Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[Gunman]

Well Obuttface did it again ... telling folks he gonna band green tipped .223 ammo... started a run on the ammo stores ... All sold out now and taking back orders... Lets see now ... their are 5,000,000... RA--M-16 type rifles in the USA... Just this week folks bought 100 to 1,000 rounds extra for their rifles ... Round that off to say 250 rounds for each gun .....1,250,000,000 Extra rounds in the hands of American gun owners for this last run on the ammo....Now this Shithead is gonna ask American to give up their new found Ammo... Smart OR Stupid...? ? ?

 

[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.

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

after thrice, it is just a vice.

Hey moron, YOUR butthurt is exactly what this thread is about. How can it be a diversion you stupid fuck? Do you even know the meaning of the words you use? I doubt it.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, it is a constraint upon the People as the South discovered when the Union decided to not honor their legal fiction or their Individual right to keep and bear Arms.

 

[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.

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.

Which facts are those? You seem to have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. Are you saying it is a fact, that there is any form of appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law?

 

[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.

Hey moron, YOUR butthurt is exactly what this thread is about. How can it be a diversion you stupid fuck? Do you even know the meaning of the words you use? I doubt it.

You have to answer with a valid argument or you are just full of fallacy.

 

[LOki]

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.

Yes, it is a constraint upon the People as the South discovered when the Union decided to not honor their legal fiction or their Individual right to keep and bear Arms.

Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Doggy]

The union never decided a thing.The South did the desiding.The union just followed.Maybe when you get above the second grade,you`ll know what you`re talking about

 

[Ringel05]

The union never decided a thing.The South did the desiding.The union just followed.Maybe when you get above the second grade,you`ll know what you`re talking about

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, it is a constraint upon the People as the South discovered when the Union decided to not honor their legal fiction or their Individual right to keep and bear Arms.

Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Wrong about what? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,-- is the Intent and Purpose of our entire, Second Amendment. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of it, it has to color every Thing else that follows, like any good militia Intent and Purpose must.

 

[danielpalos]

The union never decided a thing.The South did the desiding.The union just followed.Maybe when you get above the second grade,you`ll know what you`re talking about

Yes, the Union decided to deny and disparage the legal fiction of the South; and, only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, as those of the point of view of the Southern Cause, found out.

 

[LOki]

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.

Yes, it is a constraint upon the People as the South discovered when the Union decided to not honor their legal fiction or their Individual right to keep and bear Arms.

Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Wrong about what?

Everything. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,-- is the Intent and Purpose of our entire, Second Amendment.

No. It cannot possibly be so as evidenced above; and by the application of "shall not be infringed" to the "right of the people" rather than any description of militia; and by the actual intent and purpose explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights to "...prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal government's] powers."

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of it, it has to color every Thing else that follows, like any good militia Intent and Purpose must.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.


You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, it is a constraint upon the People as the South discovered when the Union decided to not honor their legal fiction or their Individual right to keep and bear Arms.

Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Wrong about what?

Everything. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,-- is the Intent and Purpose of our entire, Second Amendment.

No. It cannot possibly be so as evidenced above; and by the application of "shall not be infringed" to the "right of the people" rather than any description of militia; and by the actual intent and purpose explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights to "...prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal government's] powers."

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of it, it has to color every Thing else that follows, like any good militia Intent and Purpose must.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.


You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

simply claiming that is a fallacy, with out a valid argument to support your currently, unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[LOki]

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.

Yes, it is a constraint upon the People as the South discovered when the Union decided to not honor their legal fiction or their Individual right to keep and bear Arms.

Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Wrong about what?

Everything. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,-- is the Intent and Purpose of our entire, Second Amendment.

No. It cannot possibly be so as evidenced above; and by the application of "shall not be infringed" to the "right of the people" rather than any description of militia; and by the actual intent and purpose explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights to "...prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal government's] powers."

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of it, it has to color every Thing else that follows, like any good militia Intent and Purpose must.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.


You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

simply claiming that is a fallacy, with out a valid argument to support your currently, unsubstantiated opinion.

Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument; they are no rebuttal to the valid arguments and substantiated facts I've presented.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is a constraint upon the People as the South discovered when the Union decided to not honor their legal fiction or their Individual right to keep and bear Arms.

Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Wrong about what?

Everything. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,-- is the Intent and Purpose of our entire, Second Amendment.

No. It cannot possibly be so as evidenced above; and by the application of "shall not be infringed" to the "right of the people" rather than any description of militia; and by the actual intent and purpose explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights to "...prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal government's] powers."

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of it, it has to color every Thing else that follows, like any good militia Intent and Purpose must.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.


You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

simply claiming that is a fallacy, with out a valid argument to support your currently, unsubstantiated opinion.

Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument; they are no rebuttal to the valid arguments and substantiated facts I've presented.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Which facts are those? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

 

[LOki]

Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Wrong about what?

Everything. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,-- is the Intent and Purpose of our entire, Second Amendment.

No. It cannot possibly be so as evidenced above; and by the application of "shall not be infringed" to the "right of the people" rather than any description of militia; and by the actual intent and purpose explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights to "...prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal government's] powers."

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of it, it has to color every Thing else that follows, like any good militia Intent and Purpose must.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.


You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

simply claiming that is a fallacy, with out a valid argument to support your currently, unsubstantiated opinion.

Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument; they are no rebuttal to the valid arguments and substantiated facts I've presented.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Which facts are those?

See the discussion above. Your denial of reality is no rebuttal of the uncontested facts and arguments that have demonstrated that you are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

Wrong about what?

Everything. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,-- is the Intent and Purpose of our entire, Second Amendment.

No. It cannot possibly be so as evidenced above; and by the application of "shall not be infringed" to the "right of the people" rather than any description of militia; and by the actual intent and purpose explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights to "...prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal government's] powers."

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of it, it has to color every Thing else that follows, like any good militia Intent and Purpose must.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.


You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

simply claiming that is a fallacy, with out a valid argument to support your currently, unsubstantiated opinion.

Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument; they are no rebuttal to the valid arguments and substantiated facts I've presented.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Which facts are those? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you didn't have.

 

[LOki]

Everything. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

No. It cannot possibly be so as evidenced above; and by the application of "shall not be infringed" to the "right of the people" rather than any description of militia; and by the actual intent and purpose explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights to "...prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal government's] powers."

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law being made, that includes the Intent and Purpose.


You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

simply claiming that is a fallacy, with out a valid argument to support your currently, unsubstantiated opinion.

Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument; they are no rebuttal to the valid arguments and substantiated facts I've presented.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Which facts are those? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you didn't have.

Your denials of reality, non-sequiturs, and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[Gunman]

Well Regulated Militia..? ? ? When those seven folks were killed up in MO. took the Sheriff dept. almost one Hr. to respond as the patrol was on the other side of a the county.. If you want to live sometimes YOU gotta be the Well Regulated Militia ....

 

[danielpalos]

simply claiming that is a fallacy, with out a valid argument to support your currently, unsubstantiated opinion.

Non-sequiturs and appeals to magical thinking are no argument; they are no rebuttal to the valid arguments and substantiated facts I've presented.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Which facts are those? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, that includes the Intent and Purpose.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you didn't have.

Your denials of reality, non-sequiturs, and appeals to magical thinking are no argument.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

dude, you have no Thing but fallacy for your Cause; why do you believe you are only sometimes right more than twice day, except for this topic.