Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

Am I still Wrong... How you gonna get folks in the USA to give up 600,000,000 Guns..? ? ?

dude, did you miss the fact that even the South, was Infringed in keeping and bearing Arms for their States and their union of States simply because Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed.

 

[PredFan]

y'all merely need a clue and a Cause. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Any questions?

Just one question:

Did your mother have any children that lived?

 

[PredFan]

Despite the insipid nonsense spouted recently, the premise of the OP remains. The liberal gun grabbers have been getting bitch slapped on a regular basis. All the stupid rhetoric about the 2nd Amendment is irrevant.

Gun grabber are losing, freedom is winning.

Life is good.

 

[LOki]

y'all merely need a clue and a Cause. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Any questions?

Intent and purpose for what, Pumpkin?

If you wish to assert that the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to place limits and constraints upon, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then you are OBLIGATED to demonstrate it.

I have no apprehensions that you will even try.

Because you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will misapply "Appeal to Ignorance" again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the term.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will fatuosly cite 10 USC 311 again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the terms "regulated" and "organized" as they are used in their respective documents.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will deny that the USC is SUBJECT to, and constrained by the US Constitution, and like an imbecile, you will insist rather that the US Constitution is subject to the USC.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will flatly refuse to acknowledge the obvious logical and factual necessity that a well regulated militia is clearly declared to be dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.

Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. 10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It's obvious that it is the RIGHT that shall not be infringed.

The obvious logical and factual necessity is that a well regulated militia is dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

10 USC 311 is no constitution at all. Not even a part of it. Imbecile.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

y'all merely need a clue and a Cause. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Any questions?

Just one question:

Did your mother have any children that lived?

Just one answer; diversions are just that, fallacies.

 

[danielpalos]

y'all merely need a clue and a Cause. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Any questions?

Intent and purpose for what, Pumpkin?

If you wish to assert that the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to place limits and constraints upon, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then you are OBLIGATED to demonstrate it.

I have no apprehensions that you will even try.

Because you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will misapply "Appeal to Ignorance" again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the term.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will fatuosly cite 10 USC 311 again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the terms "regulated" and "organized" as they are used in their respective documents.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will deny that the USC is SUBJECT to, and constrained by the US Constitution, and like an imbecile, you will insist rather that the US Constitution is subject to the USC.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will flatly refuse to acknowledge the obvious logical and factual necessity that a well regulated militia is clearly declared to be dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.

Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. 10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It's obvious that it is the RIGHT that shall not be infringed.

The obvious logical and factual necessity is that a well regulated militia is dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

10 USC 311 is no constitution at all. Not even a part of it. Imbecile.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is obvious that only that which is necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed.

 

[LOki]

y'all merely need a clue and a Cause. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Any questions?

Intent and purpose for what, Pumpkin?

If you wish to assert that the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to place limits and constraints upon, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then you are OBLIGATED to demonstrate it.

I have no apprehensions that you will even try.

Because you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will misapply "Appeal to Ignorance" again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the term.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will fatuosly cite 10 USC 311 again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the terms "regulated" and "organized" as they are used in their respective documents.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will deny that the USC is SUBJECT to, and constrained by the US Constitution, and like an imbecile, you will insist rather that the US Constitution is subject to the USC.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will flatly refuse to acknowledge the obvious logical and factual necessity that a well regulated militia is clearly declared to be dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.

Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. 10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It's obvious that it is the RIGHT that shall not be infringed.

The obvious logical and factual necessity is that a well regulated militia is dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

10 USC 311 is no constitution at all. Not even a part of it. Imbecile.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is obvious that only that which is necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed.

That is not what is asserted. That which shall not be infringed, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms... as explicitly and unambiguously asserted.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[Gunman]

OK Smart-Azz ... How you gonna infringe on folks with 600,000,000 Guns...

 

[Doggy]

They skeered we are fed up.

 

[danielpalos]

y'all merely need a clue and a Cause. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Any questions?

Intent and purpose for what, Pumpkin?

If you wish to assert that the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to place limits and constraints upon, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then you are OBLIGATED to demonstrate it.

I have no apprehensions that you will even try.

Because you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will misapply "Appeal to Ignorance" again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the term.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will fatuosly cite 10 USC 311 again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the terms "regulated" and "organized" as they are used in their respective documents.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will deny that the USC is SUBJECT to, and constrained by the US Constitution, and like an imbecile, you will insist rather that the US Constitution is subject to the USC.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will flatly refuse to acknowledge the obvious logical and factual necessity that a well regulated militia is clearly declared to be dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.

Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. 10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It's obvious that it is the RIGHT that shall not be infringed.

The obvious logical and factual necessity is that a well regulated militia is dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

10 USC 311 is no constitution at all. Not even a part of it. Imbecile.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is obvious that only that which is necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed.

