Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[WinterBorn]

I'm not sure that you are at all aware of what you are attempting to say.

The issue is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I understand that an armed populace is difficult to rule, but you lost.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

I already have. But you chose to ignore it in favor of that silly "'The People' is plural, therefore no individual right is protected" nonsense.

In Heller v. District of Columbia the SCOTUS held:

"Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

So the highest court in the land has ruled "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

In other words, you cannot cite where this concept was covered. I got it.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

I quoted where the SCOTUS ruled on this. There is no higher authority. That they have ruled that it is, in fact, and individual right, that it is not connected to service in a state militia, and that the first clause does not limit the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. This makes the US Code a moot point, since it cannot override the US Constitution and the SCOTUS has ruled contrary to that code.

They appealed to ignorance of 10USC311.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

Since the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is about an individual right and is not connected to service in a state militia, the US Code does not apply. Your descriptions were of state militia. Service in them is not required in order to own and bear arms.

Perhaps a basic civics class could teach you that when the SCOTUS rules, it cannot be overridden by the US Code. The US Code describes the militia ect ect. But that is not relevant in this discussion.

 

[PredFan]

Poor poor liberal gun grabbers, defeated yet again:

Gun Groups Celebrate Defeat of Proposed ATF Ammo Ban Washington Free Beacon

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

I already have. But you chose to ignore it in favor of that silly "'The People' is plural, therefore no individual right is protected" nonsense.

In Heller v. District of Columbia the SCOTUS held:

"Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

So the highest court in the land has ruled "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

In other words, you cannot cite where this concept was covered. I got it.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

I quoted where the SCOTUS ruled on this. There is no higher authority. That they have ruled that it is, in fact, and individual right, that it is not connected to service in a state militia, and that the first clause does not limit the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. This makes the US Code a moot point, since it cannot override the US Constitution and the SCOTUS has ruled contrary to that code.

They appealed to ignorance of 10USC311.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

Since the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is about an individual right and is not connected to service in a state militia, the US Code does not apply. Your descriptions were of state militia. Service in them is not required in order to own and bear arms.

Perhaps a basic civics class could teach you that when the SCOTUS rules, it cannot be overridden by the US Code. The US Code describes the militia ect ect. But that is not relevant in this discussion.

How did they reach that conclusion, without appealing to ignorance of 10USC311?

 

[WinterBorn]

I already have. But you chose to ignore it in favor of that silly "'The People' is plural, therefore no individual right is protected" nonsense.

In Heller v. District of Columbia the SCOTUS held:

"Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

So the highest court in the land has ruled "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

In other words, you cannot cite where this concept was covered. I got it.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

I quoted where the SCOTUS ruled on this. There is no higher authority. That they have ruled that it is, in fact, and individual right, that it is not connected to service in a state militia, and that the first clause does not limit the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. This makes the US Code a moot point, since it cannot override the US Constitution and the SCOTUS has ruled contrary to that code.

They appealed to ignorance of 10USC311.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

Since the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is about an individual right and is not connected to service in a state militia, the US Code does not apply. Your descriptions were of state militia. Service in them is not required in order to own and bear arms.

Perhaps a basic civics class could teach you that when the SCOTUS rules, it cannot be overridden by the US Code. The US Code describes the militia ect ect. But that is not relevant in this discussion.

How did they reach that conclusion, without appealing to ignorance of 10USC311?

Nonsense. The only thing relevant in 10USCODE311 is the description of the militia. The justices are educated about what the founding fathers thought and wrote about an armed population. They made their ruling based on the US Constitution. The item you keep quoting, 10USCODE311, simply defines the official militia. But even that would not restrict the 2nd amendment.

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia"


There are two types of militia recognized by the US Code. But SCOTUS has ruled that we gun owners are not required to belong to either of them.

 

[LOki]

What?! Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument? Are you really really serious this time

Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.

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, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?

Your repeated reference to 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.

At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:

There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.

There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.

There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.

There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

10 USC 311 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."

No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.

Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still 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, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.

There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.

Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.

Until then:

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

Wrong. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

In other words, you cannot cite where this concept was covered. I got it.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

I quoted where the SCOTUS ruled on this. There is no higher authority. That they have ruled that it is, in fact, and individual right, that it is not connected to service in a state militia, and that the first clause does not limit the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. This makes the US Code a moot point, since it cannot override the US Constitution and the SCOTUS has ruled contrary to that code.

They appealed to ignorance of 10USC311.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

Since the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is about an individual right and is not connected to service in a state militia, the US Code does not apply. Your descriptions were of state militia. Service in them is not required in order to own and bear arms.

Perhaps a basic civics class could teach you that when the SCOTUS rules, it cannot be overridden by the US Code. The US Code describes the militia ect ect. But that is not relevant in this discussion.

