutters have been getting bitch slapped by the NRA, the SCOTUS, and freedom a lot lately. Being left wing nut jobs they cannot ever admit when they are wrong so they resort to more and more insane nonsense.

Don't know what you are referring; it is gun lovers that refuse to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns who are the ones complaining about a lack of literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

“Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”
― G.K. Chesterton

Do you not read the posts you respond to or is it you cannot understand what you read? Your response has nothing to do with my post.

 

[PredFan]

The left wing butthurt never abates.

the right wing diversion is like a river.

The left wing stupidity know no limits. Do you know what this thread is about nit wit? Of course not, you are a moron.

 

[LOki]

No. I have demonstrated that your point regarding militias is irrelevant, and your conclusion from that irrelvant point is patently wrong--I have missed NOTHING.

I warned you about this. From this point forward I will treat like the mendaciously obtuse retard you have demanded I regard you as.

1) Before you use "Appeal to Ignorance", like the complete imbecile you are, ever again, CLICK HERE.

2) Without ever looking at 10 USC 311 (Militia: composition and classes), even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

For the profoundly retarded, such as yourself, the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 you moron, is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

3) Even so, considering that 10 USC 311 make no mention at all of a well regulated milita, your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.

So what? Really. Explain the significance of this idiotic non-sequitur.

No one is contesting this, you retard. No one.

And since a well regulated Militia is necessary (but not exclusively so) to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is because a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.

You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

Infringement upon the right of the people--the individual soverigns of the United States--to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to the security of a free state, BECAUSE the condition of having a well regulated militia explicitly requrires that the right of the people--those individual soverigns of the United States upon whom a well relgulated milita depends--to keep and bear arms not be infringed.

Dude; there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law, that includes 10US311.

Ah. You're not just an unrepentantly mendacious retard... you're mendaciously retarded and proud of it!

BRAVO! BRAVO, SIR! BRAVO!

Nothing but fallacy for your Cause in public venues; i got it.

Literally nothing but meaningless butt noises coming from your head, and posted here in support of your retarded notions.

Nicely played, moron!

The one resorting to the most fallacies, isn't me--projecting much.

The reason you only name fallacies, rather than demonstrate that such fallacies were employed is that,

1. You're the kind of mendacious idiot who just declares a fallacy was employed without knowing what you're talking about; and
2. The fallacies you identified were not actually employed.

If it were otherwise, you would have demonstrated those fallacies... you've had every opportunity to do so, but you haven't.

Why don't you tell me why that is, Cupcake?

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

 

[LOki]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question.

There's no appeal to ignorance involved. You say there is, but you simply cannot demonstrate it is so. Still you invoke it like it's some magic talisman. Hence, you're a retard.

Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

You repeat this without context or explanation; it is meaningless. It has also been demonstrated to be entirely irrelevant; so again, it is meaningless. Your retarded point is meaningless.

 

[Dan Daly]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

If I say that "well-trained carpenters being necessary for the construction of shelters, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed" , does that mean that only well-trained carpenters can own hammers?

Of course not. People that equate membership in a militia, well-regulated (trained) or not, to the right of all people to keep and bear any means of defending themselves, their families, communities, states, countries, etc., have gotta be either the dimmest bulbs on the tree, or the most dishonest.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

You are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified in 10USC311. The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment, is clearly expressed in the first clause.

 

[LOki]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

If I say that "well-trained carpenters being necessary for the construction of shelters, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed" , does that mean that only well-trained carpenters can own hammers?

Of course not. People that equate membership in a militia, well-regulated (trained) or not, to the right of all people to keep and bear any means of defending themselves, their families, communities, states, countries, etc., have gotta be either the dimmest bulbs on the tree, or the most dishonest.

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."