That is not what is asserted. That which shall not be infringed, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms... as explicitly and unambiguously asserted.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is a right for Only some of the People who are a well regulated militia.

 

[danielpalos]

OK Smart-Azz ... How you gonna infringe on folks with 600,000,000 Guns...

You make it seem like all gun lovers are going to insurrect or Rebel. Only those with a Southern Cause rebelled last time and proved beyond any shadow of any doubt, that Only well regulated militias of the Union may not be Infringed when keeping an bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

They skeered we are fed up.

Why should well regulated militia be skeered of a bunch of gun lovers who refuse to become more well regulated than them?

 

[Iceweasel]

y'all merely need a clue and a Cause. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Any questions?

Not really, I'm filtering you out. Parrots make more sense.

 

[danielpalos]

y'all merely need a clue and a Cause. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Any questions?

Not really, I'm filtering you out. Parrots make more sense.

dude, you only have fallacy for your Cause; that makes you and parrots about as right as a broken clock.

 

[PredFan]

y'all merely need a clue and a Cause. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Any questions?

Just one question:

Did your mother have any children that lived?

Just one answer; diversions are just that, fallacies.

The butthurt is strong with this one.

 

[Dan Daly]

OK Smart-Azz ... How you gonna infringe on folks with 600,000,000 Guns...

You make it seem like all gun lovers are going to insurrect or Rebel. Only those with a Southern Cause rebelled last time and proved beyond any shadow of any doubt, that Only well regulated militias of the Union may not be Infringed when keeping an bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

This has to be about the stupidest thing I have ever read. You sir, are a moron, whether you think you are or not...that is how you are looking to the rest of us. Good job!

 

[danielpalos]

y'all merely need a clue and a Cause. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose for literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Any questions?

Just one question:

Did your mother have any children that lived?

Just one answer; diversions are just that, fallacies.

The butthurt is strong with this one.

nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy; i got t.

after thrice, it is just a vice.

 

[danielpalos]

OK Smart-Azz ... How you gonna infringe on folks with 600,000,000 Guns...

You make it seem like all gun lovers are going to insurrect or Rebel. Only those with a Southern Cause rebelled last time and proved beyond any shadow of any doubt, that Only well regulated militias of the Union may not be Infringed when keeping an bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

This has to be about the stupidest thing I have ever read. You sir, are a moron, whether you think you are or not...that is how you are looking to the rest of us. Good job!

simply claiming that means you already lost the intellectual high ground and have only fallacy for your Cause.

 

[LOki]

Intent and purpose for what, Pumpkin?

If you wish to assert that the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to place limits and constraints upon, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then you are OBLIGATED to demonstrate it.

I have no apprehensions that you will even try.

Because you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will misapply "Appeal to Ignorance" again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the term.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will fatuosly cite 10 USC 311 again, because you're an idiot who doesn't bother to understand the terms "regulated" and "organized" as they are used in their respective documents.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will deny that the USC is SUBJECT to, and constrained by the US Constitution, and like an imbecile, you will insist rather that the US Constitution is subject to the USC.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

You will flatly refuse to acknowledge the obvious logical and factual necessity that a well regulated militia is clearly declared to be dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And you will be wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.

Dude; not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...means Only that Part of the Militia of the United States which is well regulated, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. 10USC311 applies simply because our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It's obvious that it is the RIGHT that shall not be infringed.

The obvious logical and factual necessity is that a well regulated militia is dependent upon (NOT any constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

10 USC 311 is no constitution at all. Not even a part of it. Imbecile.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is obvious that only that which is necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed.

That is not what is asserted. That which shall not be infringed, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms... as explicitly and unambiguously asserted.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is a right for Only some of the People who are a well regulated militia.

That would be an obvious violation of the right of the rest of the People. The first clause clearly was not constructed to be a restriction on the right of the people to keep and bear arms...

It would be incongruous to suppose (an "appeal to ignorance" according to your retarded paradigm) or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.
​

...and it still is not.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.​

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[Dan Daly]

OK Smart-Azz ... How you gonna infringe on folks with 600,000,000 Guns...

You make it seem like all gun lovers are going to insurrect or Rebel. Only those with a Southern Cause rebelled last time and proved beyond any shadow of any doubt, that Only well regulated militias of the Union may not be Infringed when keeping an bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

This has to be about the stupidest thing I have ever read. You sir, are a moron, whether you think you are or not...that is how you are looking to the rest of us. Good job!

simply claiming that means you already lost the intellectual high ground and have only fallacy for your Cause.

I have the intellectual high ground because I have the facts on my side, while all you have is wishful thinking, junior. I'm not laughing with you, I am laughing at you.