How did they reach that conclusion, without appealing to ignorance of 10USC311?

Nonsense. The only thing relevant in 10USCODE311 is the description of the militia. The justices are educated about what the founding fathers thought and wrote about an armed population. They made their ruling based on the US Constitution. The item you keep quoting, 10USCODE311, simply defines the official militia. But even that would not restrict the 2nd amendment.

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia"

There are two types of militia recognized by the US Code. But SCOTUS has ruled that we gun owners are not required to belong to either of them.

Dude, only the right is that obtuse. A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple. Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.

 

[danielpalos]

What?! Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument? Are you really really serious this time

Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.

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, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?

Your repeated reference to 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.

At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:

There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.

There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.

There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.

There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

10 USC 311 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."

No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.

Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still 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, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.

There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.

Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.

Until then:

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

Wrong. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".

 

[LOki]

What?! Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument? Are you really really serious this time

Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.

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, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?

Your repeated reference to 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.

At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:

There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.

There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.

There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.

There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

10 USC 311 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."

No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.

Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still 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, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.

There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.

Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.

Until then:

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

Wrong. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".

Indicted by your own criteria;

You are boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

What?! Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument? Are you really really serious this time

Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.

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, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?

Your repeated reference to 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.

At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:

There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.

There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.

There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.

There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

10 USC 311 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."

No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.

Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still 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, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.

There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.

Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.

Until then:

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

Wrong. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".

Indicted by your own criteria;

You are boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.

 

[PredFan]

What?! Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument? Are you really really serious this time

Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.

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, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?

Your repeated reference to 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.

At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:

There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.

There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.

There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.

There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

10 USC 311 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."

No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.

Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still 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, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.

There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.

Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.

Until then:

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

Wrong. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".

Indicted by your own criteria;

You are boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.

Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!

 

[LOki]

What?! Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument? Are you really really serious this time

Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.

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, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?

Your repeated reference to 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.

At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:

There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.

There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.

There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.

There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

10 USC 311 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."

No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.

Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still 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, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.

There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.

Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.

Until then:

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

Wrong. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".

Indicted by your own criteria;

You are boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.

You have had ample opportunity to bring valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality to defend the rebuttals repeatedly brought against your dopey assertions.

My arguments are clearly superior to yours, or you would have made an attempt to refute them by now.

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.

You are stupid and boring. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

What?! Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument? Are you really really serious this time

Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.

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, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?

Your repeated reference to 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.

At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:

There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.

There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.

There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.

There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

10 USC 311 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."

No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.

Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still 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, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.

There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.

Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.

Until then:

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

Wrong. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".

Indicted by your own criteria;

You are boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.

Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!

dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.

Dude, only the right is that obtuse. A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple. Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.

 

[danielpalos]

What?! Are you even alleging to be contesting my argument? Are you really really serious this time

Here it is again for your ease and convenience; as that form of argumentation high ground, simply Because, Only those who are full of fallacy, are too inferior to carry that argumentation high ground, each and every time they make the attempt, without any Thing in support, but fallacy.

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, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Why do you believe 10USC311 does not apply or is irrelevant?

Your repeated reference to 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.

At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:

There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.

There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.

There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.

There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

10 USC 311 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."

No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.

Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still 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, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.

There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.

Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.

Until then:

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

Wrong. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".

Indicted by your own criteria;

You are boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.

Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!

dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.

Dude, only the right is that obtuse. A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple. Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.

 

[PredFan]

Your repeated reference to 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.

At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:

There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.

There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.

There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.

There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

10 USC 311 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."

No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.

Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still 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, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.

There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.

Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.

Until then:

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

Wrong. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".

Indicted by your own criteria;

You are boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.

Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!

dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.

Dude, only the right is that obtuse. A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple. Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.

Ah, the old "Doubling down on stupid" ploy eh? Good luck with that.

 

[WinterBorn]

I quoted where the SCOTUS ruled on this. There is no higher authority. That they have ruled that it is, in fact, and individual right, that it is not connected to service in a state militia, and that the first clause does not limit the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. This makes the US Code a moot point, since it cannot override the US Constitution and the SCOTUS has ruled contrary to that code.

They appealed to ignorance of 10USC311.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law. 10USC311 applies; why do you and those of your point of view believe it does not.

Can you cite the ruling that covered this concept?

Since the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is about an individual right and is not connected to service in a state militia, the US Code does not apply. Your descriptions were of state militia. Service in them is not required in order to own and bear arms.

Perhaps a basic civics class could teach you that when the SCOTUS rules, it cannot be overridden by the US Code. The US Code describes the militia ect ect. But that is not relevant in this discussion.

How did they reach that conclusion, without appealing to ignorance of 10USC311?

Nonsense. The only thing relevant in 10USCODE311 is the description of the militia. The justices are educated about what the founding fathers thought and wrote about an armed population. They made their ruling based on the US Constitution. The item you keep quoting, 10USCODE311, simply defines the official militia. But even that would not restrict the 2nd amendment.

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia"

There are two types of militia recognized by the US Code. But SCOTUS has ruled that we gun owners are not required to belong to either of them.

Dude, only the right is that obtuse. A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple. Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.

That is your contention, and you are welcome to it.

But the SCOTUS has ruled that teh 2nd amendment is not a collective right, but an individual one. And it does not hinge on the person being a member of any gov't run militia.

A militia can be formed when it is needed. Having an armed population allows that. And the 2nd is specifically to allow for the formation of a militia both to repel foreign invaders AND to remove a tyrannical gov't. That is what the framers intended.

That you choose to ignore what the highest constitutional authority has said, and continue to focus solely on the US Code shows a complete lack of knowledge about how our system works.

 

[LOki]

Your repeated reference to 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) is both stupid and boring--like your half-witted point.

At the risk of being boring as well, I'll just repeat all the points you have failed to refute with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality:

There is nothing about being "well regulated" that is contingent upon being "organized," as the term is used in the USC.

There is nothing about being "organized" that is contingent upon being "well regulated," as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.

There is no mention of an "organized militia" in the 2nd Amendment; in the subordinate prefatory clause, a reference to a "well regulated militia" is made.

There is no mention of a "well regulated militia" in 10 USC 311; "organized" and "unorganized" militias are discussed without consideration of their state of readiness to function.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, your point is rendered meaningless by the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311--is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

10 USC 311 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."

No one is contesting that the 2nd Amendment's subordinate prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and no one has.

Regardless, a well regulated Militia is still 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, not any State's--but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.

There is clearly no "appeal to ignorance" being made. Not of the actual intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment as expressly declared in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, not of the meaning of "militia" as it is applied in 10 USC 311.

Now you could attempt a cogent rebuttal to the refutations submitted. I have no apprehension that you will even try. If you did, it would be the very first time. Repetition of your unsupported and discredited notions will continue to be affirmation of your capitulation, and judged to be just another expression of your stupid and boring habit.

Until then:

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality will lead you, predictably, once more to your place of shame.

Wrong. Stupid. Boring. AGAIN. STILL.

The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".

Indicted by your own criteria;

You are boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.

Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!

dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.

Yet you fail to identify and demonstrate that any fallacy has been applied.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple.

Really? Then demonstrate. I have no apprehensions that you will dare make an attempt.

Why do you suppose that is, Pumpkin?

Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--

Is that so, Pumpkin? Why then can you not demonstrate it as such with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality?

...there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.

You repeatedly make this accusation, yet not once have you demonstrated that it is in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.

You are stupid and boring. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[PredFan]

Time to ignore the troll people.

This thread is about how badly the gun grabbers are getting bitch slapped.

Like being forced to back off of their stupid attempt to ban green tip 223.

 

[WinterBorn]

Time to ignore the troll people.

This thread is about how badly the gun grabbers are getting bitch slapped.

Like being forced to back off of their stupid attempt to ban green tip 223.

The upside is that dannyboy here showed the futility of one argument.

 

[danielpalos]

The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".

Indicted by your own criteria;

You are boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.

Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!

dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.

Dude, only the right is that obtuse. A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple. Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.

Ah, the old "Doubling down on stupid" ploy eh? Good luck with that.

good luck with having nothing but fallacy for your Cause. don't let me catch You in the affirmative action threads.

 

[danielpalos]

The Only thing Stupid is an inferior argument that comes in second best, in a "two person race".

Indicted by your own criteria;

You are boring and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Your problem is you merely think you want to have a superior argument; instead of actually having a superior argument.

Dude you lost, admit it and move on. If you've dug yourself a hole too big to graciously back out of then you should just go away. Not that I mind you bumping my thread and all but damn man, how embarrassing for you!

dude, you need more than fallacy to convince me; it really really is that simple.

Yet you fail to identify and demonstrate that any fallacy has been applied.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

A well regulated militia must be an organized militia. It really is that simple.

Really? Then demonstrate. I have no apprehensions that you will dare make an attempt.

Why do you suppose that is, Pumpkin?

Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--

Is that so, Pumpkin? Why then can you not demonstrate it as such with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality?

...there is no willful Appeal to Ignorance of that legal fact in American law.

You repeatedly make this accusation, yet not once have you demonstrated that it is in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

Repetition of your obvious errors of fact, your own faulty logic, your intentionally cultivated ignorance, and your mendacious denials of reality have lead you, predictably, once more, to your place of shame.

You are stupid and boring. AGAIN. STILL.

It is right here pumpkin, why still Only fallacy for your Cause?

Only Organized Militias, via Wellness of Regulation are declared Necessary to the security of a free State in our own Second Article of Amendment--